Novel Sustainable Castor Oil-Based Polyurethane Biocomposites Reinforced with Piassava Fiber Powder Waste for High-Performance Coating Floor
, Felipe Perissé Duarte Lopes 1, Sergio Neves Monteiro 1,2 and Carlos MaurÃcio Fontes Vieira 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
‘ Worldwide, inmost different kinds of activities, coatings..’: please correct it, this is wrong (the construction of a sentence is generally in the passive form, and times and places are possibly at the end of the sentence)
‘ as the name suggests’: delete it, it is not scientific writing
‘ Indeed, in addition to strength, they’: idem, it should be reviewed
‘ all they life cycle’: their..
.. and there are several more English grammar errors, thus, please review accordingly.
Materials and methods
‘To be used as reinforcement material in HPC the..’: again, it is not correct to start in this way the sentence.
‘determined by the standard [10]’: please rather use ‘in accordance with XXX (name the standard) [10]
‘The first characterization was conducted, on the as-received piassava fiber residue 117 and then on the reinforced biocomposite. A more detailed list of methods is presented as 118 follows with the detailed for preparation and characterization of the investigated materi-119 als. 120’: please erase this sentence, it is not necessary.
‘For this,’: it is not correct to start in this way the sentence
Results and discussion: just use ‘Results’
Fig. 3 and 4: please reduce the font size of the axis titles
It would be interesting to insert a picture (macro or by optical microscope) of the biocomposite, to provide a better understanding (and evaluation of the surface and aesthetic properties) to the reader
Fig. 1: is the piassava fiber hydrophobic or hydrophilic? Please argue accordingly, using eventually bibliographical references. This point might be important for its durability and biosusceptibility.
3.3. Flexural strength
‘bubble’: those are rather air voids, please correct accordingly, are those forming for a defect in the moulding? Can this drawback be fixed? Please discuss it accordingly.
I’m expecting that, by reducing the binder (COPU) and increasing the inert (fibres, PFP) the plasticity, shrinkage and deformation of the composite would increase. On the other hand, there is reduction of the impact and notch resistance, and also the wear resistance decrease with the addition of PFP.
Please also discuss this part and look for adequate references to support your conclusions.
How the mechanical properties of the biocomposite, for application as high performance coating floor, can be improved? Which additive (synthetic or natural) can be used to increase the performance of the composite?
Overall analysis and final discussions: please just use ‘Discussion’
In this part, the previous comment (how to increase the properties) can be included.
‘COPU resin used in this study is biodegradable’: how about its bioreceptivity and biosusceptibility? Please argue accordingly, is it possible mould growth on this biocomposite? I’m expecting so. Eventually, propose some biocide or natural antibacterial additive as solution for this probable drawback.
Summary and Conclusions: just use Conclusions
The English grammar should be reviewed accordingly. there are several grammar and syntax error.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions on the structure and scientific aspects that contribute to improve the manuscript. Amendments are provided accordingly. Responses to each comment are listed below and all modifications/additions were marked as Track Changes in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer #1:
Introduction
Comment (1): “‘Worldwide, inmost different kinds of activities, coatings.’ please correct it, this is wrong (the construction of a sentence is generally in the passive form, and times and places are possibly at the end of the sentence)”.
Response: Corrected, as recommended. “In different kinds of activities, coatings are worldwide used to protect structures, goods and packaging from the aggressiveness of the environment mostly by providing special characteristic to the associated material.”
Comment (2): “‘as the name suggests’: delete it, it is not scientific writing”.
Response: Deleted as recommended.
Comment (3): “‘Indeed, in addition to strength, they’: idem, it should be reviewed”.
Response: Complied. “These coatings must have particular characteristics, in addition to mechanical resistance to ensure good protection against corrosion, or to avoid the occurrence of cracks and fissures among other anomalies [1, 2]”.
Comment (4): “‘all they life cycle’: their…”
Response: Corrected
Comment (5): “and there are several more English grammar errors, thus, please review accordingly.”
Response: English grammar errors and typos found in the Introduction are now corrected in the revised version.
Materials and Methods
Comment (6): “‘To be used as reinforcement material in HPC the.’: again, it is not correct to start in this way the sentence.”
Response: Complied, as indicated.
Comment (7): “‘determined by the standard [10]’: please rather use ‘in accordance with XXX (name the standard) [10]”
Response: Modified, as recommended.
Comment (8): “‘The first characterization was conducted, on the as-received piassava fiber residue and then on the reinforced biocomposite. A more detailed list of methods is presented as follows with the detailed for preparation and characterization of the investigated materials.’: please erase this sentence, it is not necessary.”
Response: The full sentence was erased, as recommended.
Comment (9): “‘For this,’: it is not correct to start in this way the sentence”
Response: Complied, as recommended.
Results and discussion
Comment (10): “Just use ‘Results’”
Response: Complied, “and discussion” is now deleted.
Comment (11): “Fig. 3 and 4: please reduce the font size of the axis titles”
Response: Font size of the axis titles reduced, as reduced.
Comment (12): It would be interesting to insert a picture (macro or by optical microscope) of the biocomposite, to provide a better understanding (and evaluation of the surface and aesthetic properties) to the reader
Response: A new picture of the biocomposite was inserted on the “2.2” section in the new version, with indication of surface and aesthetic properties.
Comment (13): “Fig. 1: is the piassava fiber hydrophobic or hydrophilic? Please argue accordingly, using eventually bibliographical references. This point might be important for its durability and biosusceptibility.”
Response: As any natural lignocellulosic fiber, the piassava fiber is hydrophilic. This is now emphasized and discussed in the revise version regarding piassava fiber durability and biosusceptibility. New references were added to support the new discussion.
3.3. Flexural strength
Comment (14): “‘bubble’: those are rather air voids, please correct accordingly, are those forming for a defect in the moulding? Can this drawback be fixed? Please discuss it accordingly.”
Response: The nature and formation of bubbles shown in Fig. 6 are discussed with more details in the revised version. In particular, it is proposed an explanation for the bobbles formation.
Comment (15): “I’m expecting that, by reducing the binder (COPU) and increasing the inert (fibres, PFP) the plasticity, shrinkage and deformation of the composite would increase. On the other hand, there is reduction of the impact and notch resistance, and also the wear resistance decrease with the addition of PFP.”
Response: The reviewer is right regarding the increase in plasticity, shrinkage and deformation of the biocomposites with increasing amounts of piassava fiber. As for the impact and notch resistance, their values are within the statistical precision. This is now the subject of a deeper discussion in the revised version together with an explanation for the reduction in wear resistance based on defects associated with the weak COPU/piassava fiber interface.
Comment (16): “Please also discuss this part and look for adequate references to support your conclusions.”
Response: As requested, in addition to a deeper discussion, new references are quoted to support the reduction on biocomposites impact, notch and wear resistance.
Comment (17): How the mechanical properties of the biocomposite, for application as high performance coating floor, can be improved? Which additive (synthetic or natural) can be used to increase the performance of the composite?
Response: This is an important question that is now motivating additional information on the improvement of the biocomposite performance for application as coating floor.
Overall analysis and final discussions
Comment (18): “Overall analysis and final discussions: please just use ‘Discussion’”
Response: Complied, as recommended
Comment (19): “In this part, the previous comment (how to increase the properties) can be included.”
Response: As suggested, the possibility of improving the biocomposite with additive is also included in the “Discussion”.
Comment (20): “‘COPU resin used in this study is biodegradable’: how about its bioreceptivity and biosusceptibility? Please argue accordingly, is it possible mould growth on this biocomposite? I’m expecting so. Eventually, propose some biocide or natural antibacterial additive as solution for this probable drawback.”
Response: The reviewer raised an interesting question: It is possible to have mold growth in a biodegradable biocomposite? This is now answered on line with the need to apply biocide or antibacterial additive.
Summary and Conclusions
Comment (21): “Summary and Conclusions: just use Conclusions”
Response: Complied, “Summary and” is deleted in the revised version.
Comment (22): “The English grammar should be reviewed accordingly. there are several grammar and syntax error.”
Response: A thorough English revision was performed with the assistance of language expert.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study authors prepared castor oil based polyurethane biocomposites reinforced with piassava fiber powder for high performance coating floor. I recommend this paper for publication but urge the authors to consider the following points seriously during the revision.
- There are any gramatic and formatting mistakes through out the manuscript. please read it thoroughly.
- Identify the problem through literature review. Introduction is not scientifically reward to readers/research groups in this direction.
- Aim and objectives of the work are also not clearly mentioned in the present paper. Authors should explain what new and original this paper has to offer beyond to the already existing in the literature.
- In Figure 1, spellings if y-axis legend is incorrect. And its x-axis legend should be changed with wave number. Same corrections needed in Figure 2 but the unit of y-axis legend should be a.u.
- Please add some latest relavant references of respective journal.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions on the structure and scientific aspects that contribute to improve the manuscript. Amendments are provided accordingly. Responses to each comment are listed below and all modifications/additions were marked as Track Changes in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer #2:
General Comment: “In this study authors prepared castor oil based polyurethane biocomposites reinforced with piassava fiber powder for high performance coating floor. I recommend this paper for publication but urge the authors to consider the following points seriously during the revision.”
Response: The authors are thankful to the general appreciation of our work. All indicated points were seriously considered in the new revised version.
Comment (1): “There are any gramatic and formatting mistakes through out the manuscript. please read it thoroughly.”
Response: A thorough English revision was performed with the assistance of language expert.
Comment (2): Identify the problem through literature review. Introduction is not scientifically reward to readers/research groups in this direction.
Response: As recommended, the references for novel biocomposites for high performance coating floor is now identified based on supporting literature review. A more scientific approach is conducted in the Introduction.
Comment (3): “Aim and objectives of the work are also not clearly mentioned in the present paper. Authors should explain what new and original this paper has to offer beyond to the already existing in the literature.”
Response: The authors agree that the work’s objectives are not clear. The revised version not only clarify on objectives but also emphasize the novelty and originality of our work.
Comment (4): “In Figure 1, spellings if y-axis legend is incorrect. And its x-axis legend should be changed with wave number. Same corrections needed in Figure 2 but the unit of y-axis legend should be a.u.”
Response: The authors believe that the reviewer was talking about Figures 3 and 4 and, as indicated, corrections were done in the axes legends of Figures 1 and 2.
Comment (5): “Please add some latest relevant references of respective journal.”
Response: As required, latest relevant references in major related journals are quoted and discussed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present manuscript entitled “Novel Sustainable Castor Oil-Based Polyurethane Biocomposites Reinforced With Piassava Fiber Powder Residue for High Performance Coating Floor” Juliana Peixoto Rufino Gazem de Carvalho et al., describe the biocomposite using castor oil-based polyurethane (COPU) reinforced with natural lignocellulosic piassava fiber powder (PFP) obtained as a broom factory residue to be applied as high performance coating floor (HPF). Furthermore, by comparing the impact behavior together with the good abrasive wear resistance along with the flexural results, it is possible to conclude that this novel biocomposite can be applied as HPF. It is a well-organized article and lacks of major errors. The article is well-written; I recommend acceptance in the Sustainability, providing that the following minor revisions are addressed:
Comment 1: There are so many typographical errors in the manuscript text, so authors need to correct them in the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: The abstract is poorly written, should be edited. It must summarize well the obtained results.
Comment 3: In the introduction section add some recent literature to strengthen the section.
Comment 4: Figure 3 and Figure 4 X-axis should be Wavenumber (Cm-1)
Comment 5: In the whole manuscript the authors must be taken care of the superscripts and subscripts and abbreviations, particularly in Section 3.2.
Comment 6: Section 3.3. Flexural strength analysis should be discussing better their results with some more references to prepare a better results discussion.
Comment 7: The Conclusions section should be shortened.
Comment 8: Reference style is not uniformly maintained so correct it and maintain the uniformity.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions on the structure and scientific aspects that contribute to improve the manuscript. Amendments are provided accordingly. Responses to each comment are listed below and all modifications/additions were marked as Track Changes in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer #3:
General Comment: “The present manuscript entitled “Novel Sustainable Castor Oil-Based Polyurethane Biocomposites Reinforced With Piassava Fiber Powder Residue for High Performance Coating Floor” Juliana Peixoto Rufino Gazem de Carvalho et al., describe the biocomposite using castor oil-based polyurethane (COPU) reinforced with natural lignocellulosic piassava fiber powder (PFP) obtained as a broom factory residue to be applied as high performance coating floor (HPF). Furthermore, by comparing the impact behavior together with the good abrasive wear resistance along with the flexural results, it is possible to conclude that this novel biocomposite can be applied as HPF. It is a well-organized article and lacks of major errors. The article is well-written; I recommend acceptance in the Sustainability, providing that the following minor revisions are addressed:”
Response: The authors thank the kind words of recognition to our work. We addressed all recommended revisions.
Comment (1): “There are so many typographical errors in the manuscript text, so authors need to correct them in the revised manuscript.”
Response: A thorough English revision was performed with the assistance of language expert.
Comment (2): “The abstract is poorly written, should be edited. It must summarize well the obtained results.”
Response: A new improved edition of the Abstract provides a better summary of obtained results
Comment (3): “In the introduction section add some recent literature to strengthen the section.”
Response: As recommended, relevant recent literature are now added and discussed regarding the subjected of our manuscript
Comment (4): Figure 3 and Figure 4 X-axis should be Wavenumber (Cm-1)
Response: Complied, x-axes in Figure 3 and 4 now showing “Wavenumber (cm-1)”
Comment (5): “In the whole manuscript the authors must be taken care of the superscripts and subscripts and abbreviations, particularly in Section 3.2.”
Response: As indicated, superscripts and subscripts as well as abbreviations are revised throughout the text and particularly in section 3.2.
Comment (6): “Section 3.3. Flexural strength analysis should be discussing better their results with some more references to prepare a better results discussion.”
Response: As recommended, the results of flexural strength analysis in section 3 are better discussed with the support of recent references in the new revised version.
Comment (7): “The Conclusions section should be shortened.”
Response: As requested, the text of the conclusion section was shortened to the essentials
Comment (8): “Reference style is not uniformly maintained so correct it and maintain the uniformity.”
Response: We apologize for the non-uniformity of the references, which are now corrected following the Sustainability guidelines
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper was sensibly improved, also underlying possible aspects that can be improved in the composite, thus I recommend it for publication.
Author Response
Comment: “The paper was sensibly improved, also underlying possible aspects that can be improved in the composite, thus I recommend it for publication.”
Response: The author would like to thank again Reviewer #1 for all previous suggestion to improve our work and for the recommendation for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study authors improved this paper, but still needs some changes:
In Figure 4, spelling of legend of y-axis should be corrected. Correct the spelling of transmittance.
The legend of x-axis should be wavenumber rather than wavelength.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the Reviewer #2 for all previous suggestion to improve our work.
General Comment: “In this study authors improved this paper, but still needs some changes:
Response: The authors are thankful regarding the recognition of the changes already made. The new modifications were made accordingly.
Comment (1): “In Figure 4, spelling of legend of y-axis should be corrected. Correct the spelling of transmittance.”
Comment (2): “The legend of x-axis should be wavenumber rather than wavelength.”
Response: Complied. As recommended, both x and y axis of figure 4 legend are now corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
