Preparation and Characterization of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Modified Polyphenylene Oxide by a Direct Fiber Feeding Extrusion Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is generally well written and the materials processing is thoroughly described. Results are well presented. But there are a number of comments that should be corrected to make the paper publishable.
- The authors should add some SEM images of the composites to fully describe the structure of the composites, GF distribution and fiber-matrix interaction depending on fiber content.
- DMA of the composites can significantly improve the paper in term of thermomechanical behavior of the composites.
- Below are some papers, related to the study describing some features of processing of fiber reinforced composites with high-viscosity polymer matrix, which can be interesting and useful for you at this and your further studies:
- (2020) Polymers, 12 (4), art. no. 902, DOI: 10.3390/POLYM12040902
- (2019) Polymers, 11 (8), art. no. 1364, . DOI: 10.3390/polym11081364
- (2020) Polymers, 12 (1), art. no. 50, . DOI: 10.3390/polym12010050
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Both the abstracts and introduction should more emphasize why the research is done. For example, the introduction says, the authors show that the direct fiber feeding method allows preparing composite with high fiber content without drawbacks of a highly viscous thermoplastic matrix, but do not see mentions of this in the abstracts. Please make them more focused.
2) In my opinion, the paper lacks a more in-depth analysis and a comparison with different manufacturing methods of composite with the same components. The readers would much appreciate even a comparison with the experimental data from other resources.
3) The fiber orientation distribution (FOD) also has a high impact on the material properties, but the paper did not discuss it at all. In my opinion, the two-step preparation (preparation of masterbatch, then preparation of composite) may drastically impact FOD and mechanical properties. I expect to see the “core effect” with different emphasis in samples with different fiber content in your case. Discussing the fiber orientation would be very good for the analysis.
4) The conclusion on line 225 is too generic. I would prefer a more elaborate discussion if other phenomena are involved or to make it shorter and more concise.
5) The sentence in line 255 is ambiguous, in my opinion: “properties improved owing to the void fraction and a slight decrease in the GF length” owing to the VOID fraction and DECREASE in the fiber length, the properties should worsen. Please, consider rewriting the sentence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
