Nanoparticle Black Ceramic Pigment Obtained by Hydrotalcite-like Compound Microwave Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors presented a new method for fabrication of ceramic pigment using microwave induced combustion synthesis and a conventional method. The results of TGA, XRD and SEM of the obtained pigment powders are presented.The overall manuscript is written with logical progression.
However, before publishing it should be clearly stated which powders are suitable for inkjet printing. Basing on SEM images the agglomerates (or aggregates) are more than 1 micron in diameter. In order to conclude which pigments can be used for inkjet the particle size analysis should be carried out. Only after particle size analysis it will be clear if the powders can be deagglomerated. It crucial for inkjet technique as bigger particles or agglomerates clog the inkjet nozzle.
Author Response
|
Response to reviewers’ comments In order to answer your comment about pigment inkjet availability, we want to say, that it is available, but we can not show the results, because there are under industrial protection until they have all test to show compatibility with inkjet head printers. We are very sorry to show only a few part of the results, but industry we have collaboration do not allow show more information. I hope in a few months show all the results. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors need to be more carefully to present the result and discussion in scientific format. There are a lot issues and errors (below) with the discussion of the result and results presentation. The logic of the article is not clear.
1, in page 2 line 50, Please define the ‘HTLC’ in the content.
2, in page 2 line 51, please state clear the raw material information with purity and purchased company. The same issue for the latter chemicals you used in line 57.
3, in line 59, what is the unit for 500, 700, 1000.
4, please re-plot figure 2-5, it’s very unprofessional.
5, the discussion for DTA/TG and XRD need to be more detailed and clear. Such as which sample has been measured and what’s the loss percentage for carbonate loss. Explain what is different lines in the figure and why the XRD pattern look different.
6, in line 100- 112, please give evidence to support your statement. Such as the other materials XRD patterns. I am not sure why authors says the reference pattern of spinel has not exist. The discussion in this paragraph is really confusing.
7, in line 118, SEM do not give your ‘cubic structure of spinel’. And it’s not crystalline, it’s particle size. Also, please put all SEM image in one figure. There is no need to separate them.
Therefore I do not recommend the manuscript to be published in the journal.
Author Response
|
in response to reviewers’ comments We want to show all corrections we made: 1, in page 2 line 50, Please define the ‘HTLC’ in the content. It is defined as Hydrotalcite-like compound 2, in page 2 line 51, please state clear the raw material information with purity and purchased company. The same issue for the latter chemicals you used in line 57. All raw materials are defined with purity and purchased company. 3, in line 59, what is the unit for 500, 700, 1000 Unit is degree Celsius. 4, please re-plot figure 2-5, it’s very unprofessional. you are absolutely right. The problem is that we have done all the measurements and analyzes in a company with which we collaborate, and they only gave us the graphs. When we have asked them for the data to be able to plot the graphs, they have told us that they eliminate external analysis to avoid confusion in their system. We are very sorry for this inconvenience, and we keep it in mind for future work. 5, the discussion for DTA/TG and XRD need to be more detailed and clear. Such as which sample has been measured and what’s the loss percentage for carbonate loss. Explain what is different lines in the figure and why the XRD pattern look different. Paragraphs have been rewritten for clarity. 6, in line 100- 112, please give evidence to support your statement. Such as the other materials XRD patterns. I am not sure why authors says the reference pattern of spinel has not exist. The discussion in this paragraph is really confusing. The phase Co0,5Ni0,5CrFeO4 as such does not have a JCDPS file assigned. What we are trying to say is that it corresponds to the spinel structure and the phases with the elements common to the developed phase are given as examples. 7, in line 118, SEM do not give your ‘cubic structure of spinel’. And it’s not crystalline, it’s particle size. Also, please put all SEM image in one figure. There is no need to separate them. correction is made. We put all similar figures in one.
We hope with this corrections and the paper rewriting you could consider to be published.
|
Reviewer 3 Report
Main question addressed by the research: The work addresses the issues related to the Nanoparticle black ceramic pigment obtained by HTLC microwave treatment
Originality and relevance of the topic: The topic is relevant to the field and it considers a suitable research gap.
Added value of the paper: The manuscript takes into account the benefits of the microwave, however the main purpose of it is not clearly stated. The paper should include what aspects are critical for these studies and clearly explain why they are analysing those and why they are needed at the end of the Introduction.
Quality of figures: Formatting should be consistent.
Specific improvements for the paper to be considered:
- Abstract is too short and general. It should summarize the main findings and applications of the paper.
- Discussion of the results is poor and there is little comparison with literature.
- Is the thermal treatment much better than up-to-date ones?
- The selection of the optimal conditions is unclear and the benefits of the method should be highlighted.
- The conclusions are poor and they would need more elaboration so they clearly match the results.
Author Response
My co-authors and I acknowledge the comments of the three reviewers to improve the manuscript.
We have rewritten abstract to focus the results, also we have rewritten the paper to adequate discussion and conclusions as you have requested.
regarding with the quality of graphs, you are absolutely right. The problem is that we have done all the measurements and analysis in a company with which we collaborate, and they only gave us the graphs. When we have asked them for the data to be able to plot the graphs, they have told us that they eliminate external analysis to avoid confusion in their system. We are very sorry for this inconvenience, and we keep it in mind for future work.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper has significantly improved but they should amend the following:
- Figures should be improved for readability.
-Conclusions should be improved as different bullet points in subsections achieved from the main findings. They are still too weak.
Author Response
My co-authors and I acknowledge your comments to improve the manuscript.
We have rewritten conclusions in different bullet points as you have requested.
regarding with the quality of graphs, as we explained you in the answer before, our problem is that we have done all the measurements and analysis in a company with which we collaborate, and they only gave us the graphs. When we have asked them for the data to be able to plot the graphs, they have told us that they eliminate external analysis to avoid confusion in their system. It is impossible for us replot the graphs or increase their quality in order to improve them. We have write in the legend the correspondence in colour lines in XRD.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
