Radiation Shielding Enhancement of Polyester Adding Artificial Marble Materials and WO3 Nanoparticles
, Z. F. Ghataas 1, A. A. Abdel-Halim 2, R. Hisam 3,*, A. Z. Shah 4, M. I. Sayyed 5,6, S. Yasmin 7 and M. Elsafi 8
Zeynep Güven Özdemir
Bünyamin Aygün
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors verified the shielding effect using nano-tungsten-based waste marble.
The author should clearly present the specific experimental method in spatial composition and numerically compare the energy range of the radioactive material used. The present presentation is distracting, and Figure 3 in particular needs to be redrawn to aid the reader's understanding.
The physical characteristics of the manufactured sample should be added, and the manufacturing process should be presented in detail.
A specific explanation of the difference between the value presented in the software and the method actually calculated should be added (Figure 4).
A detailed explanation of the rationale, references, and official terms of RPE is required.
By providing the shielding performance and shielding rate according to the distance of radioactive isotopes, the actual effect should be presented in comparison with existing studies.
The expected effects on the hypotheses claimed by the authors and the main research goals should be summarized and presented.
The meaning of Figure 10 should be presented in detail and questions about the actual shielding effectiveness should be resolved.
The overall composition is excellent, but it is difficult to understand because the description of the validity of the experimental conditions is insufficient.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Since extremely long sentences are used in the text, the reader has difficulty understanding what the authors want to say. An example of these is given below:
“Among the usually used radiation shielding materials - concrete, HC, compact soil, iron, lead, and water [5]; lead has been thought greatest though having heavyweight and toxicity [6], despite the fact that concrete provides structural and functional properties with few drawbacks for instance creation of cracks for continued radiation exposure [7].”
For this reason, I think that the text should be revised in terms of language.
2) I think the study would be better if there was also a sample that did not contain any PbCO3, that is, non-toxic. Because, current studies has turned to the search for environmentally friendly materials that can shield ionizing radiation.
3) Are WO3 micro-and nano-particles commercially available? If so, the necessary company and code information should also be given.
4) WO3 was not written correctly in most of the text. “3” is subscript.
5) In Figure 5, the y-axis for the S4 sample should be rescaled so that the LAC value of the nanoparticle-doped composite at 0.0595 MeV can be read comfortably.
6) The authors did not feel the need to compare the LAC, HVL, and MFP values they determined for their samples with composites or conventional materials with similar content in the scientific literature. However, this is important in terms of showing which materials they produce can currently compete with.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author;
The article was checked according to my comments suggests.
In this study, The radiation shielding abilities of waste marbles with different concentrations of WO3 22 (tungsten oxide) nanoparticles were investigated. I recommend this work for publication. Nonetheless, I recommend several minor changes to the manuscript, as attached below.
1.) Tungsten oxide have density, 7.16 g/cm ; these density is very high, so didn't it sink to the bottom? How solved these condition can you explain in the text.
2.) Which reference sample did you compare it to to see if this material absorbs gamma and X-rays well?
3.) Why does the radiation-absorbing ability of the samples increase as the WO3 size decreases? Can you explain in the text?
Sincerely,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors represented the radiation shielding abilities of waste marbles with different concentration of Tungsten oxide particles. The working performance of the composites was tested based on several factors of linear attenuation coefficient (LAC), half value layers (HVL), mean free paths (MFP) and the Zeff. The working topic is suitable with point of view from sustainable aspect where the waste marble samples were treated to be radiation shielding materials. However, I found some points which need to be revised carefully for better understanding for potential readers. Please check the comments below.
1. The explanation on the difference on LAC of marble sample, on nano-WO3 and micro-WO3, is not sufficient. I did not see the much gap between LAC of 2.771 cm-1 and 2.871 cm-1. What is the specific relative change in the value of LAC and the real shielding ability of the samples? How the size of particle effect on the LAC value? Please clarify in detail. Simple providing the references is not enough.
2. In figure 6, why the adding higher amount of particles of WO3 improve the attenuation performance?
3. The morphology (SEM images) on the artificial marbles based-polyester and WO3 for the series samples from S1 to S4 need to be provided for the detail nano-structural composites. The photographs are not sufficient.
4. The table of comparison on the performance efficiency to reported literature should be added to emphasize the advantage of materials.
5. Please recheck the typos and error in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It is free to publish as it is now.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors improved the manuscript with suitable answers. I have no further comments.
