The Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on the Microstructure and the Mechanical Properties of Mg–Zn–Ce–Zr Alloy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please mention the experimental setup or equipments used for chemical composition testing, heat treatment and sample preparation.
2. Check the captions used Table 1.
3. Rewrite the following sentence in Section 2. “the homogenization treatment process
was 475℃×12h”.
4. The authors do not mention how many shots were taken in each region (Figure 2) . This information needs to be included in the results or the experimental procedure. It needs to be clarified and, whether it is based on single point or multiple point.
5. In Table 2, composition unit should be mentioned as wt.% not at.%.
6. Why only (Mg, Zn)12Ce and α-Mg are observed in XRD analysis (Figure 3). Can you mention reason for it.
7. How much content of Zn and Ce alloys can be added to alloy for better mechanical properties. What basis the content of Zn and Ce alloys are selected for present study.
8. Overall English language needs to be revised, check for grammar mistakes, and break unwanted lengthy sentences throughout the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” (Article reference: materials-1763813).
We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers’ questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer. Some of the changes have been reflected in the revised draft, and the changes are marked in yellow.
Response to the comments of Reviewer:
Comment 1: Please mention the experimental setup or equipments used for chemical composition testing, heat treatment and sample preparation.
Response: In experiments, there are two types of chemical composition testing equipment, the Optima 7000 Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometer (ICP-OES), which is used to determine the actual composition of the alloy and the composition of the solution after phase separation, and the SEM-EDS equipment, due to the analysis of the composition of compounds in the microstructure. Heat treatment is performed using a high-temperature chamber resistance furnace (up to 1300°C). Before heat treatment, cylindrical samples are sealed in quartz tubes filled with argon gas, and the equipment for sealing the tubes is shown in the figure below.
Comment 2: Check the captions used Table 1.
Response: After receiving the reply, we revised the title of Table 1, which is shown in the yellow area of the revised manuscript. The revised title is “Design composition and measured composition of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr alloys”.
Comment 3: Rewrite the following sentence in Section 2. “the homogenization treatment process was 475℃×12h”.
Response: The sentence in the comment is revised as follows “The samples were sealed in quartz tubes filled with argon gas for homogenization heat treatment. The homogenization treatment was carried out in a chamber resistance furnace (maximum heating temperature of 1300 °C) at a heating rate of 10 °C/min to 400 °C, held for 12 h and then water-cooled.”.
Comment 4: The authors do not mention how many shots were taken in each region (Figure 2). This information needs to be included in the results or the experimental procedure. It needs to be clarified and, whether it is based on single point or multiple point.
Response: In Figure 2 (Figure 3 in the revised version), several fields of view were selected during the shooting process, from which representative morphologies were chosen for analysis. The EDS analysis in the figure is a single-point inspection.
Comment 5: In Table 2, composition unit should be mentioned as wt.% not at.%.
Response: The energy spectrum analysis can obtain the mass ratio and atomic ratio of the elements in the material phase, and the phase type at the detection location can be determined by comparison with the reference material. The approximate ratio of elements in the material phase can be directly obtained from the elemental atomic ratios in the manuscript. For example, the atomic ratio of Zn to Zr in Table 2 is about 3:2, which can be judged as the Zn3Zr2 phase. Therefore, we think it is feasible to use atomic ratios in Table 2.
Comment 6: Why only (Mg, Zn)12Ce and α-Mg are observed in XRD analysis (Figure 3). Can you mention reason for it.
Response: In the phase calibration of existing Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr alloys, the peak value of α-Mg phase and (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase are too strong, which leads to the inaccurate calibration of the second phase. By adjusting the diffraction speed and other methods, a clear second-phase diffraction peak can not be obtained. Therefore, a low-temperature chemical phase separation method was designed to separate the matrix phase and the second phase in order to accurately calibrate the phase.
Comment 7: How much content of Zn and Ce alloys can be added to alloy for better mechanical properties. What basis the content of Zn and Ce alloys are selected for present study.
Response: At present, the Zn content in ZK magnesium alloys is mostly in the range of 4~6wt.%. Because Zn is easy to cause micro-porosity and hot cracking tendency, the further increase of Zn content has adverse effects on the casting, plastic processing and service properties of the alloys. Because the maximum solid solubility of Ce element is only 1.6wt.%, Ce plays a more important role in fine grain strengthening and second phase strengthening in the alloy. According to the research conclusions of several series of magnesium alloys, the mechanical properties of alloys become worse when the Ce content exceeds 2wt.%, and the higher the Ce content, the worse the mechanical properties become.
The selection of the content of Ce and Zn elements needs to combine the equilibrium phase diagram of the alloy, the non-equilibrium solidification process and the previous research experience, so as to determine the addition amount of Ce and Zn elements.
Comment 8: Overall English language needs to be revised, check for grammar mistakes, and break unwanted lengthy sentences throughout the manuscript.
Response: After receiving the review comments, we carefully revised the linguistic presentation of the manuscript. We hope that we can minimize the invariance caused by language problems.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well-organized and the performed experiments are comprehensive. The obtained results support final conclusions and can be further used for a proper design of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr alloys. Nevertheless, I recommend some major and minor changes:
1. Most of all, the English language must be improved. There are a lot of sentences which are not clear, some singular/plural form mistakes, some repeats (last line in page 1: "In addition, the addition of Ce..."). I also suggest to use plural form in the introduction part for Mg-Zn-Zr magnesium alloys. Some sentences, phrases or abbreviations that should be rephrased are mentioned below:
Page 5: "Studies have shown that [15], ..."
"The phrase morphology, selected area electron diffraction pattern calibration results SAED high resolution images are shown in Figure 4"
"The calibration results show that the distanced between diffraction spots near the center are 4.844A, 4.915A and 5.024A, respectively. The included angles are 59.35 and 61.14, respectively." Why there is "respectively"? The degree sign is also missing.
In the section 3.2 the statement "The outline of the compound is clearer and smoother that that of as-cast alloy" is mentioned twice.
UTS - ultimate tensile strength
APT - atome probe tomography
Section 3.3 - "hot compressed tissue?"; "low-power microstructure" and "high-power SEM image" - it should be rather - at low- or high-magnitude image
"dislocation proliferate" - dislocation are rather generated
2. I suggest to perform an quantitative analysis of the second phase fraction in the as-cast and homogenized alloys based on the SEM images to clearly show tendencies mentioned in the text.
3. The scale bars and the title of Fig. 4 should be changed.
4. It is not clear how the Ce content in the solid solution was calculated (used for the mass fraction of (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase calculation - Tables 3 and 4). Please, clarify this issue.
5. Authors mentioned at the end of page 6 that "the Mg-Zn phase was not calibrated, indicating that the non-equiliubrium phase such as Mg-Zn was fully decomposed in the homogenization proces." Some Mg-Zn phases were found in the as-cast condition during EDS analysis (Fig. 2) but there was no peaks in the XRD patterns (Fig. 3). The content of Zn is rather high (3 and 6 wt.%). Whether there should be any clearer evidences of the presence of Mg-Zn precipitates (especially in the as-cast condition)? Please, clarify this issue.
6. The low-magnitude SEM images in Fig. 7 are poorly visible. It should be changed.
7. In the Materials and Methods section, it was mentioned that in the Gleeble simulator all samples were deformed up to 50% while the stress-strain curves in Fig. 8 are up to 70%. Please, clarify this issue.
8. Please, give more details of analysis of recrystallized grains fraction presented in Fig. 9 and Table 5.
9. The details of Scheil-Gulliver model should be mentioned as well considering all necessary literature references. The red box in Fig. 10a is shifted.
10. At the end of section 3.4.1 Figure 11b should be mentioned instead of Figure 10b.
11. Table 6 is not mentioned in the text at all.
12. There are two black and two red lines/groups. I suppose that it refers to Mg-Zn-Ce alloys with 3 and 6 wt.% of Zn, it should be marked in the Figure.
13. It should be also marked in the Fig. 15 (for example by black arrow) that points refer to "Mass fraction of compound" / right axis.
14. The conclusion (4) should be rephrased. It is not clear in this form.
15. Finally, numerous references were incorrectly introduced into the manuscript (for example references 9, 10, 11, 19, 22).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” (Article reference: materials-1763813).
We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers’ questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer. Some of the changes have been reflected in the revised draft, and the changes are marked in green.
Response to the comments of Reviewer:
Comment 1: Most of all, the English language must be improved. There are a lot of sentences which are not clear, some singular/plural form mistakes, some repeats (last line in page 1: "In addition, the addition of Ce..."). I also suggest to use plural form in the introduction part for Mg-Zn-Zr magnesium alloys. Some sentences, phrases or abbreviations that should be rephrased are mentioned below:
Page 5: "Studies have shown that [15], ..."
"The phrase morphology, selected area electron diffraction pattern calibration results SAED high resolution images are shown in Figure 4"
"The calibration results show that the distanced between diffraction spots near the center are 4.844A, 4.915A and 5.024A, respectively. The included angles are 59.35 and 61.14, respectively." Why there is "respectively"? The degree sign is also missing.
In the section 3.2 the statement "The outline of the compound is clearer and smoother that that of as-cast alloy" is mentioned twice.
UTS - ultimate tensile strength
APT - atome probe tomography
Section 3.3 - "hot compressed tissue?"; "low-power microstructure" and "high-power SEM image" - it should be rather - at low- or high-magnitude image
"dislocation proliferate" - dislocation are rather generated
Response: We are very sorry for these mistakes in the manuscript. After receiving the reply, we carefully revised the errors mentioned. The manuscript was carefully checked to make sure there were no similar errors. We will also strive to improve our language expression ability and reduce the inconvenience caused by language problems.
Comment 2: I suggest to perform an quantitative analysis of the second phase fraction in the as-cast and homogenized alloys based on the SEM images to clearly show tendencies mentioned in the text.
Response: Based on the review comments, we have included a quantitative analysis of the second phase fraction in cast and homogenized alloys based on SEM images (last paragraph of subsection 3.2), which verifies the trend of compound content.
Comment 3: The scale bars and the title of Fig. 4 should be changed.
Response: After receiving the review comments, we revised the scale and title of Figure 4.
Comment 4: It is not clear how the Ce content in the solid solution was calculated (used for the mass fraction of (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase calculation - Tables 3 and 4). Please, clarify this issue.
Response: We have uploaded the response to this issue to the attachment as some formulas etc. cannot be displayed.
Comment 5: Authors mentioned at the end of page 6 that "the Mg-Zn phase was not calibrated, indicating that the non-equiliubrium phase such as Mg-Zn was fully decomposed in the homogenization proces." Some Mg-Zn phases were found in the as-cast condition during EDS analysis (Fig. 2) but there was no peaks in the XRD patterns (Fig. 3). The content of Zn is rather high (3 and 6 wt.%). Whether there should be any clearer evidences of the presence of Mg-Zn precipitates (especially in the as-cast condition)? Please, clarify this issue.
Response: After receiving the reviewer's questions, we recalibrated the XRD of the as-cast alloy. the calibration results showed that a faint diffraction peak of the Mg21Zn25 phase appeared in the alloy with 6 wt.% Zn content. The Mg-Zn phase could not be calibrated in the alloy with a Zn content of 3 wt.%. A modification has been made to Figure 3b.
From the analysis of the solidification process, the matrix phase is first formed in the liquid phase during the cooling of the alloy. After the basic solidification of the matrix, the compound phase is formed in the remaining liquid phase. Among the several compounds that can be formed in the alloy, the (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase and Zn-Zr phase are precipitated first, and the Mg-Zn phase can be formed when the temperature drops to about 340°C. Therefore, the content of Zn elements that can participate in the formation of the Mg-Zn phase is less, and the content of the generated Mg-Zn phase is also less. In addition, in order to eliminate the influence of the non-equilibrium relative properties of the Mg-Zn binary equivalent in the alloy, a higher homogenization treatment temperature was set, and the Mg-Zn phase in the cast alloy could be judged to be completely eliminated by rapid water cooling after the treatment.
Comment 6: The low-magnitude SEM images in Fig. 7 are poorly visible. It should be changed.
Response: After the reviewer's suggestion, we have re-edited Figure 7 to ensure the clarity of the image.
Comment 7: In the Materials and Methods section, it was mentioned that in the Gleeble simulator all samples were deformed up to 50% while the stress-strain curves in Fig. 8 are up to 70%. Please, clarify this issue.
Response: In Gleeble simulator, the deformation parameter is set to 50%, which can be converted into strain value according to the formula (), and the converted result is ε=0.693.The formulae for calculating the relevant strain have been uploaded to the attachment.
Comment 8: Please, give more details of analysis of recrystallized grains fraction presented in Fig. 9 and Table 5.
Response: Fig. 9 and Table 5 of the manuscript show the results of calculating grain size and recrystallization area by using MIPAR image processing software. The microstructure of the alloy was analyzed by the MIPAR software through the following steps.
First, Pre-processing. This step is defined as any which serve to manipulate the raw pixel intensities, typically on the grayscale spectrum, in an effort to improve the accuracy of their eventual segmentation. Such steps include levels adjustments (i.e. brightness/contrast enhancement), noise-reduction filters, and FFT filtering for sectioning artifact removal.
Second, Segmentation. Segmentation is formally defined as the separation of data into disjoint regions. In the experiment, the Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr alloy can be segmented along the corrosion trace at the grain boundary in the microscopic image.
Finally, Quantification. Combining the segmented images in the above steps, we can extract features such as volume, surface area or diameter. The validity of calculation depends on the accuracy of data segmentation.
Comment 9: The details of Scheil-Gulliver model should be mentioned as well considering all necessary literature references. The red box in Fig. 10a is shifted.
Response: After receiving the review comments, we edited the marks in Figure 10a, and added the introduction of S-G model to the manuscript. The corresponding contents are marked in green in the manuscript.
Comment 10: At the end of section 3.4.1 Figure 11b should be mentioned instead of Figure 10b.
Response: We are very sorry for these mistakes in the manuscript. After receiving the reply, we carefully revised the mistakes mentioned. The manuscript was carefully checked to ensure that there were no similar mistakes.
Comment 11: Table 6 is not mentioned in the text at all.
Response: Table 6 shows the stress and strain corresponding to the minimum value in Figure 11. Table 6 has been described in the revised manuscript.
Comment 12: There are two black and two red lines/groups. I suppose that it refers to Mg-Zn-Ce alloys with 3 and 6 wt.% of Zn, it should be marked in the Figure.
Response: According to the modification suggestion, the curves in this paper have been marked.
Comment 13: It should be also marked in the Fig. 15 (for example by black arrow) that points refer to "Mass fraction of compound" / right axis.
Response: We have marked the picture according to the suggestion.
Comment 14: The conclusion (4) should be rephrased. It is not clear in this form.
Response: We rewrote conclusion (4) to make its meaning clearer.
Comment 15: Finally, numerous references were incorrectly introduced into the manuscript (for example references 9, 10, 11, 19, 22).
Response: We have revised the references mentioned.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper entitled “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” by Li et al. describes the effect of alloy composition on the amount of rare earth compounds was analyzed, and the effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase content on hot deformation microstructure and properties. The manuscript is well organized and contains promising data. I have some minor clarification before consideration for publication.
- 1- The authors do not use a standard template for the preparation of the manuscript.
- 2- Abbreviations should be mentioned complete the first time, please check throughout the manuscript.
- 3- The authors should add a clear hypothesis for the current study and refer to the novelty and the usage of the formed alloy.
- 4- Please add space between the units and numbers, such as “12mm” it should be “12 mm”, please check throughout the manuscript.
- 5- "3. Results and discussion” should be “3. Results”.
- 6- Please check the number of titles and subtitles throughout the manuscript.
- 7- The manuscript contains some typo errors, please revised the English editing carefully
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” (Article reference: materials-1763813).
We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers’ questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer. Some of the changes have been reflected in the revised draft, and the changes are marked in purple.
Response to the comments of Reviewer:
Comment 1: The authors do not use a standard template for the preparation of the manuscript.
Response: After receiving the comments, we searched for the standard format of the journal and re-edited the manuscript according to the standard format.
Comment 2: Abbreviations should be mentioned complete the first time, please check throughout the manuscript.
Response: According to the comments of reviewers, we marked the abbreviations used for the first time in this paper.
Comment 3: The authors should add a clear hypothesis for the current study and refer to the novelty and the usage of the formed alloy.
Response: We have carefully considered the reviewers' comments and refined the prerequisites for the paper's research. The revised content is placed in the last paragraph of the first part of the content.
Comment 4: Please add space between the units and numbers, such as “12mm” it should be “12 mm”, please check throughout the manuscript.
Response: We have corrected the issues involved in the manuscript and apologize for the errors.
Comment 5: "3. Results and discussion” should be “3. Results”.
Response: We have received suggestions and edited the manuscript according to the journal format, in which the results and discussion sections have been presented separately.
Comment 6: Please check the number of titles and subtitles throughout the manuscript.
Response: The problems in the title of the manuscript have been rewritten.
Comment 7: The manuscript contains some typo errors, please revised the English editing carefully.
Response: We are very sorry for the language problems in the manuscript and have made serious corrections.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Li et al.,
The manuscript “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” (materials-1763813) by Li et al. was obtained the mass fraction of (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase by low-temperature chemical phase separation technology, and the influence of alloy composition on the formation of (Mg, Zn)12Ce phase was discussed. The topic is interesting, but I think this article should reconsider after proper changes in major revision for publication in Materials. Some of my specific comments are below:
1. In the abstract section, the authors should add quantitative results rather than only qualitative results.
2. Describe the novelty of the article made by the author? From the results of my evaluation, it seems that many similar published works adequately explain what you have raised in the current manuscript. If there are something others really new in this manuscript, please highlight it more clearly in the introduction section.
3. The state of the art and the significance of the current study are not clearly present, the authors should highlight it more advanced in the introduction section.
4. In the introduction section, the authors should explain the previous research conducted and its shortcomings. It will uphold the research gap that you filled with your research novelty. I recommend the authors elaborate on their introduction section. Do not forget to attention carefully my previous comments on numbers 2 and 3.
5. Magnesium has widely used in the medical aspect for medical implant application, one of the is become fixation on acetabular cup component of total hip prosthesis. Please include this explanation in first sentence of the introduction section. Also, adopt the suggested references published by Materials, MDPI as follow:
Tresca Stress Simulation of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty during Normal Walking Activity. Materials (Basel). 2021, 14, 7554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247554
6. In the materials and methods section, the authors should add one systematic figure to illustrate the workflow of experimental testing in the present study to make the reader more interested and easier to understand rather than only using dominant text to explain.
7. Engineering drawing for experimental specimen is missing and should be provided in the Materials and Methods section.
8. The author must provide a detailed specification and use condition more detail regarding all tools used in the research carried out so that the reader can estimate the accuracy and differences in the results that the authors describe due to the use of different tools in future studies.
9. In the Results section, the authors are advised to compare the results they obtain with previous similar/identical studies if it is possible.
10. In the last paragraph before conclusion section, the authors should add of one paragraph about the limitations of the presented study.
11. The conclusion of the present manuscript is not solid. Further elaboration is needed. Also, make it intho paragraph, not point-by-point as in present form.
12. Further research needs to be explained in the conclusion section.
13. I see some errors on English in some areas of the present manuscript. To improve the quality of English used in this manuscript and make sure English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style are correct, further proofreading is needed. As an alternative, the authors can use the MDPI English proofreading service for this issue.
14. Please make sure the authors have used the Materials, MDPI format correctly. The authors can download published manuscripts by Materials, MDPI, and compare them with the present author's manuscript to ensure typesetting is appropriate. For example:
All of the authors email has not been given after affiliation information
Typesetting for text, figure, and table is not appropriate
And other
I am pleased to have been able to review the author's present manuscript. Hopefully, the author can revise the current manuscript as well as possible so that it becomes even better. Good luck for the author's work and effort.
Best regards,
The Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Effect of (Mg, Zn)12Ce Phase Content on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Mg-Zn-Ce-Zr Alloy” (Article reference: materials-1763813).
We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers’ questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer. Some of the changes have been reflected in the revised draft, and the changes are marked in blue.
Response to the comments of Reviewer:
Comment 1: In the abstract section, the authors should add quantitative results rather than only qualitative results.
Response: Based on the reviewers' comments, we have rewritten the abstract section of the manuscript to include specific experimental results.
Comment 2: Describe the novelty of the article made by the author? From the results of my evaluation, it seems that many similar published works adequately explain what you have raised in the current manuscript. If there are something others really new in this manuscript, please highlight it more clearly in the introduction section.
Response: According to the revision, we have rewritten the introduction section by adding the purpose and significance of the study in the second paragraph of the introduction section and describing the innovation of the study in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Comment 3: The state of the art and the significance of the current study are not clearly present, the authors should highlight it more advanced in the introduction section.
Response: According to the revision, we describe the innovation of the study in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Comment 4: In the introduction section, the authors should explain the previous research conducted and its shortcomings. It will uphold the research gap that you filled with your research novelty. I recommend the authors elaborate on their introduction section. Do not forget to attention carefully my previous comments on numbers 2 and 3.
Response: According to the revision, we describe the novelty of the article in terms of research methods and content in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Comment 5: Magnesium has widely used in the medical aspect for medical implant application, one of the is become fixation on acetabular cup component of total hip prosthesis. Please include this explanation in first sentence of the introduction section. Also, adopt the suggested references published by Materials, MDPI as follow: Tresca Stress Simulation of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty during Normal Walking Activity. Materials (Basel). 2021, 14, 7554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247554
Response: We have added the counterpart in the first paragraph of the introduction.
Comment 6: In the materials and methods section, the authors should add one systematic figure to illustrate the workflow of experimental testing in the present study to make the reader more interested and easier to understand rather than only using dominant text to explain.
Response: We have added a flow chart of the experimental procedure based on the comments, shown in Figure 1 in the manuscript.
Comment 7: Engineering drawing for experimental specimen is missing and should be provided in the Materials and Methods section.
Response: The processing diagram of the experimental specimens has been added to the experimental flow chart.
Comment 8: The author must provide a detailed specification and use condition more detail regarding all tools used in the research carried out so that the reader can estimate the accuracy and differences in the results that the authors describe due to the use of different tools in future studies.
Response: According to the review comments, we have provided a detailed description of the reagents used in the phase separation method and the role they play, the reaction conditions and time, and the separation method.
Comment 9: In the Results section, the authors are advised to compare the results they obtain with previous similar/identical studies if it is possible.
Response: After receiving the review comments, we carefully searched for similar research results, but did not find informative conclusions. Since the chemical phase separation method for magnesium alloys is the first of its kind for our team, there is a lack of similar/identical studies for comparison. We have included in the paper the number of compounds counted using images. It is hoped that the results of the two analytical methods will be compared and validated.
Comment 10: In the last paragraph before conclusion section, the authors should add of one paragraph about the limitations of the presented study.
Response: After receiving the suggestion, we have included the study limitations at the end of the manuscript.
Comment 11: The conclusion of the present manuscript is not solid. Further elaboration is needed. Also, make it intho paragraph, not point-by-point as in present form.
Response: After receiving comments, we have rewritten the conclusion section in the hope of presenting the results of the study in more detail. We also revised the conclusion into 3 paragraphs.
Comment 12: Further research needs to be explained in the conclusion section.
Response: We have placed this part in the final paragraph in the rewrite of the conclusion.
Comment 13: I see some errors on English in some areas of the present manuscript. To improve the quality of English used in this manuscript and make sure English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style are correct, further proofreading is needed. As an alternative, the authors can use the MDPI English proofreading service for this issue.
Response: We apologize for the many linguistic errors, and we will revise the entire text to try to avoid similar problems. We will also revise the formatting with reference to that in the journal.
Comment 14: Please make sure the authors have used the Materials, MDPI format correctly. The authors can download published manuscripts by Materials, MDPI, and compare them with the present author's manuscript to ensure typesetting is appropriate. For example:
All of the authors email has not been given after affiliation information
Typesetting for text, figure, and table is not appropriate
And other
Response: The formatting of the manuscript will be carefully revised to meet the requirements of the journal.
We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have answered all the comments satisfactorily and paper can be accepted in present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
All remarks and issues have been explained carefully by Authors and all required changes have been included in the revised manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has been revised well. Good job.
