Biodegradable Composites with Functional Properties Containing Biopolymers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present the synthesis and characterization of a biopolymer on a gelatin matrix, formed unknown skin waste with the addition of known biopolymers.
- The introduction does not provide the necessary background, general knowledge about biopolymers (biosourced or biodegradable mixed and confused the one with the other) is provided but there is no focus on the chemistry or application of this research work;
- The objective and the novelty of the study is indicated, yet not clear nor convincing;
- The synthesis of the composites is not clearly described and not reproducible;
- The models and approximation used to calculate surface energy, degree of cross-linking, and other properties are not properly described and supported by literature references;
- The results are not properly discussed and compared to the literature. Morphologies and phase segregation of the components are not thoroughly investigated and related to the mechanical properties;
- The conclusion is not fully supported by the experimental data.
A thorough revision of the English is necessary to improve the quality of the presentation.
I suggest the publication of this work after major revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
At the beginning, I would like to thank you for reviewing our article and for your objective comments. We, as co-authors, have made the above-mentioned comments and corrections in the article. Below I am sending a list of general comments and those marked in yellow in the manuscript (in the appendix) with symbols: Answer 1 (A1) to Question 1 (Q1), Answer 2 (A2) to Question Q2 etc.
Q1: The introduction does not provide the necessary background, general knowledge about biopolymers (biosourced or biodegradable mixed and confused the one with the other) is provided but there is no focus on the chemistry or application of this research work;
A1: The entire background in driving has been changed. The terminology was corrected and more thematically related articles on the research task analyzed in the article were cited. The application aspect of the conducted research is given.
Q2: The objective and the novelty of the study is indicated, yet not clear nor convincing;
A2: The objective and novelty of the study are underlined in the revised abstract and posted at the end of the introduction.
Q3: The synthesis of the composites is not clearly described and not reproducible;
A3: The description of the synthesis of composites has been modified and introduced in the Materials and Methods section.
Q4: The models and approximation used to calculate surface energy, degree of cross-linking, and other properties are not properly described and supported by literature references;
A4: Models and approximation for calculating Surface Energy have been provided with literature in the Research Techniques section.
Q5: The results are not properly discussed and compared to the literature. Morphologies and phase segregation of the components are not thoroughly investigated and related to the mechanical properties;
A5: Further research of the composites is added to show off the correlation of materials with literature in comparison.
Q6: The conclusion is not fully supported by the experimental data.
A6: With new graphs and editing, the summary should have now more support in data analysis and a point of conclusion.
Q7: A thorough revision of the English is necessary to improve the quality of the presentation.
A7: Throughout this article, the English language has been improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Biopolymer films were prepared and tested by the authors. such research is very interesting and useful. especially the thermal properties of such materials were studied in details. I can be published in catalysts after some revision.
1. the abstract part just like a introduction. The important information and results of this artcle was not concluded.
2. the thickness and Transmittance of the films prepared in this manuscript should be added, Which is very important for their application.
3. the language should be improved. Some of sentences can't be understood clearly.
4. The biodegradation process is not complete enough. How long can it degrade more than 90%.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
At the beginning, I would like to thank you for reviewing our article and for your objective comments. We, as co-authors, have made the above-mentioned comments and corrections in the article. Below I am sending a list of general comments and those marked in yellow in the manuscript (in the appendix) with symbols: Answer 1 (A1) to Question 1 (Q1), Answer 2 (A2) to Question Q2 etc.
Q1: the abstract part just like a introduction. The important information and results of this artcle was not concluded.
A1.: The abstract and the part concerning the introduction to the research topic have been revised and changed. New literature on the research topic was taken into account.
Q2.: the thickness and Transmittance of the films prepared in this manuscript should be added, Which is very important for their application.
A2.: The thickness of the samples was measured and reported
Q3.: the language should be improved. Some of sentences can't be understood clearly.
A3.: Throughout this article, the English language has been improved.
Q4.: The biodegradation process is not complete enough. How long can it degrade more than 90%.
A4.: 90% Degradation was unveiled and reported in the publication
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for this revised version.
I suggest publishing this work after minor revisions, consisting of English revision to correct a few repetitions (eg lines 182,183) and minor mistakes.
Author Response
We have attached this correction in the text for lines 182 and 183 of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
IT can be published at this status
