Next Article in Journal
A Machine Learning Model to Detect Flow Disturbances during Manufacturing of Composites by Liquid Moulding
Next Article in Special Issue
Strain Rate Sensitivity of Epoxy Composites Reinforced with Varied Sizes of Bagasse Particles
Previous Article in Journal
Fiber Orientation Predictions—A Review of Existing Models
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Progress of Bio-Calcium Carbonate Waste Eggshell and Seashell Fillers in Polymer Composites: A Review

J. Compos. Sci. 2020, 4(2), 70; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4020070
by Stephen Owuamanam and Duncan Cree *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Compos. Sci. 2020, 4(2), 70; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs4020070
Submission received: 22 May 2020 / Revised: 5 June 2020 / Accepted: 7 June 2020 / Published: 9 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Progress in Polymer Composites)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  • The paper provides a very good summary of the shell polymer composites with some challenges and future directions. This would add value to advance the research in this area.
  • English needs some improvement. I have made some suggestions in the attached manuscript
  • Line 31-add more references
  • Section 2 title does not quite reflect the content. I suggest changing this with Composition and sources of egg and sea shells. You can come up with another suitable one.
  • If you have adapted figure 1 from any reference you should mention here
  • Figure 2-please put the name of the countries beside each section with arrows as it is difficult for readers particularly for colour blind people
  • Line 665-This section can be further improved with additional challenges and future directions of research

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 34-35 : Could you name (if exists in the literature ) the name of potential diseases causing possible invasion of potential diseases?

 

Table 1,decimal comas for the line of Turkey are not correct. Moreover, CaCO3 amount in the third column of the Table 1 is given in kg. Should not be in gram?

 

In the paragraph starts with line 160, number of the eggs in china is 1000 times greater than that in Table1. I recommend you to check the scientific designation of the numbers in Table 1.

 

Giving an image classifying the different types of shells (cockle, mussel, oyster, etc) could have been better.

 

Line 220 determined (typing mistake)

 

Results presented between line 350-380 could have been summarized also in a table.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop