Next Article in Journal
A Bibliometric Analysis in Industry 4.0 and Advanced Manufacturing: What about the Sustainable Supply Chain?
Previous Article in Journal
Global Importance of Indigenous and Local Communities’ Managed Lands: Building a Case for Stewardship Schemes
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Development of a Composite from TPS–EVOH–SBR Reinforced with Coconut Fiber

Sustainability 2020, 12(19), 7838; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197838
by Jonathan Meráz-Rivera 1, Lidilia Cruz-Rivero 1,*, María Leonor Méndez-Hernández 1, José Luis Rivera-Armenta 2, Daniel Angeles-Herrera 1 and Citlally Ramírez-López 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(19), 7838; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197838
Submission received: 14 August 2020 / Revised: 15 September 2020 / Accepted: 15 September 2020 / Published: 23 September 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is modern and deserves attention, but presentation of results is pure.

Preparation part should be described in more detailes. The modes of FTIR should be noted in the graphs. The graph design should be corrected (large area belong to legend in current graphs).

Language should be corrected. Long sencences makes the text difficult to read.

Author Response

All suggested changes have been marked in the text

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript entitled "Development of a partially biodegradable material from coconut fiber and ATP - EVOH - SBR" need improvement before publishing in Sustainability journal.

 

Manuscript is difficult to review and identify localisation of errors and suggestion places. Authors they didn't put the text line numbers.

 

Title of manuscript need correction. Coconut fiber consist only from 4.73 to 12.91% of mixture and partially biodegradable material developed mostly from SBR or ATP-EVOH components (table 1). Coconut is a complementary not basic material.

 

Introduction is the longest chapter of the study. Authors mostly use sentence equivalents and the introduction chapter loses its uniform character and does not introduce the reader to the topics of manuscript. Suggestion rewrite and shorten this part.

 

Many references in the text need correction. Authors they often provide name of full author's team. For example, at page 2 - 4 times wrong citation, at page 3 - 5 times wrong citation. Similar on the following pages.

 

Absorption value and other units need correction. Instead -1 should be -1 in superscript. For example, at page 2 correction on 15 times  should be made and at page 3 as many as 28 changes. Similar number of corrections on the following pages.

 

No space between degree symbol and C. Instead 10 ° C please write 10 °C.

 

Uniform symbols. At sub chapter 2.3. For thermoplastic starch used TS and few lines below ATP. SBR does mean styrene-butadiene, while in table 1 Authors used abbreviation SB (synthetic rubber). 

 

Change units in table 1. Mass denote g not Gr.

 

Figure 1 need additional explanation. How the number of relationships was determined (column 1). Please explain mark meaning used in figure 1. Figure need also citation in references list and figure title.

 

Inventive principles selected based on what f.ex. Authors principles list? If yes, please include a list in manuscript. Please explain what does mean numbers of suggested principles. Inventive principles has basic meaning for partially biodegradable mixture creation. 

 

Wrong chemical compound record (instead CH2 write CH2 instead O-CH3 correct on O-CH3).

 

Figure 6. Description of axis "y" it is invisible.

 

Correct mixture 1 at figure 7 title. Instead fc used FC.

Author Response

All suggested changes have been marked in the text

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, check page 7, strange lines appear at the top of the page.

May be would be better to divide FTIR into two graphs (show the important rages), it not possible to see the separate peaks.

Author Response

FTIR Graphs have been modified, and the lines in the document have been deleted (you can see it in pages 3, 4 and 5).

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors changes most suggested proposal. My opinion still not answered on to suggestion proposal:

"Figure 1 need additional explanation. How the number of relationships was determined (column 1). Please explain mark meaning used in figure 1." Only citation references was added.

 

Inventive principles (included at table 2) selected based on what f.ex. Authors principles list? If yes, please include a list in manuscript. Please explain what does mean numbers of suggested principles. Inventive principles has basic meaning for partially biodegradable mixture creation. 

 

Author Response

The explanation has been made in the document and has been marked in red color

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop