Thermophysical Properties of Inorganic Phase-Change Materials Based on MnCl2·4H2O
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is focused on the study of thermophysical properties of MnCl2·4H2O inorganic phase change material. The homogeneity in the initial state and proper heating/cooling rate are useful to avoid superheating and supercooling. In the present form, there are some mistakes and vague discussions that need to be addressed. More detailed comments are shown below.
- Materials and Methods section. it will be better to add the supplier of specimens. What is the difference of specimen 2-4? Are specimens 2-4 provided by the supplier or prepared by some institutes?
- Figure 1. As for the FTIR spectra, there are some differences between the reference (a) and specimens (b-e). Please explain.
- Where is Figure 3?
- Page 6. The latent heats of specimens 1-3 under endothermic process are higher than that of exothermic process. However, the result reverses for specimens 4. Any reason?
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised based on the reviewer’s comments. Please see the attached word file for the detail.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents thermophysical properties of MnCl2·4H2O are investigated. Authors provide interesting study and present results of phase change temperatures, latent heats, thermal conductivities and diffusivities of PCMs.
Although presented article may be interesting to the readership of this journal, the paper may only be considered for publication after the following concerns have been addressed successfully in a revision:
In general:
1) Some parts of the text like "Abstaract part" (please compare for example with "Abstaract part" section) should be readed once again carefully by a english native speaker due to some stylistic mistakes, informal terms and misleading informations.
2) Introduction of the "nomenclature" part is recommended because there are some abbreviations and markings that should be defined at the beginning of the paper.
Regarding to the "Abstact" part:
3) At the begining Authors wrote: "An inorganic phase change material (PCM) works as a thermal energy storage material to save and release thermal energy during its phase change." This is general statement that brings nothing new to the discusson. It would be better saying: "Manganese(II) chloride tetrahydrate classified as an inorganic phase change material (PCM) can be used as a thermal energy storage material, saving and releasing thermal energy during its phase transitions." The rest of the text is no better. This looks like a cluster of information rather than an appealing summary of the article. Please redesign it. Why each measurement was performed and what the Authors wanted to prove? Make it smooth and informative.
Regarding to the "Materials and Methods" part:
4) line 104 and following, Authors wrote: "Specimen 1 was the base PCM, and specimens 2 to 4 contained the base PCM and additives with different proportions." Please provide those proportions, additives specifications, proprties, etc.. The details can be listed in the table.
Regarding to the "Results and Discussions" part:
5) Tables 3 and 4 should be merged into one. Authors also should provied chart showing the results, and I am sure they wanted, however the Figure 3 is not included into the current version of the manuscript.
6) How many DSC cycles were performed? Are the results the average of the measurements? What is the uncertainty of the measurements. Please provide those informations.
7) I couldn't find in-depth discussion of the presented results. Some kind of comparison of the results is missing. Is there any dependence of the amount of PCM on the results obtained in each sample?
Regarding to the "Conclusion" part:
8) Also this part needs some improvement. In my opinion this section needs some conclusions from the results. Which sample turned out to be the best? Which add-on caused it. What is the percentage difference in the results? Is it a result of the percentage of PCM in the samples? The current conclusions are a duplication of the results. Please improve them also based on the doping applied (see point 4).
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised based on the reviewer’s comments. Please see the attached word file for the detail.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents definitely better than before. My previous comments have been correctly addressed in this Review. This paper in its current form may in my opinion be approved for publication.
