Limits of Performance of Polyurethane Blowing Agents
, Ahmed A. Ayash 3, Arnold A. Lubguban 4, Roberto M. Malaluan 4 and Tushar Ghosh 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented work in this manuscript is academically sound, builds on the previously published work and is of high quality overall. I would suggest following minor revisions prior to publishing
1) Previous work by the same authors is referenced in the introduction section (lines 104 to 108). Lines 109 to 112 attempt to describe what is different between previous study and the current work. But it is not very clear to me if the same MATLAB code from the previous publication was used for the current work, or if there were any updates made. Please rewrite that paragraph to make the source of the MATLAB codes clear to the reader. If any modifications were made, please describe them in detail.
2) Figure 7 is very difficult to follow due to many overlapping lines. If possible, either make use of different colors, or use different plots to distinguish the performance windows for each blowing agent.
3) Minor spell checks/corrections needed: Line 89 (most important? physical properties); lines 254 and 256 (format instead of formate)
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. Please find below the answers to the comments.
1) Previous work by the same authors is referenced in the introduction section (lines 104 to 108). Lines 109 to 112 attempt to describe what is different between previous study and the current work. But it is not very clear to me if the same MATLAB code from the previous publication was used for the current work, or if there were any updates made. Please rewrite that paragraph to make the source of the MATLAB codes clear to the reader. If any modifications were made, please describe them in detail.
Answer: The current research was developed from the previous MATLAB program. A modification was made to the blowing agent function to include the impact of the new blowing agent approach.
2) Figure 7 is very difficult to follow due to many overlapping lines. If possible, either make use of different colors, or use different plots to distinguish the performance windows for each blowing agent.
Answer: Figure 7 is revised with colors.
3) Minor spell checks/corrections needed: Line 89 (most important? physical properties); lines 254 and 256 (format instead of formate)
Answer: “Methyl formate” is commonly used in literature. We use them in th current research. Also, the manuscript is checked for other misspellings.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current article “Limits of Performance of Polyurethane Blowing Agent s
’Limits of Performance of Polyurethane Blowing Agents This article can be accepted after major corrections.
Comments
Author did not mentioned amount of Voranol360 in experimental section
Which criteria used for the selection amount of PMDI
In Table 4 mention the Voranol360 amount.
Viscosity unit must be present in Figure 7 and 8.
Mention the full form of BA in Figure 7 and 8
Author mentioned the more literature about PU like e-Polymers 2022; 22: 190–202, https://doi.org/10.1515/epoly-2022-0021 and others.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 2
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. Please find below the answers to the comments.
Author did not mentioned amount of Voranol360 in experimental section.
Answer: A 45 g of Voranol 360 was utilized. The amount was added to the manuscript.
Which criteria were used for the selected amount of PMDI
Answer: a 1.1 isocyanate index was adopted in the current research.
In Table 4 mention the Voranol360 amount.
Answer: The amount of Voranol 360 is mentioned in the Experimental section.
Viscosity unit must be present in Figure 7 and 8.
Answer: The viscosity units were added for both figures.
Mention the full form of BA in Figure 7 and 8
Answer: all the blowing agents were in the liquid phase.
Author mentioned the more literature about PU like e-Polymers 2022; 22: 190–202, https://doi.org/10.1515/epoly-2022-0021 and others.
Answer: The above research uses urethane as coatings, while the current research is for rigid PU for insulating purposes. We prefer not to add this literature.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I studied your manuscript entitled "Limits of Performance of Polyurethane Blowing Agents". Some spaces need to be improved in terms of journal quality. I recommend a minor revision before further consideration for publication in the Sustainability.
1) The quality of the abstract and conclusion should be enhanced by the inclusion of significant research findings. More quantitative information in these sections would be beneficial.
2) This manuscript has a phenomenological style, observing a result and explaining it with statements. It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research.
3) It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research. For example, the morphology of the samples should be characterized by SEM.
4) English language needs some polishing since some terms are vague. The paper's title is also recommended to be revised.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. Please find below the answers to the comments.
1) The quality of the abstract and conclusion should be enhanced by the inclusion of significant research findings. More quantitative information in these sections would be beneficial.
Answer: a sentence was added to incluse the inclusion of significant research findings.
2) This manuscript has a phenomenological style, observing a result and explaining it with statements. It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research.
Answer: Review to previous literare were presented, however, the current research provide a noval tool that was not been foucused on previous research before.
3) It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research. For example, the morphology of the samples should be characterized by SEM.
Answer: This kind of analysis was previously performed in our previous publicatiosn. Refereces 25, 29, and 34 provides details of the analysis of the PU form morphology with SEM images.
4) English language needs some polishing since some terms are vague. The paper's title is also recommended to be revised.
Answer: Many grammatical errors were corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors developed a computer simulation program to investigate the limits of the performance of polyurethane foam formation when using physical blowing agents, such as n-pentane, cyclohexane, and methyl formate, as well as chemical blowing agents like water. They have employed experimental data, including temperature profiles, height profiles, and the tack-free time of urethane foam reactions, to compare with and validate the simulation results from the program. In general, the manuscript is well-organized and presented in a very logical manner. I would recommend it for publication in Sustainability after addressing the following concerns:
1. The authors reported that they have developed a Matlab program to simulate polyurethane foaming reactions. However, they only mentioned the FoamSim Matlab program and several parameters in Table 1 and Table 2. The actual source code of the program is not disclosed/published. It is uncertain whether the simulation program works as it is claimed to be, unless the program is tested by other researchers. At a bare minimum, the authors need to show the general reader how to access the program.
2. It is reasonable to assume the height of the polyurethane foam is related to its density. Increasing the feed ratio of the blowing agent would generally increase the foam height. What range of height is considered good and not resulting in failure during the foaming simulation process?
3. There are several grammar errors / misspellings in the manuscript. To name a few:
i). "Because they are two expensive," (Page 2, Line 78), the word "two" is not appropriate here.
ii). "The produced foam is 400 to 800 kg/m3..." (Page 2, Line 80), the number "3" should be superscripted in the unit "kg/m3".
iii). "Density, g cm3" in Table 3 is not right. One correct way of writing this would be "g/cm3".
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3
We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. Please find below the answers to the comments.
1) The quality of the abstract and conclusion should be enhanced by the inclusion of significant research findings. More quantitative information in these sections would be beneficial.
Answer: a sentence was added to incluse the inclusion of significant research findings.
2) This manuscript has a phenomenological style, observing a result and explaining it with statements. It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research.
Answer: Review to previous literare were presented, however, the current research provide a noval tool that was not been foucused on previous research before.
3) It would be helpful if you conducted more analysis based on published research. For example, the morphology of the samples should be characterized by SEM.
Answer: This kind of analysis was previously performed in our previous publicatiosn. Refereces 25, 29, and 34 provides details of the analysis of the PU form morphology with SEM images.
4) English language needs some polishing since some terms are vague. The paper's title is also recommended to be revised.
Answer: Many grammatical errors were corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
