Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully resolved most of the issues described and the quality of their manuscript is currently improved significantly.

It can be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Editor

Thank you for your kind revison and your descicion. By this occasion, we have imporved and a considerable  revison of our manuscript.

Thank you again for your kind effort and timing for our work.

Kind Regards

Emin BAYRAKTAR

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled "A Review on Analysis of Recycled Rubber Composites Reinforced with Micro Scale Reinforcements" deals with various issues related to composites made with recycled rubber.

This is an interesting topic, but in my opinion this paper is not suitable for publication in this format.

A review should help understand a topic and give the reader a guide of where research is going on. But in this case neither of these objectives is achieved.

In general, the review is not well organized, it does not have a clear index, nor subsections that allow understanding the subject. It is a mixture of information obtained from different articles, without a common guide. The authors became more sections.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (Reviewer n° 2)

Thank you again for your kind effort for our manuscript and we have considered your critics and your suggestions.

1- First of all, we have changed completely the format as you have suggested.

2- We have changed the title of the paper for an understandable objective of this review. We hope that the objective of the manuscript is achieved now.

3- We have re-organized the manuscript as you have suggested.

All of the corrections and reorganization of the manuscript were highlighted in the text.

Thank you again for your comprehension

Kind Regards

Emin BAYRAKTAR

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript incorporating the suggestiond of the reviewers. Now the manuscript is suitable to be published.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file for my comments and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review Report 1

The manuscript is well written and provides the field with well-needed advances. The authors reviewed the studies on devulcanized recycled rubber composites reinforced with microscale particles. While generally well written, this manuscript lacks detailed information that is crucial for a review article, and this needs to be addressed before consideration for publication.

Author Response:  Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have reviewed your comments one by one and made the edits written in response below.

Our comments on this manuscript can be found below:

1. [Page 1, paragraph 1]

The authors are recommended to add an explanation of vulcanized rubber in detail. What is it? What are the manufacturing methods? How do you compare vulcanized rubber with conventional rubber?

Author Response: Description of vulcanization has been given in the sentence.

2. [Page 1-2, paragraph 2]

The authors need to provide references for the sentences shown below:

• To develop physical and mechanical properties of the recycled rubber, such as fracture toughness, resistance to impact, they are reinforced with microscale particles and there are several studies on design and manufacturing of recycled rubber composites in the literature.
• The majority of the studies on recycled rubber composites show that recycled rubber reinforced with micro scale particles lead to develop physical and mechanical properties of the structures and also provide low-cost and lightweight composites for several application areas.

Author Response: References have been provided for the corresponding parts.

3. [Page 2]

The authors are encouraged to provide examples and references for the applications where high toughness and high resistance of rubber are desirable. The corresponding sentence in the manuscript is copied here:

• Moreover, recycled rubber containing composites can be suitable for applications where high toughness, high resistance to impact is desirable.

Author Response: Examples and references have been provided for the given sentence.

4. I suggest the authors to provide schematics on how the rubber composite properties can be improved with microscale particles and different microstructures. What are the underlying mechanisms that contribute to improvement of the rubber composite properties?
5. [Page 23] The manuscript lacks future directions and research prospects. The authors need to provide these in Section 4.Conclucion or by adding a discussion section.

Author Response: The conclusion has been modified by describing the results of this review in a more concise form.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review paper presents an interesting approach based on the Analysis of Recycled Rubber Composites Reinforced with Micro Scale Reinforcements. However, the innovation of the current research work should be further highlighted and emphasized. At the same time, the authors should consider the following comments to greatly improve the quality of the paper.

1. The abstract needs to highlight the significance of the present review. The authors mentioned "The majority of the studies on recycled rubber composites show that recycled rubber reinforced with micro scale particles lead to develop physical and mechanical properties of the structures and also provide low-cost and lightweight composites
for several application areas". After this sentence, there should be an elaboration of what new being explained and assessed in the present review paper.

2. The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are listed below after each sentence in the manuscript:

A) "Furthermore, 30-50 percent of the rubber is wasted during injection molding processes due to molding ash. Furthermore, extrusion processes used to make rubber-based goods result in 2-5 percent rubber waste.."

The extrusion and molding processes in this statement can be referenced to:

* https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998318790093.
* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.012.

B) "Recycled and devulcanized rubber modified epoxy-based composites.."

The new epoxy composite review needs to be referenced as:

* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114698.

C) "composite reinforced with graphene nano platelets for structural applications in automotive and aeronautics"

The use of filler materials for improving the physical properties of materials and finding more structural applications for them can be attributed to the above statement by referring to:

* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.009.
* https://doi.org/10.1002/app.46770.
* https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-022-06994-3
* https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684417727143.

D) "nano silica generally improve the materials properties such as fracture toughness, resin stiffness and wear resistance..."

The recent wear performance review needs to be referenced as:

* https://doi.org/10.1177/07316844211051733.

 

3. Table 1 and Table 2 need to include other studies such as:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.119
https://doi.org/10.1177/0967391119854649
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821014604
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061820300131
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263822318343435
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821024442
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264127521007450
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353814003571
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353815301202

4. The units such as kg/m3 must be taken care of while writing them whereas 3 as the power needs to appear in a superscript format.

5. Table 3, Table 4, Table 8 and Table 9 need to show several related studied in a collated format. The review paper has to review different papers and explain similarities and dissimilarities. There shouldn't be any table that addresses only one reference. Likewise, Table 5 and Table 6 need to be be modified with more studies. The outcome of the these elaborated tables shall be scientifically criticized and explained.

6. From the same reference, several figures appear such as Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15. This must be completely modified. Ultimately, there shouldn't be more than two figures existing from a same reference. In most cases, just one figure can be adopted from a reference. Therefore, these figures need to be replaced.

7. Table 7 needs to be updated with other studied comprising of Aluminum powder as a filler for rubber reinforced polymeric composites.

8. Figure 11 and Figure 12 come from the same reference. This must be changed. The aim of the review paper is to give a comprehensive overview of what was investigated in the theme, not just to review few papers.

9. The conclusion needs to be written in a shorter and concise format that highlights the actual outcomes of this review.

Author Response

Review Report 2

The review paper presents an interesting approach based on the Analysis of Recycled Rubber Composites Reinforced with Micro Scale Reinforcements. However, the innovation of the current research work should be further highlighted and emphasized. At the same time, the authors should consider the following comments to greatly improve the quality of the paper.

Author Response:  Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have reviewed your comments one by one and made the edits written in response below.

1. The abstract needs to highlight the significance of the present review. The authors mentioned "The majority of the studies on recycled rubber composites show that recycled rubber reinforced with micro scale particles lead to develop physical and mechanical properties of the structures and also provide low-cost and lightweight composites for several application areas". After this sentence, there should be an elaboration of what new being explained and assessed in the present review paper.

Author Response: The summary has been expanded to highlight the importance of the present review. After the mentioned sentence, a summary of the purpose of the assessment is given.

2. The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are listed below after each sentence in the manuscript:
3. A) "Furthermore, 30-50 percent of the rubber is wasted during injection molding processes due to molding ash. Furthermore, extrusion processes used to make rubber-based goods result in 2-5 percent rubber waste."

The extrusion and molding processes in this statement can be referenced to:

* https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998318790093.

* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.10.012.

Author Response:  The extrusion and molding processes are described in given statement with references above.

1. B) "Recycled and devulcanized rubber modified epoxy-based composites."

The new epoxy composite review needs to be referenced as:

* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114698.

Author Response:  Reference has been provided for the corresponding sentence.

1. C) "composite reinforced with graphene nano platelets for structural applications in automotive and aeronautics"

The use of filler materials for improving the physical properties of materials and finding more structural applications for them can be attributed to the above statement by referring to:

* https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.009.

* https://doi.org/10.1002/app.46770.

* https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-022-06994-3 page 3

* https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684417727143.

Author Response:  References have been provided for the corresponding part.

1. D) "nano silica generally improve the materials properties such as fracture toughness, resin stiffness and wear resistance..."

The recent wear performance review needs to be referenced as:

* https://doi.org/10.1177/07316844211051733.

 Author Response:  Reference has been provided for wear performance.

3. Table 1 and Table 2 need to include other studies such as:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.119

https://doi.org/10.1177/0967391119854649

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821014604  page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061820300131 page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263822318343435 page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061821024442 page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264127521007450 page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353814003571 page 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353815301202 page 4

Author Response:  Table 1 and Table 2 have been expanded by other studies giving the references. All of the given references have been provided for corresponding parts given with page numbers near the references above.

4. The units such as kg/m3 must be taken care of while writing them whereas 3 as the power needs to appear in a superscript format.

Author Response:  The units have been corrected.

5. Table 3, Table 4, Table 8 and Table 9 need to show several related studied in a collated format. The review paper has to review different papers and explain similarities and dissimilarities. There shouldn't be any table that addresses only one reference. Likewise, Table 5 and Table 6 need to be be modified with more studies. The outcome of the these elaborated tables shall be scientifically criticized and explained.

Author Response:  Tables have been collected and modified with other studies, the outcome has also scientifically explained. Table 3 and Table 4 are modified by adding another research on recycled polypropylene reinforced with glass bubbles.

6. From the same reference, several figures appear such as Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15. This must be completely modified. Ultimately, there shouldn't be more than two figures existing from a same reference. In most cases, just one figure can be adopted from a reference. Therefore, these figures need to be replaced.

Author Response:  Figures from the same reference have been modified. Figure numbers have also been changed.

7. Table 7 needs to be updated with other studied comprising of Aluminum powder as a filler for rubber reinforced polymeric composites.
8. Figure 11 and Figure 12 come from the same reference. This must be changed. The aim of the review paper is to give a comprehensive overview of what was investigated in the theme, not just to review few papers.

Author Response: There are not many studies that contain the same amount of epoxy resin and have the same recycled rubber material. Such studies are compared within themselves according to the change in the weight percentages of the filling materials.

9. The conclusion needs to be written in a shorter and concise format that highlights the actual outcomes of this review.

Author Response: The conclusion has been modified by describing the results of this review in a more concise form.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors have addressed some of my comments in the revision, but the others haven’t been thoroughly addressed. Review articles must offer significant new insights based on a systematic comparison of many studies, rather than describing and reviewing past research. To be specific, the manuscript should provide future research directions, research insights and prospects, and existing gaps. Although I have commented on this in my first review report (comment #5),

the revised manuscript still doesn’t bring significant insights to the readers. In addition, the authors didn’t respond to my comment #4, and comment #1 was not properly addressed. Therefore, I recommend rejecting the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted very good improvements to the paper. However, few issues are still required as follows:

* Table 6 has three tables of its own. These have to be either combined in one full table. Or, each table needs to be given a different caption title and table number.

* Figure 6. Comparison of stress-strain curves of a) recycled EPDM rubber composites (LR) b) GnPs reinforced epoxy-based composites. This caption has two references and a comma at the end. If there is another reference, then it needs to be added, or else remove the comma.

* Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 11 are too blurry. Kindly replace it with a noticeable Figure. Again the same observation is that two particular references are used constantly for several figures, which are reference 17 and 65. Kindly replace some of these figures which are taken from the same two references with any other available figures from different references. Make sure not to use the same reference for putting more than two figures in the whole manuscript.