Study of the Degradation of Biobased Plastic after Stress Tests in Water

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors please see my comments below:

1. Please consider modifying the title of the manuscript to highlight the work done on coatings instead of the technique used for the analysis.
2. Can the authors explain how the current work is related to coatings?
3. Please avoid using we, us or our in the manuscript, this must be checked throughout the manuscript.
4. Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings, and conclusions.
5. Just before the last paragraph of the abstract, the authors are encouraged to answer the following question: What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.
6. The manuscript requires moderate English editing and spell check.
7. The authors are encouraged to add a list of abbreviation at the end of the manuscript.
8. Please combine smaller paragraphs into one larger paragraph. For example, lines 48-58 can be combined into one paragraph. Please apply this elsewhere in the manuscript. There are so many such small paragraphs which can be combined together.
9. For the materials and methods section, the authors should add images/graphs of the different materials used, fabricated samples and equipment used for the tests. After all, this is an experimental study and graphical images are important to give the readers a complete overview of the study.
10. Line 178 “very smooth” is vague sentence, how smooth was it? What kind of reference did the authors used to claim that it is very smooth? Is there like a scale or a reference that can be used to clearly indicate that it was very smooth? Please address this issue and support with references if possible.
11. Line 180 again “very few bubbles” this is vague, the authors use generic sentences to describe important phenomena, in my opinion this is not a scientific way to explain results. Either quantify them using numbers or percentages to give clear and logic claims from your analysis.
12. Figure 1 please add some arrows and text to those SEM graphs to explain to the readers what they are looking at in them.
13. Line 85 the authors refer to figure 3 which is far away in the following pages, please consider rearranging the text and the figures such that they are close to each other.
14. Line 186-187 please support this claim with a reference.
15. Line 211 why the authors add a reference [33] there? It does not seem that it is explaining something or supporting evidence of a result? Please make sure to only reference when necessary and avoid adding references randomly and that are not contributing to the manuscript scientific content.
16. Lines 225-227 please support this claim “ascribed to…” with references if possible.
17. Line 243 3 hours or say 3 hrs not 3 hr. Please check this elsewhere in the manuscript.
18. Figure 5 please add a scale bar if possible.
19. The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a more detailed discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
20. Conclusion can be better presented using bullet points (1-2 bullet points) from each of the subsections analysed in the results and discussion sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript with the title: ”Raman spectroscopy study of biobased plastics degradation after stress treatment in water”  

Comments: 

In the manuscript, the Raman spectroscopy method was applied mainly to describe the changes in the molecular structure of biobased polymers after a stress test in an aqueous environment. The manuscript should be edited. It cannot be recommended for publication in the Coatings journal in the present form.  Below, I present detailed comments: 

1. The introduction part should be improved (for example,line 38, improved the number of reference; line 68 – “Raman spectroscopy” add after that “method”). In the Materials and Methods section, a description of the function of polymers is given, and this part should be included in the I 
2. What was the laser power used in the Raman measurements?
3. Please add more information about commercial sample for investigation in the materials and methods part.
4. The wavenumbers of bands described in the text should be checked in detail with Figures, because errors appearin the text (for example, in text 734 cm-1/ Figure 3 - 735 cm-1; look at line 193). 
5. Figure 3 (text outside the figure, remove “1268”).
6. Analysis of the Raman spectra should be improved (a very chaotic description). I proposedto put to the manuscript a detailed Table with band assignments of the selected vibrational modes of the studied samples.
7. Lines 282, 285, 287, 294, 299, Figure 7, Table 2,should contain information that in the manuscript the relative intensity of bands is compared (Raman spectra after normalization). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study the biobased plastics degradation is investigated by Raman spectroscopy. The topic is interesting and overall the manuscript is easy to follow. The English writting is satisfied. Some modification is needed, here are my suggestions:

1. More literature review on the research status of plastic recycling is suggested in the introduction part.  
2. Please don’t use “we”Throughout the manuscript.
3. Line 98-103, page 3. How did the authors determine such parameters? Please clarify.
4. Any other testing technologies can achieve the similar function?  
5. Please state the novelty and contribution of this study.
6. The conclusion part should be revised. Please list the main findings of this study one by one.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have sucessfully answered all questions and paper can be accepted. Congratulations to the authors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript (title: "Raman spectroscopy study of biobased plastics degradation after stress treatment in water") is deemed suitable for publication, in the view of the present reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

My comnents have been well addressed. This manuscript is now acceptable.