Density and Dynamic Viscosity of Perfluorodecalin-Added n-Hexane Mixtures: Deciphering the Role of Fluorous Liquids
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports on the density and viscosity of mixtures of perfluorodecalin and n-hexane. The work has been carried out and reported to high standard, errors have been reported appropriately, and the standard of English is generally high.
My major concern is that the authors have not discussed or made any comparisons with related systems, so the novelty aspect of the work has not been addressed. My feeling is that this work would probably be publishable once this concern has been addressed, so I therefore recommend that the manuscript is reconsidered after “major revision”.
There are several minor corrections:
Lines 8/9: In what way are “salient features” different from “unique physical properties”?
Line 35: “solvents are used in numerous…”
Line 51: are two decimal places really appropriate for a measure of the temperature range of miscibility?
Line 62: There are only three solutions, not five. The other two are pure liquids.
Line 79: Were the boiling points actually measured to 2 decimal places?
Line 114: “find”.
Line 126: “assess” rather than “afford”.
Equation (3): lower right symbol should be ρn-hexane, not ρPFD.
Figure 3 insert: units for VE should be cm3 mol–1, not cm–3 mol–1.
Line 215: I think this should be “immiscibility”?
Author Response
Reviewer: 1 Comments:
This manuscript reports on the density and viscosity of mixtures of perfluorodecalin and n-hexane. The work has been carried out and reported to high standard, errors have been reported appropriately, and the standard of English is generally high.
My major concern is that the authors have not discussed or made any comparisons with related systems, so the novelty aspect of the work has not been addressed. My feeling is that this work would probably be publishable once this concern has been addressed, so I therefore recommend that the manuscript is reconsidered after “major revision”.
Author Reply: We acknowledge and thank the reviewer for raising a major concern. We agree that a comparison is the prime necessity to mark the characteristics of a solvent but to the best of our knowledge, we have not found any literature study concerning the similar systems. The thermophysical characterization of perfluorocarbons and their mixtures with organic solvents is at its infancy. Due to lack of sufficient literature data, we restrict ourselves to the comparison between thermophysical properties of perfluorodecalin with that of n-hexane by changing the composition of the investigated mixtures (intersystem comparison).
Minor Corrections:
Lines 8/9: In what way are “salient features” different from “unique physical properties”?
Author Reply: Salient features comprises of broad characteristics of a solvent including chemical, physical, and molecular aspects. To highlight the significance of this manuscript “unique physical properties” out of numerous salient features is written separately.
Line 35: “solvents are used in numerous…”
Author Reply: We sincerely thank the reviewer for her/his suggestion. We have made the necessary change in the revised manuscript.
Line 51: are two decimal places really appropriate for a measure of the temperature range of miscibility?
Author Reply: Thank you for pointing out a major concern. The temperature sensitivity of our instruments is <0.05 K hence, we have reported temperature till two decimal places.
Line 62: There are only three solutions, not five. The other two are pure liquids.
Author Reply: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The text is modified accordingly.
Line 79: Were the boiling points actually measured to 2 decimal places?
Author Reply: The boiling points are corrected.
Line 114: “find”.
Line 126: “assess” rather than “afford”.
Equation (3): lower right symbol should be ρn-hexane, not ρPFD.
Author Reply: As suggested, we have made the necessary changes in the revised manuscript.
Figure 3 insert: units for VE should be cm3 mol–1, not cm–3 mol–1.
Author Reply: We acknowledge and thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and we have made the necessary corrections in the revised manuscript.
Line 215: I think this should be “immiscibility”?
Author Reply: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Text is modified accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. English should be improved.
2. References and Units should be normalise according to journal.
3. Vendor information must be given consistently and completely: e.g. Sigma (St. Loius, MO, USA); Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Once the location of a supplier has been mentioned, it need not be repeated.
4. Conclusion should be expanded.
5. Some additional informations should be given in Figure and Table legends about experimental conditions.
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
Comments:
- English should be improved.
Author Reply: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their suggestion. English has been checked and improved throughout the manuscript.
- References and Units should be normalise according to journal.
Author Reply: All the references and units has been checked and normalized.
Vendor information must be given consistently and completely: e.g. Sigma (St. Loius, MO, USA); Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Once the location of a supplier has been mentioned, it need not be repeated.
Author Reply: The required information has been added in the revised manuscript.
Conclusion should be expanded.
Author Reply: As suggested, conclusion section is expanded by including some more information.
- Some additional informations should be given in Figure and Table legends about experimental conditions.
Author Reply: We acknowledge and thank the reviewer for pointing this out; we have added the necessary information in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
-I do not agree with the phrasing of first sentence in the abstract. Fluorous solvents are not recently emerging. In fact, in the US, it is quite the opposite. Many industries seem to have an aversion to fluorinated solvents. Please revise this statement.
-First sentence of the introduction: no need for quotes around "greenness" and "catalytic", although I think the word "greenness" needs to be replaced. Thus, this sentence should be entirely revised.
-I do not necessarily agree with the second sentence in the introduction. Ionic liquids and solvents, in some regard, are more "green" than fluorinated solvents. The authors are claiming a broad generalization for both fluorinated and non-fluorinated materials. Please revise the sentence.
-Page 1, line 33: "bi-phasic" should be "biphasic"
-Paqe 1, line 35: "endorsed by" is not the correct phrase. Perhaps "employed in". Endorsed implies something else entirely.
-The last paragraph in the introduction is not well written. It does not convey the significance of the manuscript and goes on a tangent during the last few sentences. Please revise.
-Experimental: temperature is reported with two decimal points. Is this correct? What is the error associated with the temperature? Please include throughout the manuscript.
-Conclusion: the authors contradicts their claims in the introduction saying that "Fluorous solvents are notorious for their miscibility with organic solvents and ILs". In the introduction, they claimed that they are immiscible. Please revise this statement.
Author Response
Reviewer: 3 Comments:
-I do not agree with the phrasing of first sentence in the abstract. Fluorous solvents are not recently emerging. In fact, in the US, it is quite the opposite. Many industries seem to have an aversion to fluorinated solvents. Please revise this statement.
-First sentence of the introduction: no need for quotes around "greenness" and "catalytic", although I think the word "greenness" needs to be replaced. Thus, this sentence should be entirely revised.
Author Reply: We acknowledge and thank the reviewer for pointing this out; we have made the necessary changes in the revised manuscript.
-I do not necessarily agree with the second sentence in the introduction. Ionic liquids and solvents, in some regard, are more "green" than fluorinated solvents. The authors are claiming a broad generalization for both fluorinated and non-fluorinated materials. Please revise the sentence.
Author Reply: Second sentence of our introduction is only to highlight the necessity of studying fluorous solvents that “can be” better alternatives to conventional solvents. In no way, we are claiming that fluorous solvents are greener than organic solvents and ionic liquids. In short, there are certain limitations of conventional solvents that may be conquered by using fluorinated hydrocarbons.
-Page 1, line 33: "bi-phasic" should be "biphasic"
-Paqe 1, line 35: "endorsed by" is not the correct phrase. Perhaps "employed in". Endorsed implies something else entirely.
-The last paragraph in the introduction is not well written. It does not convey the significance of the manuscript and goes on a tangent during the last few sentences. Please revise.
Author Reply: We again thank the reviewer for their suggestion and have made the necessary changes in the revised manuscript.
-Experimental: temperature is reported with two decimal points. Is this correct? What is the error associated with the temperature? Please include throughout the manuscript.
Author Reply: We thank the reviewer for raising this point, temperature is reported with two decimal places due to limit of accuracy <0.05 K. The error associated with temperature is added in the revised manuscript.
-Conclusion: the authors contradict their claims in the introduction saying that "Fluorous solvents are notorious for their miscibility with organic solvents and ILs". In the introduction, they claimed that they are immiscible. Please revise this statement.
Author Reply: As suggested, we have made the necessary changes in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am generally happy with the responses and revisions that the authors have made. Only one minor issue is that the temperature reported for the miscibility determination should not be to two decimal places. Although it is certainly true that the temperature can be measured to two decimal places, I do not think that it is possible to observe the phase change that accurately. Can the authors honestly say that the mixture is miscible at 288.15 K but not 288.00 K. Firstly, I doubt that a measurement was done at 288.00 K, and even if it was, do the authors think it would look any different to the mixture at 288.15 K? Effectively, the error for the temperature of the phase change observation depends on the difference in temperature between the measurements: If you measure at 278 K and 188K, your error in the determination of the phase change temperature is 10 K.
Author Response
We agree with the reviewer. The temperature is reported accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Agree with revisions.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for her/his time.
