Non-Toxic and Flexible Radiation-Shielding Composites Based on Natural Rubber Containing Elemental W Fillers for Efficient Shielding against X/γ-rays
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We apologise for responding to your review comments now.We have carefully considered your review comments and have responded to each of your questions. Please see the attached document for the specific review responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
To consider a material useful to shielding radiation, it must be homogeneous in its structure, this manuscript does not present this in any section.
In the SEM section, it is necessary that the authors present the EDS study as well, because there can be other elements in the micrographs.
In Figure 4, both are too small, and it is impossible to read the labels in each line.
In Figure 5a, it is impossible to read the labels.
There are other parameters to identify the radiation shielding efficiency of materials, such as, TVL and HVL values, I suggest the authors should present them.
With the results presented in the manuscript, the real radiation shielding efficiency of the proposed material cannot be found.
Author Response
We apologise for responding to your review comments now.We have carefully considered your review comments and have responded to each of your questions. Please see the attached document for the specific review responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents measurement results of natural rubber as a matrix and three different particle size powders, namely W, WO3 and WC, as fillers. The materials were tested as candidates for radiation shielding in front of X-rays and gamma radiation. I think the paper is well organized and the results are interesting.
Major comment:
1. The author should compare the results of the section
3.6 Gamma-rays shielding properties of composites
to XCOM values (link: https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Xcom/html/xcom1.html).
2. Page 8 eq.2 is unclear. The parameters d and rho are not explained in the text below.
Minor changes:
1. Page 8: replace "linear attenuation coefficient depend on tube voltages" with "linear attenuation coefficient depends on photon energy".
2. Page 8: "As shown in Figure 6a and b, the linear and mass attenuation coefficients" -Should be Figure 7a and b?
3. Reference 17 is not complete.
Author Response
We apologise for responding to your review comments now.We have carefully considered your review comments and have responded to each of your questions. Please see the attached document for the specific review responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
None
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made all needed corrections.
