Preparation of Sr2CeZrO6 Refractory and Its Interaction with TiAl Alloy
and Chonghe Li 2,3,4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle : Preparation of Sr2CeZrO6 refractory and its interaction with TiAl alloy
Review: The paper seems to deal with creating a new refractory to improvise TiAl alloy manufacturing process. Though the goal may be interesting but the paper needs much improvisation before acceptable in this journal. Key points for improvisation:
1. Why the introduction starts with Ti-Al alloy, thought the emphasis was on oxides, if it is otherwise abstract need to be modified similarly.
2. XRD has been shown but the XRD of all the constituent oxide need to be shown.
3. Why the specific ration of the constituent oxides are chosen need to be explained.
4. Control experiments need to be carried out to rationale the mechanism.
5. If control experiments is unavailable one should try using first principle calculations.
6. There is no XPS to show the nature of intercation between the TiAl and the oxide.
7. the SEM picture resolution to be improved a more visible picture for the spots to be shown.
8. One need to explain how EDS samples are taken for the spots
9. No phase diagrams are shown, nor the phase behavior is understood from the XRD.
10. We do not see a annealing study to see the impact of temperature cycle on the crucible.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Preparation of Sr2CeZrO6refractory and its interaction with TiAl alloy" has been reviewed. It deals with a cold isostatic pressing and solid state synthesis of refractory and its interaction with TiAl alloy melt.
The experimental work is interesting and well organized with SEM, BSE, EDS and XRD experimental techniques. The interaction between alloy and crucible has been characterized.
The manuscript is clear, well organized and supported by the results. English is almost fine.
In my opinion it can be accepted after the following minor revisions:
X axis, fig. 2: Theta (not THEATA);
Fig. 6 d): font size must be bigger to increase readability;
Table 3: please check composition (line 1 sum is 110%, line 2 sum is 98,4 %);
Fig. 8. It is not clear where relationships DeltaG vs T are taken from. Please specify;
After that the manuscript can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is almost fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies the production of strontium-cesium-zirconium-based refractory crucibles with a solid state reaction and investigates interactions with melt TiAl alloy in investment casting. This is a straightforward, good experimental paper. I have only few minor comments:
Introduction gives shortly some background information and lists some important references before the definition of the research problem. At the end of Introduction, the authors name barium carbonate as one raw material for the crucibles. I guess they mean strontium carbonate.
How reliable are the results? How many repetitions were carried out? The authors speak (in Section 2) about “crucibles”, but do not clearly tell, how extensive experimental material they had available.
Some panels in Fig. 7 are impossible to read. These panels (Fig. 7 (c-i) have not been commented too much in the text. Are they necessary at all?
Conclusions need some comments on the practical meaning of the results and a couple of sentences about the further research needed.
The language of the paper is mainly good and readable. I found some errors:
line 41: these refractory materials
54: materials such as Sr-Zr oxides exhibit
96-7: the crucible biscuits were
124: It can be seen
174: with high chemical activity
192-3: the grain boundaries had disappeared
206: From Fig.7a
229: to the high chemical activity
230: to the generation of
253-4: The products were generated
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOK.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review report has been removed from the review record as it did not meet MDPI’s review report standards (https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers#_bookmark11).
Author Response
NA
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has updated according to my suggestions.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagethis looks good to me
