Assessment of the Potential Diffusion Barriers between Tungsten and Silicon Carbide for Nuclear Fusion Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The relevance of the work lies in the need to develop modern materials for nuclear energy and nuclear fusion, which is what the authors are doing in the presented manuscript.

 

 

1. Introduction. The section briefly describes the research problem and sets the goal of the work. The literature is used for the period 2000-2022, but few modern works are given.
2. Materials and methods. The section presents a fairly detailed description of the research methodology. Materials and methods are chosen adequately.
3. Results. The section provides good illustrations of the obtained coatings and their phase composition. The description of the results and illustrations is quite detailed.
4. Discussion of the results. The section contains the results rather than their discussion and needs to be revised.
5. Conclusions. In general, the conclusions are written as a summary of the results obtained and are based on their own new data. However, this section needs to be revised.

 

Notes:

1. There are typos in the text. For example lines 59, 215.
2. The literature review does not adequately cover the current state of research in this area. The authors provide only 6 references to works published in the last 5 years. Also, the bibliography of 20 titles is clearly insufficient for a modern publication.
3. Discussion of the results is insufficient. In Section 4, the already described results are presented rather simply in a new form. As such, the authors do not discuss new scientific results.
4. Conclusions do not contain specific information. The results are simply described in general terms.

Author Response

Point 1: There are typos in the text. For example lines 59, 215.

Response 1: Thanks for your comments. They were revised in the manuscript.

Point 2: The literature review does not adequately cover the current state of research in this area. The authors provide only 6 references to works published in the last 5 years. Also, the bibliography of 20 titles is clearly insufficient for a modern publication.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. More references were added in the introduction part in the manuscript.

Point 3: Discussion of the results is insufficient. In Section 4, the already described results are presented rather simply in a new form. As such, the authors do not discuss new scientific results. 

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Discussion was rewritten, and you can find it in section 4.

Point 4: Conclusions do not contain specific information. The results are simply described in general terms.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. The conclusion was revised in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper should be improved. It needs major revisions. Comments and suggestions can be found in attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Article ‘Assessment of the Potential Diffusion Barriers Between Tungsten and Silicon Carbide for Nuclear Fusion Application’.

 

In this article, the Authors aim to investigate different barriers consisting of (oxides (ZrO2, TiO2, & Er₂O₃), carbides (ZrC, & TiC), nitrides (ZrN, & TiN)) between Tungsten and Silicon Carbide for Nuclear Fusion Application. This article and the whole investigation are consistent and have a clear logic and outcome. In this work, a lot of attention was focused on the microstructure of synthesized composite materials and it was done very picky by employing SEM, XRD, EDS, and electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA).

 

However, this work could be improved according to some remarks:

• There are only 20 references used in this work. The introduction part might be improved and extended a bit. At the beginning of the introduction, some notes about not added references are left. It must be corrected before publication.
• In the materials and methods section, it is missing a lot of details about how investigated materials were formed. „Seven kinds of materials (oxides (ZrO2, TiO2, & Er2O3), carbides (ZrC, & TiC), nitrides (ZrN, & TiN)) were prepared by dipping method and evaluated as a diffusion barrier for SiC/W system in this work, besides the sputtering method (nitrides), were also investigated to prevent the reaction.“ – all these synthesis procedures should be described in details.
• As there were a lot of different materials and formation methods used in this investigation, it would be good to prepare a picture that summarizes all in one place. That would make the information in the materials and methods section more clear to readers.
• In the materials and methods section, all used reagents and equipment for analysis should be noted. It should be written what model and from which manufacturer of SEM, EDX, EDS, and EPMA was used.
• Fig 5 and 6 quality should be improved.
• All figures in this investigation are informative but in Fig. 7, 9, 12, 13, 14 it is hard to see graphs. Might it be a good idea to put it separately from SEM images?

 

This article could be accepted after improvements.

Author Response

Point 1: There are only 20 references used in this work. The introduction part might be improved and extended a bit. At the beginning of the introduction, some notes about not added references are left. It must be corrected before publication.

Response 1: Thanks for your comments. More references were added in the introduction section. In addition, these were canceled in the manuscript.

Point 2: In the materials and methods section, it is missing a lot of details about how investigated materials were formed. „Seven kinds of materials (oxides (ZrO2, TiO2, & Er2O3), carbides (ZrC, & TiC), nitrides (ZrN, & TiN)) were prepared by dipping method and evaluated as a diffusion barrier for SiC/W system in this work, besides the sputtering method (nitrides), were also investigated to prevent the reaction.“ – all these synthesis procedures should be described in details.

Response 2: Thanks for your comments. The details about how to fabricate the coatings and how to evaluate the diffusion barrier are shown in 3^rd paragraph in the section 2.

Point 3: As there were a lot of different materials and formation methods used in this investigation, it would be good to prepare a picture that summarizes all in one place. That would make the information in the materials and methods section more clear to readers.

Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion. Table 1, summarizing the results in this work, was added in discussion section.

Point 4: In the materials and methods section, all used reagents and equipment for analysis should be noted. It should be written what model and from which manufacturer of SEM, EDX, EDS, and EPMA was used.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. The model and manufacturer were added in section 2 in the manuscript.

Point 5: Fig 5 and 6 quality should be improved.

Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. The clearer Figures were replaced in the manuscript.

Point 6: All figures in this investigation are informative but in Fig. 7, 9, 12, 13, 14 it is hard to see graphs. Might it be a good idea to put it separately from SEM images? There are typos in the text. For example lines 59, 215.

Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion. The clearer Figures were replaced in the manuscript, and Figure 13 was separated to 2 Figures. In addition, the typos were revised in the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors took into account the comments and revised the manuscript.
Corrections are sufficient.
I believe that in its current form the article can be accepted for publication.