A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural-Fiber-Reinforced Polymers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review seemed to me very interesting and relevant.
Fiber-reinforced polymer composites are an interesting and important object of research.
The work is well written and fully gives a representation of the area and the object is characterized well.
The pictures and illustrations are perfectly executed and well chosen.
The review is well structured.
The conclusion corresponds to the work.
I recommend expanding the list of references to at least 100 references, using sources no later than 2018.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This review seemed to me very interesting and relevant.
Fiber-reinforced polymer composites are an interesting and important object of research.
The work is well written and fully gives a representation of the area and the object is characterized well.
The pictures and illustrations are perfectly executed and well chosen.
The review is well structured.
The conclusion corresponds to the work.
I recommend expanding the list of references to at least 100 references, using sources no later than 2018.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
We appreciate your thoughtful and positive feedback regarding our article. We have made substantial revisions, expanding the references to 93 and incorporating the latest works. Thank you for your input.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors of the review article "A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers", at present, in my opinion, the work requires substantial revision. The authors have taken a very relevant topic of transition to "green technologies". The work is well written and structured although I think it has a number of shortcomings which I will write about in the future. The basic aspects are described very well and in detail, which should allow the reader to better understand the essence of the problem. However, I would like to point out that in my understanding a review of this type should focus much more on modern modification processes and techniques and the results obtained. A good example is the section line 211-220 in which only 2 papers on thermosetting matrices are considered. It also remains a mystery to me why basalt fibre is missing from Table 1. Besides, an important nuance when working with fibres, especially unidirectional fibres, is the homogeneity of their properties and if with synthetic fibres these are well known values, then for bio-degradable fibres this question remains open. An important nuance that determines the possibility of using bio-degradable composites is their strength values, in this regard I would like to see tables comparing the characteristics of bio-degradable composites with existing analogues.
In my opinion, the work should be substantially expanded in the given directions and then reviewed again.
Author Response
Dear authors of the review article "A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers", at present, in my opinion, the work requires substantial revision. The authors have taken a very relevant topic of transition to "green technologies". The work is well written and structured although I think it has a number of shortcomings which I will write about in the future. The basic aspects are described very well and in detail, which should allow the reader to better understand the essence of the problem. However, I would like to point out that in my understanding a review of this type should focus much more on modern modification processes and techniques and the results obtained. A good example is the section line 211-220 in which only 2 papers on thermosetting matrices are considered. It also remains a mystery to me why basalt fibre is missing from Table 1. Besides, an important nuance when working with fibres, especially unidirectional fibres, is the homogeneity of their properties and if with synthetic fibres these are well known values, then for bio-degradable fibres this question remains open. An important nuance that determines the possibility of using bio-degradable composites is their strength values, in this regard I would like to see tables comparing the characteristics of bio-degradable composites with existing analogues.
In my opinion, the work should be substantially expanded in the given directions and then reviewed again.
Response to reviewer’s comments:
Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. The modifications are made in the revised manuscript. The properties of the basalt fibre are indicated in the table 1. Additionally, the information about the various biodegradable composites is also listed with its mechanical properties in table 8
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe report can be seen in the pdf-file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer Comments:
This is a well-researched and written review, which is documented with a lot of publications in current journals.
The review provides a good overview of bio-based alternatives from the areas of thermosets and thermoplastics as well as natural fibers. The advantages and disadvantages of bio-based composites are also highlighted and initial solutions from research are discussed. In Addition, the CO2 footprint and recyclability are examined in detail and possible areas of application are identified.
- For the acceptance of the paper, a minor revision of the following points is necessary:
Although the figures are well-chosen, it is noticeable that the image quality of all
figures is not high-resolution, causing the text to be blurred. In addition, no uniform
color scheme was used for the figures. This circumstance might be changed.
Response: The image quality is improved in the revised manuscript
- In line 42 a high stiffness due to reinforcement with natural fibers is mentioned. But
how does it behave in comparison with glass or carbon fibers?
Response: The modifications are mentioned in the revised manuscript
- The wording “green composite” is mentioned quite often in the review; would not be
“bio-based” the correct designation?
Response: The term green composite has been changed to bio-based composites.
- At the conclusion, in Line 461, “several advantages” were addressed but not
mentioned again. At this place it would make sense to point out the main advantages
again. In general, the conclusion could be made a little more specific, as it seems
slightly superficial and does not discuss any facts in more detail.
Response: The advantages are mentioned now and the conclusion is revised.
- Minor errors in the text are pointed out below:
- Line 29: Additional word “introduction”
- Line 73: Small letter at the beginning of the sentence
- Line 123: Line break at the end of table 1
- Line 282: “fiber-reinforced composites” as an alternative for “reinforced fibers”
- Line 457: “fiber-reinforced” instead of “fiber-based”
Response: All the corrections were made as in the revied manuscript. Authors are thankful for the valuable comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review is interesting and well-written as general guide on natural fiber composites. I would like to recommend the following minor revision.
1) The meaning of Fig.1 is not clear. Is it necessary?
2) Authors stress on the biodegradability of natural fibers, but it is not right for usual polymer composites because of the lack of biodegradability of the polymer matrix. However, it is true that natural fiber composites is sustainable from the point of carbon footprint.
3) Usual natural fiber composites are considerably weak and unstable when CFRPs or other synthetic fibers are compared. In this review the description on the most advanced technology such as CNF applications are much limited. Promising future technology related to natural fiber composites should be discussed more in detail and be added in this review. For example, Isogai, A., Cellulose Sci. Techn. 76 (10), p310-326 (2020), "Cellulose Nanofibers: Recent Progress and Future Prospects."
4) Abbreviation of polymers should be used, instead of full-words. (at line 295,374,380,414,423)
5) polyethene should be polyethylene. (at line 241)
6) PSW (at line 276) ?
7) No literature explanation on 87 and 88 (at line 170)
Comments on the Quality of English Language1) fiber and fibre: Please use same spelling through title and figures.
2) Check separation form, such as pol-ymer. (poly-mer) (at line 180, 325)
3) Check the sentence of line 70-75.
Author Response
This review is interesting and well-written as general guide on natural fiber composites. I would like to recommend the following minor revision.
- The meaning of Fig.1 is not clear. Is it necessary?
Response: A detailed explanation is provided for the Fig.1 in the revised manuscript as follows
Here the specific composite performance directly relates to how well the composite performs based on the mechanical properties, thermal conductivity, etc. Whereas the natural fibre properties focus on the intrinsic characteristics of the natural fibres used which are the fibre type, length, orientation, etc. The polymer base properties deal with the attributes of the polymer matrix which include the type, composition, and compat-ibility. The composite characteristics encompass broader aspects like processing meth-ods and the overall structure of the composite material. The general composite per-formance serves as a comprehensive evaluation level, ensuring that the selected natu-ral fibre composite not only meets individual criteria but also excels in delivering de-sired outcomes across a range of performance indicators. The schematic diagram helps to illustrate how these levels of criteria collectively influence the decision-making pro-cess for selecting natural fibre composites in engineering applications.
2) Authors stress on the biodegradability of natural fibers, but it is not right for usual polymer composites because of the lack of biodegradability of the polymer matrix. However, it is true that natural fiber composites is sustainable from the point of carbon footprint.
Response: Yes, it is not right for usual polymer composites because of the lack of biodegradability of the polymer matrix. Apart from the sustainability of natural fiber composites, we also tried to discuss about the use of biodegradable polymers.
- Usual natural fiber composites are considerably weak and unstable when CFRPs or other synthetic fibers are compared. In this review the description on the most advanced technology such as CNF applications are much limited. Promising future technology related to natural fiber composites should be discussed more in detail and be added in this review. For example, Isogai, A., Cellulose Sci. Techn. 76(10), p310-326 (2020), "Cellulose Nanofibers: Recent Progress and Future Prospects."
Response: Modifications are made in the revised manuscript by adding some of the research work on the CNF inclusion.
4) Abbreviation of polymers should be used, instead of full-words. (at line 295,374,380,414,423)
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
5) polyethene should be polyethylene. (at line 241)
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
6) PSW (at line 276) ?
Response: Production submission warrant (PSW). Corrections were made as per the request.
7) No literature explanation on 87 and 88 (at line 170)
Response: Reference 87 and 88 mentioned in the initial submission is removed.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper needs relative minor revisions. Please see annex
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The paper needs relative minor revisions. Please see annex
Author Response
Authors wish to thank the time and consideration the reviewing our manuscript. As per the suggestions mentioned in the PDF provided by the reviewer, the corrections are made in the revised manuscript. The references were checked and made as per the publication standards.
- The sentence in the abstract is modified
- The type errors are corrected
- Reference style is checked and corrections are made
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers” has been reviewed. This review is helpful for readers to know the sustainability of natural fiber reinforced polymers. However, the manuscript was not well prepared, which needs to be well improved before acceptance. Detailed comments are as follows:
1. English writing needs to be well improved.
2. The first letters of some initial words in a sentence was not capitalized, for e.g., in Line 73.
3. Left square brackets for cited references should be separated from the last word of a sentence by a space, for e.g., product[2, 16].
4. There are some typo errors. Units should be separated from numbers by a space in the main text and figures, for e.g., 9.5MJ/kg. In Table 1, break should be Break. Pay more attention to subscripts, for e.g., CO2 in Line 278.
5. The full names of abbreviations, such as NFRPC, should be provided where they were first mentioned.
6. In Line 153-158, the data were too old. Please provide newer ones.
7. In Line 203-204, the global market should be the global market of thermosets.
8. In Line 204-205, the reference for 90% DGEBA should be provided.
9. During the last decade, researchers all over the world have attacked much attention on vitrimers. In 3. Thermoset matrices and its sustainability, natural fiber reinforced vitrimers should be extensively reviewed.
10. Avoiding using unnecessary capitalization of first letter in some phrases, such as Polyethylene terephthalate.
11. There are many abbreviations used in the manuscript. So, an abbreviation list included in the manuscript is helpful for readers.
12. References should be revised as per guide for authors of Sustainability and checked items by items. Pay more attention to the following errors:
1) Authors (e.g., Ref. 4);
2) Authors, Journals, volumes, pages (or article numbers) and years (e.g., Ref. 8);
3) The all capitalization of first letters in article names (Ref. 12);
4) Volumes and pages or article numbers (e.g., Ref. 15);
5) Abbreviations of journal names (e.g., Ref. 26).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript entitled “A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers” has been reviewed. This review is helpful for readers to know the sustainability of natural fiber reinforced polymers. However, the manuscript was not well prepared, which needs to be well improved before acceptance. Detailed comments are as follows:
1. English writing needs to be well improved.
2. The first letters of some initial words in a sentence was not capitalized, for e.g., in Line 73.
3. Left square brackets for cited references should be separated from the last word of a sentence by a space, for e.g., product[2, 16].
4. There are some typo errors. Units should be separated from numbers by a space in the main text and figures, for e.g., 9.5MJ/kg. In Table 1, break should be Break. Pay more attention to subscripts, for e.g., CO2 in Line 278.
5. The full names of abbreviations, such as NFRPC, should be provided where they were first mentioned.
6. In Line 153-158, the data were too old. Please provide newer ones.
7. In Line 203-204, the global market should be the global market of thermosets.
8. In Line 204-205, the reference for 90% DGEBA should be provided.
9. During the last decade, researchers all over the world have attacked much attention on vitrimers. In 3. Thermoset matrices and its sustainability, natural fiber reinforced vitrimers should be extensively reviewed.
10. Avoiding using unnecessary capitalization of first letter in some phrases, such as Polyethylene terephthalate.
11. There are many abbreviations used in the manuscript. So, an abbreviation list included in the manuscript is helpful for readers.
12. References should be revised as per guide for authors of Sustainability and checked items by items. Pay more attention to the following errors:
1) Authors (e.g., Ref. 4);
2) Authors, Journals, volumes, pages (or article numbers) and years (e.g., Ref. 8);
3) The all capitalization of first letters in article names (Ref. 12);
4) Volumes and pages or article numbers (e.g., Ref. 15);
5) Abbreviations of journal names (e.g., Ref. 26).
Author Response
The manuscript entitled “A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers” has been reviewed. This review is helpful for readers to know the sustainability of natural fiber reinforced polymers. However, the manuscript was not well prepared, which needs to be well improved before acceptance. Detailed comments are as follows:
- English writing needs to be well improved.
Response: The language of the manuscript is corrected.
- The first letters of some initial words in a sentence was not capitalized, for e.g., in Line 73.
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
- Left square brackets for cited references should be separated from the last word of a sentence by a space, for e.g., product[2, 16].
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
- There are some typo errors. Units should be separated from numbers by a space in the main text and figures, for e.g., 9.5MJ/kg. In Table 1, break should be Break. Pay more attention to subscripts, for e.g., CO2 in Line 278.
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
- The full names of abbreviations, such as NFRPC, should be provided where they were first mentioned.
Response: Provided as per the request.
- In Line 153-158, the data were too old. Please provide newer ones.
Response: Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We appreciate your attention to detail. The details mentioned in the lines are facts and we couldn't get the updated version with proper reference or citations, thus we would be using the same sentence.
- In Line 203-204, the global market should be the global market of thermosets.
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
- In Line 204-205, the reference for 90% DGEBA should be provided.
Response: Reference in added and highlighted in the manuscript
- During the last decade, researchers all over the world have attacked much attention on vitrimers. In 3. Thermoset matrices and its sustainability, natural fiber reinforced vitrimers should be extensively reviewed.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. The manuscript is included with some of the latest work on the vitrimer based composites.
- Avoiding using unnecessary capitalization of first letter in some phrases, such as Polyethylene terephthalate.
Response: Corrections were made as per the request.
- There are many abbreviations used in the manuscript. So, an abbreviation list included in the manuscript is helpful for readers.
Response: The list of abbreviations are added as a separate word file and submitted along with the revised manuscript
- References should be revised as per guide for authors of Sustainability and checked items by items. Pay more attention to the following errors:
1) Authors (e.g., Ref. 4);
2) Authors, Journals, volumes, pages (or article numbers) and years (e.g., Ref. 8);
3) The all capitalization of first letters in article names (Ref. 12);
4) Volumes and pages or article numbers (e.g., Ref. 15);
5) Abbreviations of journal names (e.g., Ref. 26).
Response: All corrections were made as per the request.
Authors are grateful to reviewers for their invaluable corrections. All the suggestions provided have been carefully considered and incorporated.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised article "A Comprehensive Review of Sustainability in Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymers” was well revised and may be accept for publication in present form.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been well revised. It can be accepted now.
