Prediction of Long-Term Tensile Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Composites under Acid-Base and Salt Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated effects of various harsh environments on the tensile strength of a GFRP composite. The article is well supported by results from citated research in the introduction. The methods and results are described in detail. The validated model should be useful in practice. The conlusion is clear. I have some comments that can improve the article:
1) The title is very long, shorter title would be easier to comprehend.
2) The abstract is missing introduction (motivation) and conclusion (how the results can be used).
3) Photodocumentation would be better with white background rather than coloured or room surroundings (Figures 3, 4, 7).
4) You are not stating temperature of testing. I presume it was RT. Still it should be stated both in abstract and methods.
5) Improve contrast of SEM images: Especially for Fig. 13a, 13f. Some photoeditor shoud be fine. Maybe HDR would also help.
6) Regression lines in Figure 14 are barely visible when printed.
7) Conclusion should include how the results can or will be used and possible future research that can be done based on the results. Any lessons learned?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The title is very long, shorter title would be easier to comprehend.
Response 1: Title before revision，Deterioration of Epoxy Resin-based Glass Fiber reinforced Composites under Acid-base and Salt Environments and Prediction of Their Long-term Tensile Properties, as show in Line 4 to Line 6. It has been replaced with a more concise title, " Prediction of Long-term Tensile Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Composites under Acid-base and Salt Environments ", and every word of the title is essential, as show in Line 2 to Line 3.( The position of the row is the position in the case of displaying revision marks, the same as in the following cases.)
Point 2: The abstract is missing introduction (motivation) and conclusion (how the results can be used).
Response 2: As shown in the Abstract (Line 17-Line 19, Line 22- Line 23), the purpose of the study is to investigate the deterioration pattern and deterioration mechanism of epoxy resin-based GFRP under various types of environments, and to predict the long-term performance of GFRP by using test data from accelerated aging tests. In order to make the Abstract clearer and more concise, the detailed motivation of the experiment and the use of the experimental results are placed in the last paragraph of the Introduction (Line 91-Line 99).
Point 3: Photodocumentation would be better with white background rather than coloured or room surroundings (Figures 3, 4, 7).
Response 3: Pictures 3, 4, 7 have been replaced with a purer background picture. The images before and after modification are shown below. And as shown in Line 160, Line 162, Line 251, respectively.
Point 4: You are not stating temperature of testing. I presume it was RT. Still it should be stated both in abstract and methods.
Response 4: According to the suggestion, the temperature information of the tensile test is added in Line 20 and Line 153.
Point 5: Improve contrast of SEM images: Especially for Fig. 13a, 13f. Some photoeditor should be fine. Maybe HDR would also help.
Response 5: I think you should be talking about Figure 12, because only Figure 12 has the f chart. According to the suggestion, the contrast and brightness of the corresponding images have been adjusted, as show in the figure below. (Line 425, Line 427 and Line 429)
Point 6: Regression Lines in Figure 14 are barely visible when printed.
Response 6: Increase the Line width of graphic 14, now the pdf file print is clear and visible. Save as a PDF file, the quality of the graphics will be compressed, so use the "print" function to export the pdf file will print better. Also, we will upload a pdf file that can be printed clearly (Line 471-Line 476)
Point 7: Conclusion should include how the results can or will be used and possible future research that can be done based on the results. Any lessons learned?
Response 7: To make the concluding role of the article clearer. The significance of the above conclusions and test results are added at the end, as follows. (Line 576-Line 577)
“The above test results and long-term performance prediction are of reference significance for the application of GFRP in Shenzhen.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is very good and can be published after minor revision.
Comments
1. Figure 13 is not very clear and informative please replace it or make it more clear.
2. The authors should improve their English, especially in some parts like the Conclusion “the residual tensile strength decreased with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time; however, the rate of decrease gradually decreased with time.”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Figure 13 is not very clear and informative please replace it or make it more clear.
Response 1: Because there is no better alternative photo, and to make Figure 13 clearer, the contrast and brightness of Figure 13 were adjusted, as shown in the figure below. (Line 432-Line 434)
Point 2: The authors should improve their English, especially in some parts like the Conclusion “the residual tensile strength decreased with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time; however, the rate of decrease gradually decreased with time.”
Response 2: The discussion in the conclusion section has been optimized to make it more concise. The full text was also checked.
The first conclusion “The mass of GFRP increases with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time; however, the rate of mass change decreases with increasing time. In deionized water, artificial seawater, and alkaline solutions at 80 °C, the mass change of the GFRP was mainly characterized by an increase in mass; however, in acidic and alkaline solutions at 20 °C and 50 °C, it was mainly characterized by a mass loss.” should read as follows:
The change in mass of GFRP increases with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time; however, its rate of mass change decreases with time gradually. In deionized water, artificial seawater, and alkaline solutions at 80 °C, the mass change of the GFRP was mainly characterized by an increase in mass; but in acidic and alkaline solutions at 20 °C and 50 °C, it was mainly characterized by a mass loss. (Line 542-Line 546)
A sentence in the second conclusion “The residual tensile strength decreased with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time; however, the rate of decrease gradually decreased with time” should read as follows:
“The residual tensile strength decreased with increasing ambient temperature and immersion time, but the rate of decrease becomes slower with time gradually.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
