Tunable Tensile Properties of Polypropylene and Polyethylene Terephthalate Fibrillar Blends through Micro-/Nanolayered Extrusion Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the obtention of composites based on polymer blends whose mechanical properties can be finely tuned by the preparation procedure (the so called micro/nano-layered extrusion technology. The text is clear and concise and has the appropriate discussions for the obtained results. Hence, I support its publication in "Polymers" with minor changes, as stated below:

Is there any kind of information regarding the molecular weight and dispersity index (PDI) of the commercial-grade polymers used in this work? Could these parameters affect the obtained results?

Experimental conditions (scanning rate, pre-scan time and temperature, number of consecutive runs, and reproducibility) in which DSC data has been obtained should be specified. The same applies to rheology.

In section 2.5, I believe the figure that should be refereed is the number 5 and not the number 4.

Some of the appropriate labels for Figure 9 are missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is quite lengthy. Authors supplied many figures (12 figures) in which some of them are not necessary (For instance, Figure 3 and 6).

In addition, the organization of the entire manuscript is poor. It is completely wrong to present results (Figure 4 and 6) in the Methodology section.  

Other comments are as follows.

Abstract – Problem statement is missing. Key findings are not highlighted at all!

Introduction – There is no even 1 reference for the first two paragraphs. The existing introduction is lengthy. It should be shortened by 25-30%.  Besides, novelty and objective of this work should be clearly stated at the end of this section.

Section 2.2 – Authors should explain why such zone temperature range was chosen. Same goes to feeding frequency, screw rotating speed, and air drafter speed.

Figure 2 – I have no idea about what the image wants to deliver. It is lack of information!

Page 6 – Authors should not jump the figure number directly from Figure 5 to Figure 11!

Results and Discussion – Some parts of the discussion are too lengthy. Authors are strongly advised to provide brief but concise discussion.

Figure  9 – Images’ label is missing!!

Comparison with other findings reported in the literature should be carried out followed by discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I'm now satisfied with the changes made by the authors.