Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript Low-cost H grade polyacrylamide gel with temperature resistance up to 120 ℃  submitted to Processes - Manuscript Number: processes-1736501 describes the preparation and characterization of gel systems based on polyacrylamide, phenolic resin and organic zirconium. The text is logically built, and the conclusions are in line with the figures presented.

Some remarks have to be taken into account by the authors:

 How is the reproducibility of the used procedures? This should be evidenced by the repeating of the preparation experiments and characterization and evaluation of the results?

• How many samples of one type (or the number of replicates of the experiment) were used in the studies? Lack of information about the number of replicates of the experiment
• In Figure 4, graphs are blurry and very small in scale. Please correct.
• Error range or the determination coefficient or error bars should be included e.g. Table 4. Statistical analysis should be emphasized to support the results, discussion and conclusion. Please correct.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a low-cost, high-temperature resistant and high-strength polyacrylamide gel system formed by secondary cross-linking. The experiments are well organized and the results show few important points affecting the secondary crosslink gel system comparing to the single-crosslinker gel system, and it is considered to be published with major revision. However, I have some questions and comments:

 

 

1. The writing is poor. The authors should improve this.

 

2. Many readers may want to know whether why The gel system has a strong temperature resistance (120 ℃). Can we assume the other temperature?

 

3. The title should change by deleting the value of temperature but use another words.

 

4. I think you should delete the results in the introduction part. Just focus on previous findings and tell only you gonna do in experiment.

 

5. Can you tell me that what is different between cryo-scanning electron microscopy and conventional EM. Why you use CryoEM to this work?

 

6.  “Liuet al. investigated silicates resin”  this should change to Liu et al., 20..

 

 

7. Almost all the Figures are not clear, please change them such as The figure 4 is not good.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have already improved the manuscript efficiently. Now I am ok with the paper acceptance.