Irradiation Effects in Polymer Composites for Their Conversion into Hybrids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article entitled: "Radiation Effects in Polymer Hybrids" is an interesting work that deals with the degradation effect of radiation on a variety of polymer and polymer hybrid composites. The review article could be considered for publication. However, a few points need to be modified.

1. The Authors in the title refer to polymer hybrids; however, there is much more focus on the effect of the polymers in the manuscript. The title does not fit. I suggest the authors find a more fitting title for the review article.
2. To what extent are the hybrid materials presented here differs from the composite materials based on polymers? In my opinion, there is not a significant difference, at least not according to the manuscript that is presented here. Therefore, I would ask the authors to check critically and modify the manuscript accordingly because hybrid is a novel material, composite consisting of two constituents at the nanometer or molecular level, something that is not the case for all the materials of this review.

 

Author Response

Answers to reviewers of manuscript JCS-1627739

Dear Editor,

The authors are content for the comments and suggestions received from the reviewers of our manuscript. Their competent arguments concerning the improvement of manuscript showed us the correct solutions for the corrections asked by the former version of manuscript. We are glad to feel that our answers will be considered as right ways for the expected approval.

The corrections and the modification made in this manuscript are either colored in yellow with red letters for recommended changes of text, in cyan color with reddish letters for changed phrases, or in cyan color with black letters as new text. The red text is the new one that is adapted from the reviewers’ comments. It was impossible to separate effectively the changes suggested by each reviewer.

Reviewer #1

1. The Authors in the title refer to polymer hybrids; however, there is much more focus on the effect of the polymers in the manuscript. The title does not fit. I suggest the authors find a more fitting title for the review article.

According with the modifications done under your opinion, we turned the sense of paper on the contribution of radiation processing to the conversion of polymer composites onto hybrids and the structural changes in the hybrids themselves. We apply a differentiation between composites and hybrids based in the intimacy degree that is deepened when they are exposed to the action of ionizing radiation. In essence, this treatment does not provide only the worsening the material stability, but also the crosslinking and the binding of nanoparticles on the radical positions on the macromolecules. This is the manner by which the majority of composites, where the crosslinking radiochemical yield exceeds the scission radiochemical yield. Of course, the line that separates composites from hybrids is very thin and the common discussion on them includes hybrids in the class of composites. That is the reason that I had into consideration, when I prepared this review. Otherwise, the radiation effects induced in the both types of compounds are identical and the structural consequences are often similar.

Taking in mind that your perception identifies the refine differences between the two classes of compounds, we change the title accordingly.

2. To what extent are the hybrid materials presented here differs from the composite materials based on polymers? In my opinion, there is not a significant difference, at least not according to the manuscript that is presented here. Therefore, I would ask the authors to check critically and modify the manuscript accordingly because hybrid is a novel material, composite consisting of two constituents at the nanometer or molecular level, something that is not the case for all the materials of this review.

As you may observe from the new version of manuscript, we modified plenty of phrases in the sense you suggested. We consider that your image on the class of hybrids is correct and the manuscript was modified to correspond to this picture. The exposure of composites to the irradiation with ionizing rays (gamma rays or electron beam) is a pertinent procedure by which the composites can be transformed into hybrids due to the behavior of polymer phase. This treatment may be successfully applied by any reader, if the polymer allows forming cured phase which covers or includes the nanoparticles in a homogenous and continues material. The high energy irradiation is an appropriate, cheap end ecological processing by which foreseen properties can be obtained.

So, we hope that our new version of manuscript would be considered as a proper paper to be published in the peer Journal of Composites Science. More than this wish for publication, its belonging to this journal is evident.

Undoubtfully, you are right for all comments you offered us. We gave them the greatest attention, so the manuscript was carefully modifies. We felt that your suggestions opened the door of positive evaluation. We suppose that we found the most acceptable version for the implementation of your recommendations. Accordingly, we believe that the overall improvement of manuscript is satisfactorily achieved. Of course, the final decision is in your hands. We expect a good way ahead, otherwise we have to rewrite the manuscript that means a “new” work.

In behalf of the both authors, I offer our thanks for the effort you already spent for the improvement this manuscript.

Dr. Traian Zaharescu

Institute for Electrical Engineering

Radiochemistry Center

313 Splaiul Unirii, Bucharest

Romania

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General review comments: This manuscript reviews radiation effects in polymer hybrids. The polymer hybrid material properties, structure, and behavior changed due to high energy irradiation were addressed and reviewed. Although this review is comprehensive, however, it needs revision before publication. The following reviews and comments need to be addressed.

 

Reviews and comments: 

 

• In the abstract and even in the introduction, the review scope, targeted applications, research gaps, and review overview needs to be comprehensively presented. However, it is unclear what scope and areas of the polymer hybrid radiation effects were covered in the abstract. It is recommended to rephrase the abstract accordingly.
• Please provide an overview of the paper in the last part of the introduction. The introduction should outline the review work, scope, and applications. Providing an overview schematic(s) mentioning radiation effects on polymers and their research and application would be supportive.
• Recreating some of the figures taken from other sources with scan/snapshot might be supportive of improving the quality of the figures. Please consider different markers, line styles, and colors in case the paper is printed in black and white, recommended for figures 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Please also consider using/adding error/uncertainty bars/ranges/values in the figure/legend/caption/description.
• The polymer hybrids can be grouped and sub-grouped into a section instead of several sections. It would support having an overview of such groups by a representative table/figure/schematics.
• The review comparison should also be presented in tabular forms, including the authors, key parameters, and results such as radiation types, material types, damage value/range, and remarks. Presenting the reviews and findings of the previous studies in quantitative relations would support the readers.
• The conclusion should focus on the contribution of the studies, major findings, challenges, and future research scope. It would be supportive of listing these in bullet format.

Author Response

Answers to reviewers of manuscript JCS-1627739

Dear Editor,

The authors are content for the comments and suggestions received from the reviewers of our manuscript. Their competent arguments concerning the improvement of manuscript showed us the correct solutions for the corrections asked by the former version of manuscript. We are glad to feel that our answers will be considered as right ways for the expected approval.

The corrections and the modification made in this manuscript are either colored in yellow with red letters for recommended changes of text, in cyan color with reddish letters for changed phrases, or in cyan color with black letters as new text. The red text is the new one that is adapted from the reviewers’ comments. It was impossible to separate effectively the changes suggested by each reviewer.

Reviewer #2

The authors thank you for your confidence in this presentation, though several improvements are mandatory. As you may note from the reading of new manuscript version, it is fundamentally changed. We hope that the conversion of presented composites into hybrid is fitted with the journal backgrounds. From our experience, the transformation of composite into real hybrids can be easily accomplished, if the researcher establishes correctly the processing conditions and formulation.

Your comments are useful for the amelioration of general approach of manuscript. We applied plenty of corrections that are changing the “face” of paper. All your pertinent suggestions were seriously took into consideration, because we felt the necessity of improvement. There are several published reviews on the radiation effects on various classes of polymers, so the authors believe strongly that the discussion on the fundamental aspect of radiation effect does not bring a significant benefit. More than that, the readers that are interested to process their materials by irradiation know very well how do they select the appropriate conditions of material transformation to achieve the foreseen properties. The authors intend to present some examples to be followed or various illustrations for the versatility of radiation processing of composites as the pristine compounds to be converted towards other applications. The contributors of this paper believe that this presentation may be considered as a source of invitations for the any material that draws the attention of experts. We adopt this division of content base on materials, because the reader hopes to find directly the suitable solutions for their questions. On the other hand, the restructuration of paper based on other ground would be a difficult work involving other phrase formulations, other comments, other vision on the impact of paper and foreseen applications. This presentation manner (structure, figures, tables) was usually adopted for my important reviews:

2000. Jipa, R. Setnescu, T. Zaharescu, Electrical properties. In: Handbook of Polyolefins, Synthesis and Properties, C. Vasile (Ed.), chapter 12, Dekker, 2000.
2001. Zaharescu, S. Jipa, Radiochemical modifications in polymers, K. -F. Arndt, M.D.Lechner (Eds.). Landolt-Börnstein Numerical Data and Functional Relationships in Science and Technology. Group VIII, volume 6, 93-184. Springer Verlag, 2013
2002. Zaharescu, Radiation effects on polymer-based systems. In: Thermal Degradation of Polymer Blends, Composites and Nanocomposites, M. P. Visakh, Y. Arao (Eds.), Springer Verlag, 121-156, 2015
2003. Zaharescu, E. M. Lungulescu, Weathering Degradation of Polymers. In: Photochemical Behavior of multicomponent polymer-based materials. D. Roşu, M. P. Visakh (Eds.), Springer Verlag, 193-226, 2015
2004. Zaharescu, Ageing and lifetime analysis of POSS nanocomposites. In: Polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) polymer nanocomposites. From synthesis to applications. Sabu Thomas, Lakshmipryia Somasekharan (Eds.). Elsevier, 517-526, 2021

Undoubtfully, you are right for all comments you offered us. We gave them the greatest attention, so the manuscript was carefully modifies. We felt that your suggestions opened the door of positive evaluation. We suppose that we found the most acceptable version for the implementation of your recommendations. Accordingly, we believe that the overall improvement of manuscript is satisfactorily achieved. Of course, the final decision is in your hands. We expect a good way ahead, otherwise we have to rewrite the manuscript that means a “new” work.

In behalf of the both authors, I offer our thanks for the effort you already spent for the improvement this manuscript.

Dr. Traian Zaharescu

Institute for Electrical Engineering

Radiochemistry Center

313 Splaiul Unirii, Bucharest

Romania

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can now get accepted for publication 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the revision. Best regards.