Preparation of Graphene Conductive Fabrics and the Study of Their Degradation Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Xiong et al. examine the preparation of graphene conductive fabrics and their corrosion behavior study. The article is written nicely, explaining all the aspects related to the study. It will help researchers who are working in the same field. I recommend its acceptance after a major revision followed by the editorial correction.

1.       Title should be modified as it does not give the scientific meaning of the research.

2.       Abstract should contain key findings of the work, please add it.

3.       There should be a space (gap) between the numerical values and the units.

4.       The conclusion can be improved.

5.       Please exchange old papers with newly published papers.

6.       Please follow one homogeneous format style of referencing. Few mistakes in referencing can be seen.

7.       Please check the entire manuscript and remove grammatical errors.

8.       Merge or combine few figures as the total number of figures should be less than 10.

Overall it is a good work, I highly appreciate the authors for conceptualizing and conducting such work.

Author Response

1. Title should be modified as it does not give the scientific meaning of the research.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

2. Abstract should contain key findings of the work, please add it.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

3. There should be a space (gap) between the numerical values and the units.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

4. The conclusion can be improved.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

5. Please exchange old papers with newly published papers.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

6. Please follow one homogeneous format style of referencing. Few mistakes in referencing can be seen.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

7. Please check the entire manuscript and remove grammatical errors.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

8. Merge or combine few figures as the total number of figures should be less than 10.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Some figures have been immerged as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Recommendation and Comments for manuscript coatings-1892980 with the title: “Preparation of graphene conductive fabrics and their corrosion behavior study”, authors: W. Xiong Y. Jiang, G. Huang, Y. Hou, Y. Yang, Y. Niu, J. Yin, J. Wei, H. Liu.

The authors present the preparation of conductive graphene fabric by the impregnation method.

The article may be published after revision.

The main comments that I find useful for improving the quality of the article are presented below:

*The manuscript should be checked and proofread by a native English speaker.

*The latest template version (2022) must be used and not 2021 (Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW)

*In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

*line 22. “Textiles have been widely used in daily life due to their many disadvantages…” This statement must be supported much more concretely, through references or other comments.

*line 33. “Graphene, graphene oxide (GO) and graphene oxide (rGO)”?

*Figures 1 and 2 should also contain the SEM images of the standard material (without GO or rGO). Accordingly, new comments must be introduced.

*Figure 3 must also contain X-ray diffraction images of uncoated fabric.

*line 168. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

*Figure 4. X-axys name - Infiltration times (Times)

*The values represented in Figure 4 are also shown in Table 1. Only one presentation method should be chosen.

*line 186. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

*line 203. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

*line 228. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

*Figure 9/10 must also contain the CV curve of uncoated fabric.

*For textile fibers, the term corrosion should be replaced by degradation.

*The typos must be corrected.

Line 8. 2School

Lines 17, 67, 69, 70, 190, 206, 213, 215, 216, 218, 222, 224, 225, 226, 298 etc. 95℃

Line 17. 0.06mol/L

Line 74. 3.5wt.%NaCl

etc.

*The Coatings journal require a specific format of references, authors must pay more attention in their writing. No reference is written according to the format required by the journal.

*There are some grammar and typing mistakes.

*The authors must revise the entire manuscript.

Author Response

1. The manuscript should be checked and proofread by a native English speaker.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

2. The latest template version (2022) must be used and not 2021 (Coatings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW)

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

3. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

4. line 22. “Textiles have been widely used in daily life due to their many disadvantages…” This statement must be supported much more concretely, through references or other comments.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

5. line 33. “Graphene, graphene oxide (GO) and graphene oxide (rGO)”?

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Modified to restore oxidation graphene ( rGO ). In line 34 of the text.

6. Figures 1 and 2 should also contain the SEM images of the standard material (without GO or rGO). Accordingly, new comments must be introduced.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The fabric without GO and rGO has a very smooth surface with no precipitate and therefore no SEM image.

7. Figure 3 must also contain X-ray diffraction images of uncoated fabric.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. X-ray diffraction images of uncoated fabrics have been added to Figure 3. In line 143 of the text.

8. line 168. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It's fabric resistance.

9. Figure 4. X-axys name - Infiltration times (Times)

Thank you very much for your suggestion. This problem has been modified in the text.

10. The values represented in Figure 4 are also shown in Table 1. Only one presentation method should be chosen.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Original table 1 has been deleted.

11. line 186. Fabric resistance? or resistivity? line 203. Fabric resistance? or resistivity? line 228. Fabric resistance? or resistivity?

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It 's fabric resistance.

12. Figure 9/10 must also contain the CV curve of uncoated fabric.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The uncoated fabric has a low conductivity, so its electrochemical performance is worse. So, we do not do the CV curve of uncoated fabric.

13. For textile fibers, the term corrosion should be replaced by degradation.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

14. The typos must be corrected.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

15. Line 8. 2School

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

16. Lines 17, 67, 69, 70, 190, 206, 213, 215, 216, 218, 222, 224, 225, 226, 298 etc. 95℃

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

17. Line 17. 0.06mol/L

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

18. Line 74. 3.5wt.%NaCl

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

19. The Coatings journal require a specific format of references, authors must pay more attention in their writing. No reference is written according to the format required by the journal.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Reference format has been modified.

20. There are some grammar and typing mistakes.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

21. The authors must revise the entire manuscript.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript, entitled „ Preparation of graphene conductive fabrics and their corrosion behavior study” is relevant to the scope of this journal. It is an interesting study that can bring valuable information to specialists.

The authors have made a good synthesis of the literature that provides an overview of the research evolution in this area.

However, some points need to be addressed prior to publication of this manuscript. My comments/suggestions are given:

1.     Some of the most important information obtained from the corrosion tests should be added to the summary.

2.     The citation of references in the text is not done according to the requirements of the journal. Please check and correct!

3.     In summary the authors mention that “The optimum process of preparing graphene conductive fabric by this method are: impregnation 5 times”. In the chapter on materials and methods it is understood that it was done twice. Please state very clearly how many immersion cycles were done!

4.     The scale of the images in Figure 1 is not clear. The images should be replaced with ones where the scale is clearly visible. The same for the images in Figure 2.

5.     Line 100 “Compared with GO, the surface of rGO is wrinkled.” Based on what images or information is this finding made?

6.     I think that the images in Figure 2 are not necessary, but rather a mapping made on the images in Figure 1 would be more interesting because it would highlight the existence of rGO on the surface of fabric and at the same time justify the authors' statements in the manuscript.

7.     You need to specify what type of images are those in Figure 7 (SEM, optical...) and add scale on these images!

8.     The authors should drop either Figure 9 or Figure 10, as they do not bring any novelty, only changing the scanning speed. Instead, if one wants to prove that "the prepared material has good cyclic properties", more cycles should appear in the cyclic voltammetry test!

9.     The scale of the images in Figure 12 is not clear. The images should be replaced with ones where the scale is clearly visible.

10.  I don't think measuring rGO resistivity after immersion in NaCl can be considered corrosion testing. To be able to talk about the corrosion behavior of the material, classical electrochemical tests of polarization curves, electrochemical immittance spectroscopy, etc. with calculation of the corrosion rate value should be performed. Either they do these tests or make corrosion-specific calculations, or the authors need to change the corrosion behavior (including from the title)!

11.  I think that completing with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy tests would be indicated, as it could bring new information about the conductivity of the material.

12.  Bibliographical references are not written in accordance with journal requirements.

13.  The authors' contribution to the manuscript does not appear, as required by the journal.

Author Response

1. Some of the most important information obtained from the corrosion tests should be added to the summary.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

2. The citation of references in the text is not done according to the requirements of the journal. Please check and correct!

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

3. In summary the authors mention that “The optimum process of preparing graphene conductive fabric by this method are: impregnation 5 times”. In the chapter on materials and methods it is understood that it was done twice. Please state very clearly how many immersion cycles were done!

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

4. The scale of the images in Figure 1 is not clear. The images should be replaced with ones where the scale is clearly visible. The same for the images in Figure 2.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Replaced with a clear proportional image. In line 111 and 114 of the text.

5. Line 100 “Compared with GO, the surface of rGO is wrinkled.” Based on what images or information is this finding made?

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Compare two images to find this information.

6. I think that the images in Figure 2 are not necessary, but rather a mapping made on the images in Figure 1 would be more interesting because it would highlight the existence of rGO on the surface of fabric and at the same time justify the authors' statements in the manuscript.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Because the high resolution and low resolution are described separately, the rGO on the surface of the high resolution fabric is highlighted.

7. You need to specify what type of images are those in Figure 7 (SEM, optical...) and add scale on these images!

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

8. The authors should drop either Figure 9 or Figure 10, as they do not bring any novelty, only changing the scanning speed. Instead, if one wants to prove that "the prepared material has good cyclic properties", more cycles should appear in the cyclic voltammetry test!

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The electrochemical performance is not good, so more tests are not be done.

9. The scale of the images in Figure 12 is not clear. The images should be replaced with ones where the scale is clearly visible.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Replaced with a clear proportional image.

10. I don't think measuring rGO resistivity after immersion in NaCl can be considered corrosion testing. To be able to talk about the corrosion behavior of the material, classical electrochemical tests of polarization curves, electrochemical immittance spectroscopy, etc. with calculation of the corrosion rate value should be performed. Either they do these tests or make corrosion-specific calculations, or the authors need to change the corrosion behavior (including from the title)!

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The corrosion behavior of immersion in sodium chloride has been proved in literature. But because of the epidemic, classic electrochemical testing or electrochemical simulation of polarization curves cannot be performed.

11. I think that completing with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy tests would be indicated, as it could bring new information about the conductivity of the material.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Currently, the tests are limited due to COVID-19 pandemic.

12. Bibliographical references are not written in accordance with journal requirements.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. This problem has been modified in the text.

13. The authors' contribution to the manuscript does not appear, as required by the journal.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author resolved all the issues, hence I recommend its acceptance.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your help and comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Recommendation and Comments for manuscript coatings-1892980 with the title: “Preparation of graphene conductive fabrics and their corrosion behavior study”, authors: W. Xiong Y. Jiang, G. Huang, Y. Hou, Y. Yang, Y. Niu, J. Yin, J. Wei, H. Liu.

The authors make improvements to the manuscript, but the Journal template is not fully used. There are still some technical and scientific errors (resistance/resistivity) that need to be corrected before publication.

e.g.

*In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

*Figure xy and not Fig. xy

*L196. Fig. 6. Fabric resistance!?

*There is confusion between resistance and resistivity. Please check the lines: L144, L146, L149, L163, L181, L182, L196, L197, L200, L203, L220.

*”Author Contributions” format is incorrect.

*There is confusion between "Funding" and "Acknowledgments".

Author Response

1. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10), or [6] (pp. 101–105).

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Corrections have been done as suggested.

2. Figure xy and not Fig. xy

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

3. Fig. 6. Fabric resistance!?

Thank you very much for your comments. The resistance should be resistivity, and Correction has been done as suggested.

4. There is confusion between resistance and resistivity. Please check the lines: L144, L146, L149, L163, L181, L182, L196, L197, L200, L203, L220

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Corrections have been done as suggested.

5. Author Contributions format is incorrect.

Thank you very much for your suggestions. Corrections have been done as suggested.

6. There is confusion between "Funding" and "Acknowledgments".

Thank you very much for your comments. Corrections have been done as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made most of the requested corrections and additions.

There remain a few that the authors should find a solution to. To make it easier to identify I will include both the questions in the first review and the authors' responses.

Q5. Line 100 “Compared with GO, the surface of rGO is wrinkled.” Based on what images or information is this finding made? Thank you very much for your suggestion. Compare two images to find this information.

New Q. Which images should be compared? There must be an explanation in the text, otherwise, this statement is not justified. Figures 1 and 2 show the same thing at two different magnifications, respectively SEM images of conductive graphene fabric soaked 1-7 times (Fig.1 1500×, Fig.2 500x). So?

Q13. The author’s contribution to the manuscript does not appear, as required by the journal. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been done as suggested.

New Q : I still don't think it's written according to the requirements of the journal.

Q11. I think that completing with electrochemical impedance spectroscopy tests would be indicated, as it could bring new information about the conductivity of the material. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Currently, the tests are limited due to COVID-19 pandemic.

New Q: I believe that in the future, perhaps in another study, this information should be supplemented with a more thorough electrochemical study.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

1. Line 100 “Compared with GO, the surface of rGO is wrinkled.” Based on what images or information is this finding made?

Thank you very much for your comments. The ambiguous statements have been revised and deleted.

2. Which images should be compared? There must be an explanation in the text, otherwise, this statement is not justified. Figures 1 and 2 show the same thing at two different magnifications, respectively SEM images of conductive graphene fabric soaked 1-7 times (Fig.1 1500×, Fig.2 500x). So?

Thank you very much for your comments. In Fig. 1 and 2, the image a can be used as the control to do the morphologies analysis due to the different dipping times. And Corrections have been revised as suggested.

3. The author’s contribution to the manuscript does not appear, as required by the journal.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Corrections have been revised as suggested.