The Fluidized Bed-Chemical Vapor Deposition Coating Technology of Micro-Nano Particles: Status and Prospective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1    Lines 97-108: A reference to literature that discusses the effect of internal friction between solid materials in more detail can be provided. 
2. Figures 1 b,c: The text in the figures is not visible. The quality of the figures should be improved or modified accordingly.
3.    Lines 169-170: In the text of the article it is necessary to explain with which other technologies the comparison is made and which advantages are emphasized, to give references confirming such a conclusion, since the mentioned advantages are relative and depend on the set tasks.
4.    Line 171: The proposal needs to be reworded as the film growth mechanism described does not affect the cost of the equipment.
5.    Lines 171-176: The authors probably tried to explain the thin film growth mechanism in a simplified way. As a result, readers may think that CVD deposition methods lead to thin film growth by only one mechanism, Volmer-Weber island growth, which is not strictly true. This paragraph should be reworded or not written at all, as there is no direct relationship between the mechanisms of thin film formation and the FB CVD method.
6.    Lines 334-335: "...among which the research of the vibrational field, the magnetic field, and the sound field are particularly prominent: The reason for the special place of the listed types of fields needs to be explained in more detail.
7.    Line 342: Why is this table placed before the discussion of different types of fields and not in the conclusions of this section? Why are not all field types discussed next? An explanation should be provided in the text. It is also suggested that this table be expanded to include data from the studies presented to provide a comparative analysis.
8.    Figure 3c: The quality needs to be improved as the text in the figure is not clearly visible. 
9.    Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 summarize the results of studies on the use of fields and their parameters, but unfortunately it is difficult to analyze and draw specific conclusions from the set of data presented with numerical values of parameters that reflect general patterns. The conclusions for each section are rather superficial.
10.    Section 4 "Applications of micro-nano particle coating by FB-CVD technology": It is suggested that the section be renamed to better reflect the content. For example: "High-tech applications of FB-CVD technology for micro-nano particle coatings".
11.    Figure 7: It is necessary to improve the quality of the figures, as the text in the figures is not visible. 
12.    Section 4: Unfortunately, not all of the studies described by the authors of the article indicate what method was used to weaken or adjust the interparticle adhesion in each study. This information should be provided.

 

CONCLUSION: After minor revisions have been made, the article may be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your careful review. Please refer to the attachment for modification details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review manuscript reported on the fluidization and chemical vapor deposition coating technology of micro-nano particles: Status and prospective.

I have the following comments on the manuscript.

1. Authors should add few more references on latest development

For CVD research authors can add the following references.

(1) Synthesis of graphene crystals from solid waste plastic by chemical vapor deposition Carbon Volume 72, June 2014, Pages 66-73

(2) Reproducible graphene synthesis by oxygen-free chemical vapour deposition, Nature volume 630, pages636–642 (2024)

2. It will be more meaningful if the authors can separate the Conclusion and Prospectives part as two different sections as following

Future prospectives

Conclusions

3. Inset of figure 7 is not properly visible. The size of the figure should be larger or the figure can be separated in two different figures for better understanding and proper viewing.
4. The authors should be clear about copyright violation of the all the figures used in the review manuscript.

Based of the above comments I recommend major revision of the manuscript for publication in Coatings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the manuscript is fine for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your careful review. Please refer to the attachment for modification details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Presented  article is a review article, and its aim is to show progress and development in chemical vapor deposition. By this aim the aim has been reached. As the article is of review nature it object is to catalogue and show applications and problems of given subject. By this standard article does it well. My only objection is that author assume expertise of every reader. This critique is visible in figures area where there are symbols that may be not understood by readers outside of CVD coatings field. For example in paragraph 149 some exemplary reaction of  chemical process would be appreciated at least in schematic form, with explanation of used abbreviations and symbols
Because of review nature of the article the only novelty are the conclusions of the authors about developments trends of CVD. The conclusions presented by Authors are consistent with overall article text. Article is based on 129 references. The oldest reference is from 1955 and the most recent from 2024. Most references used in the text are from first and second decade of XXI century and are relevant to subject matter. I would suggest  that Figures 3, 6 and 7 symbols used on this figure should be described in figure description or in manuscript text 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for your careful review. Please refer to the attachment for modification details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is revised appropriately. I would like to recommend acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Coatings.