Nano-Modified Meta-Aramid Insulation Paper with Advanced Thermal, Mechanical, and Electrical Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is suitable publication in Journal.

The English grammar should be review, although I am not expert in that.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We've modified the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, the properties of PPSQ modified meta-aramid insulation paper with different structures and their microscopic mechanisms were addressed, but some comments must be considered to enhance the work.

1. What is meant by k-PPSQ and b-PPSQ? Are there abbreviations for the paper type?
2. The last sentence in the abstract is so long. It must have divided to be easy to read?
3. “ As a core component of ultra-high voltage DC/AC transmission, the operational safety and stability of the transformer are very important for the entire transmission network [3].:, this sentence must be reviewed
4. The introduction must be enhanced to include the efforts of the other in this field. The literature review of the topic is not effective.
5. The author must explain what are C0, CK, Cb? May before Fig. 2.
6. Can the authors used the probability density function and cumulative density function to express the failure analysis of the paper?
7. Can the authors use another presenting method to explain Fig. 8. It is not readable?
8. Some references must be added and updated.

Author Response

thanks for your comments, please find the reply to the review report in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper the authors study the enhanced properties of PPSQ modified meta-aramid insulation paper with different structures and their microscopic mechanisms. It is a well written paper. However some points should be mentioned and should be included within the manuscript in order to improve the publication.

• The authors need to clarify and explain the difference of the current study with the available literature.
• The reasons for writing the paper or the aims of the research should be given in the abstract.
• The discussions in section 3 (Molecular dynamics simulations) are not enough to explain the superiority of the proposed scheme well. It is suggested that the authors give more analysis of results.
• I believe that the figure 9 needs more details and explanations in the text.

Author Response

thanks for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled: “Nano-modified meta-aramid insulation paper with advanced  thermal, mechanical and electrical properties” deals with real experimental and molecular dynamics simulations of hybrid meta-aramid insulation papers, modified by two types of eventually polyphenylsilsesquioxanes (PPSQ), mentioned only in the keywords with full designation. My critical remarks start with the manuscript chosen title which by my opinion is incorrect as “Nano-modified” m-aramid is too common and the “nano” itself in incapable to modify what’s else. As the PPSQ abbreviation is never described in the text and this is mandatory to be done at least in the Introduction part, being designated as polyphenylsilsesquioxanes compounds family, the title may be should start with Polyphenyl silsesquioxanes-modified, Silsesquioxanes or PPSQ-modified meta-aramid.. As I mentioned few words should be said for polyphenyl silsesquioxanes in the Introduction part but before that the Abstract should be corrected as well: first, the abstract description is not correct as in this study not only molecular dynamic simulations are performed and discussed but before that real experimental is done and described!

The sentence:

“The formation of hydrogen bonds is more likely to occur, additionally, the nano enhancement effects of k-PPSQ and b-PPSQ resulted in various improvements, including a reduction in pores between molecules in the blend model, an increase in the contact area, the formation of interfacial polarization, a reduction in defects at the interface.” Must be corrected in the part “pores between molecules” as this is untrue definition – there is no pores between (macro)molecules.

Introduction part: Here, as already mentioned few general remarks should be given about the silsequioxanes and polyphenyl in particular. Also, very important is the lack of citing references dealing with PPSQ-modified aramid paper as for example:

 https://en.x-mol.com/paper/article/1368375660525543424

This research paper and may be other must be discussed in bot Introduction and Results and discussion part for evaluating the current research novelty and scientific contribution value.

After the Introduction part, usually Materials and methods and Results and discussion sections are is following and point 2: Thermal aging experiment is somehow unnaturally occurring..

Figure 1: Please male legend with designating Si-O boundary in the structures

About the molecular dynamics simulation study, a blending model is the base of the computational simulations performed. But there is a practical problem occur: The aramids, probably the meta- one, are known to be nonmeltable or thermoset polymers because the intensive intramolecular H-bonding. So, thermal blending of m-aramids with PPSQ in a melt seems unrealistic, though simulate-able. In practice, such blending should be theoretically possible by using aramid solutions in organic or strong acid solvents which I think require another type of simulations or may be wrong.

“The meta-aramid fiber is a polymer with a molecular weight of 60,000-900,000 synthesized by the polymerization of poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) (PMIA) [27]”. This is wrong – PMIA is a polymer and is not obtained by polymerization of polymer but by equilibrium or non-equilibrium polycondensation of two monomers. Please check that matter and correct, accordingly.

Another point of critics is that while in the real experiments, seemingly the PPSQ fillers are introduced by bulk aramid fibers surface impregnation methodology, in the simulation agenda, the PPSQ is introduced/incorporated in the bulk polymer matrix which is something quite different and the properties are non-comparable by my opinion.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments, and we have made some modifications in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No need additional comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition and support.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have taken into consideration most of my critical remarks and the text improved. I would kindly recommend to make more efforts for improving and strengthening the scientific rigor in your future scientific papers.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition and support.