Fabrication and Characterization of CeO2-Doped Yttria-Stabilized ZrO2 Composite Particles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents the fabrication and characterization of CeO2-doped YSZ composite particles. The overall scope of work presented in the manuscript appears to be limited.
Specific Comments:
1. Abstract: The abstract contains too much background information and lacks a clear presentation of the key findings.
2. Introduction:
(1) In the second paragraph, while explaining the reasons for doping YSZ with rare earth oxides, numerous properties of rare earth oxides are described: “These oxides exhibit exceptional thermal stability, mechanical robustness, and chemical resilience, which are instrumental in mitigating thermal stress in high-temperature environments and prolonging the lifespan of the materials. ……Thus, incorporating rare-earth oxides into YSZ composite powders can improve the performance of TBCs for gas turbines and aircraft engines, which require high-temperature operation.” However, these descriptions do not effectively explain the role and significance of doping YSZ with rare earth oxides. The primary reason that rare earth oxides can enhance the performance of YSZ coatings is mainly related to the ability of rare earth ions to dissolve into the zirconia lattice. Please revise and optimize the theoretical explanation in this section.
(2) Furthermore, the focus of this paper is the novel preparation method for spraying powder. The introduction section does not thoroughly and comprehensively review the current research status on the preparation methods of rare earth oxide-doped YSZ spraying powders, nor does it discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques. This makes it difficult to highlight the necessity, superiority, and innovation of this work. Please revise the Introduction section accordingly.
3. Result and Discussion:
On Page3, the first paragraph, the author mentioned that the average particle size of YSZ treated with acid was reduced from 70nm to 53nm compared to the original YSZ. However, in Figure 1, only the size of individual particles was marked, which cannot represent the average particle size. Would you please add a histogram of particle size distribution for each sample?
On Page 4 Figure 2, Please verify whether the crystal face markings corresponding to the characteristic diffraction peaks at 2θ≈30°, 60°, and 62° in Figure 2 are correct.
On Page 5, line 186, the author mentioned that YSZ treated with acid may have formed damaged particles on the surface, thereby increasing the proportion of smaller particles. Why not take SEM images of the acid-treated YSZ surface to observe whether there are damaged particles, thereby further verifying the hypothesis?
On Page 7, Figure 6d, why is there no XRD spectra for acid-treated YSZ@CeO2, and in this figure, the information labeling is incomplete.
Although TEM was used to observe the morphology of powders, there is no detailed description of the interface state between CeO2 and YSZ.
4.The paper only analyzes the structure and phase of the powders, without addressing whether its flowability, bulk density, and other properties meet the requirements for subsequent thermal spraying, or how it withstands high temperatures. Consequently, it fails to demonstrate the practical relevance of this work in developing new powders for thermal barrier coatings.
5.The superiority of this preparation method compared to conventional spray granulation techniques remains unclear. Neither the introduction nor the main content of the paper adequately demonstrates the practical significance of this work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have synthesized a core shell structure for CeO2-Doped Yttria-Stabilized ZrO2. The manuscript has described the application and the thermal structure of the synthesized material well and I would recommend the publication of the manuscript. The figures are clear and the introduction has well described the importance and the novelty of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish Check in proof reading
Author Response
To reviewer,
Thank you for considering the submission (processes-3144855). We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback and constructive comments. Thank you for your time and expertise, and we are delighted that you recommend our manuscript for publication.
Yours sincerely
Gye Seok An, Professor
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease read the attached comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1、 Only the version with marked changes is visible, which is not convenient for reviewing the revised manuscript.
2、 The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes from the abstract to the introduction and conclusion that the treated YSZ-CeO2 composites represent a more practical solution for enhancing the high-temperature durability of TBCs. However, the study does not include any performance characterization or analysis related to the high-temperature durability of TBCs, which is a significant omission. To truly determine whether the proposed powder preparation method can optimize the performance of TBCs, it is necessary to use this powder to prepare coatings and then characterize the relevant properties of these coatings. The current characterization of the powder alone cannot demonstrate the positive significance of this preparation method for the development of TBCs.
If the author insists on not supplementing the relevant characterization to demonstrate a direct connection between their research and the development of TBCs, it is highly recommended to revise the description of the study's background.
3、 There are also some errors in the manuscript, such as in the Introduction, where "the monoclinic (t) phase" should be revised to (m) phase.
Author Response
Comment 1 : Only the version with marked changes is visible, which is not convenient for reviewing the revised manuscript.
Response 1 : To facilitate the review process, I have highlighted changes to your manuscript in a different color.
Comment 2 :
The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes from the abstract to the introduction and conclusion that the treated YSZ-CeO2 composites represent a more practical solution for enhancing the high-temperature durability of TBCs. However, the study does not include any performance characterization or analysis related to the high-temperature durability of TBCs, which is a significant omission. To truly determine whether the proposed powder preparation method can optimize the performance of TBCs, it is necessary to use this powder to prepare coatings and then characterize the relevant properties of these coatings. The current characterization of the powder alone cannot demonstrate the positive significance of this preparation method for the development of TBCs.
If the author insists on not supplementing the relevant characterization to demonstrate a direct connection between their research and the development of TBCs, it is highly recommended to revise the description of the study's background.
Response 2 : As per your suggestion, we have revised the background section to emphasize the potential of our approach for TBC development, rather than asserting a definitive performance improvement. We acknowledge the need for further characterization, including coating preparation and testing, to fully validate the impact of our method on TBC durability. we have made revisions to lines 23-26 and 89-96 to address your comments.
Comment 3 : There are also some errors in the manuscript, such as in the Introduction, where "the monoclinic (t) phase" should be revised to (m) phase.
Response 3 : Thank you for your careful review and for pointing out errors in the manuscript. I have diligently revised the incorrect description of "monoclinic (t) phase" in the introduction. I appreciate your meticulousness and believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript. I have made revisions to lines 56-59 to address your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript can be accepted in the present version.
