Effect of Doping Content of MgO on Solar Absorptivity to IR Emissivity Ratio of Al2O3 Coatings
, Ting Yang 1, Dongpeng Li 1, Min Yang 1, Baohan Yuan 1 and Yihao Wang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the manuscript Coatings-2057466 for the Authors:
This article deals with the effect of MgO doping on the solar absorptivity of Al2O3 coatings. The concept of the paper is fine, and the idea for the samples and their applicability of them is also fine in my opinion the paper offers novel and interesting findings, but quite a lot of things need to be improved before publication so my recommendation, for now, is major revision. Also, language and style need to be really improved. Some additional things that need to be addressed are listed below.
Title – Ok
Abstract – Really confusing to read, please upgrade, the language and the flow of the text. State briefly the aims, and the results.
Introduction – Like it was written by a completely different person than the one who wrote the abstract. Really nicely offers the introduction to the field, and samples and emphasizes the novelty.
Experimental procedures – Detailed, just slight language improvement, please.
Results and discussion – Again language, please. Also, the info and details of XRD and UV/VIS instruments need to be added to the experimental procedures and they do not belong in the results section.
XRD: you need to discuss and comment more on the 2theta shift of the Al2O3 peak at 25.4 2theta; also add reference patterns (ICDD numbers) for both Al2O3 and Mg2AlO4
“Se-140 lect the center of the grain and draw a horizontal line with the center point. Rotate 15 141 degrees clockwise each time and take the average of the length as the grain size” Meaning of this sentence?
“Using spray drying method to re-granulate the original powder to obtain the spheri-193 cal powder” Expand on this.
EDS mapping of the coatings was not performed? or any kind of EDS during SEM?
Conclusions – Try to summarize your findings, and make it different as possible from the abstract.
Literature – Could maybe be updated to some novel articles (2021,2022)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Referee report on “Effect of doping content of MgO on Solar absorptivity to IR 2 emissivity ratio of Al2O3 coatings”
This is a quite interesting and very good paper that certainly can be recommended for publication, but clarifying and detailing some parts of the text.
1. In the introduction, in order to increase the visibility of the article for a wide range of readers, it is important to note other applications of such ceramics on the base on Al2O3 and MgO, for example, in nuclear technology as a shielding materials, or in radiation-resistant optical materials. In a certain sense, the requirements for functionality are quite similar here. Point defects which are produced in these materials, where recently studied in:
A) Popov, A. I., et al. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 2018, 433, 93-97.
B) Ananchenko, D. V., et al. Radiation-induced defects in sapphire single crystals irradiated by a pulsed ion beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 2020, 466, 1-7.
2. Line 61. Reference [10] given here does not apply to all materials mentioned in this sentence. Please add more supporting references.
3. Fig.4. Discuss in more detail how MgO doping affects particle size of Al2O3.
4. What is the porosity of the synthesized coatings and how does porosity affect their properties? Moreover, porosity can evolve (see recent research reported Klym, H.; etc. Positron Annihilation Lifetime Spectroscopy Insight on Free Volume Conversion of Nanostructured MgAl2O4 Ceramics. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 3373. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11123373).
5. References 1,2, 13, 15 need to be completed. Could you provide doi /web link?
In general, the manuscript is interesting and can be recommended for publication after constructive reflection on the above comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Since the authors have addressed all the remarks from my previous report, and the article is now substantially improved I can recommend it for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have significantly and constructively improved their original manuscript, which can now be recommended for publication.
