Next Article in Journal
Preparation of Solid Lipid Nanoparticles of Cinnamaldehyde and Determination of Sustained Release Capacity
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation into SiO2 Etching Characteristics Using Fluorocarbon Capacitively Coupled Plasmas: Etching with Radical/Ion Flux-Controlled
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 12
Issue 24
10.3390/nano12244458
Review Report
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

TiO2 Nanoparticle/Polyimide Nanocomposite for Ultrahigh-Temperature Energy Storage

Nanomaterials 2022, 12(24), 4458; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12244458
by Xinrui Chen 1,2, Wenbo Zhu 1, Jianwen Chen 2,*, Qing Cao 1,2, Yingxi Chen 1,2 and Dengyan Hu 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Anton Trník
Reviewer 2:
Radu-Dan Rusu
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(24), 4458; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12244458
Submission received: 12 October 2022 / Revised: 6 December 2022 / Accepted: 8 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Nanocomposite Materials)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My suggestions are:

1. The sentences in lines from 54 to 62 are some conclusions. It should not be a part of introduction.

2. The aim of paper is not clear. What does it mean to introduce your material?

3. It is not possible measure chemical composition using XRD. You measured mineral composition.

4. The part from 107 to 110 should be omitted. Fig. 1a must be cited in experimental part.

5. Conclusion must be improved.

6. For me, there is missing DSC analysis of samples.  

7. The format of unit in Fig. 4d must be corrected.

8. Fig. 4a should be cited in experimental part.

9. Experimental part must be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors improved the manuscript. Nevertheless, several corrections must be make.

Why did authors provide DSC measurements only up to 500 °C and TGA up to 800 °C? Authors should connect DSC and TGA measurements. I recommend to provide DSC up to 800 °C.  

Formal corrections:

Line 97: There should be NETZSCH.

Fig. S4:  The unit of temperature is missing. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors brought additional improvements to the manuscript, and some of (not all) the queries were answered.

In its current form, the manuscript comes close to a publishable one. 

I still believe the structure of the Pi used is necessary and further structure-properties correlations are in order.

More important, I underline the necessity to perform a thorough English check and revision. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop