Effect of B2O3 on the Radiation Shielding Performance of Telluride Lead Glass System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting and well presented paper concerning glasses and I do not understand, why it is submitted to Crystals journal? The Authors detected only traces of crystalline phases in studied samples and found that those traces worsen their mechanical properties.
I suggest to submit the manuscript to Materials MDPI.
In case of next submission I have suggestion that the Authors explain the domain-like microstructure of their glasses (presented in Fig. 3a). Is this microstructure typical for surface or is it occurs also iside their glasses?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am glad that you have reviewed the manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable and professional comments. We have made some changes to the manuscript, including fixing errors and optimizing the language.
We submit the article to Crystals because the subject area of Crystals includes the material studied in this topic.
Thank you for your review comments.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Shiyu Yin
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Effect of B2O3 on the radiation shielding performance of telluride lead glass system explores ways to create new types of glass. This research topic is one of the most relevant today, and the selected research objects have a high potential for practical application. The calculated data on the shielding characteristics indicate a high degree of efficiency for these types of materials. In my opinion, this work deserves to be accepted for publication after the authors make corrections and additions that arose during its reading.
1. The abstract should more clearly indicate the purpose and relevance of the chosen direction of research.
2. Have experiments been carried out to confirm the shielding characteristics, or are the data presented only the results of calculations?
3. The presented SEM images are not informative in this form, they should be removed or a description should be given to them.
4. What is the reason for such differences in glass thickness.
5. In the introduction, the authors should pay attention to the assessment of the applicability of telluride glasses and the efficiency of doping as radiation-shielding materials. For example, authors can use the following works:
DOI: 10.1016 / j.jallcom.2018.01.109
https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ab3f85
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-019-3154-z
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optmat.2021.111271
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am glad that you have reviewed the manuscript. The following is the response to your review comments.
- The abstract should more clearly indicate the purpose and relevance of the chosen direction of research.
Reply:
We have reworked the abstract as you suggested.
- Have experiments been carried out to confirm the shielding characteristics, or are the data presented only the results of calculations?
Reply:
We conducted experiments with real objects and carried out theoretical calculations. We use real physical radioactive sources to conduct experiments on the shielding properties of glass samples. We carried out the theoretical calculation of the relevant characteristics as a control to verify the accuracy of the experimental data.
In addition, the MFP value shown in Fig. 7 and the Zeff value shown in Fig. 8 are based on a theoretical calculation to better describe the shielding characteristics of glass materials. Because the physical radiation source we use can only provide incident energy in the range of 0.059 to 1.332 MeV, a larger incident energy range can be used in the theoretical calculation, such as 0 to 15 MeV. We have added corresponding instructions to the new manuscript.
- The presented SEM images are not informative in this form, they should be removed or a description should be given to them.
Reply:
As you said, the original image 3 cannot support our research conclusion, and we have deleted it and the corresponding text.
- What is the reason for such differences in glass thickness.
Reply:
We have added a detailed explanation of the thickness of the glass.
- In the introduction, the authors should pay attention to the assessment of the applicability of telluride glasses and the efficiency of doping as radiation-shielding materials. For example, authors can use the following works:
Reply:
We have rewritten this section of the introduction with reference to the literature you recommended.
In addition, we have retouched the English language and style of the manuscript. Thank you for your review comments.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Shiyu Yin
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript needs a serious revision. There are many comments that need attention (see below) the most important is on the real nano-scale structure of glasses synthesised. The only figure presented gives evidence that the material obtained is a phase-separated glass. This is not something unacceptable however it is something that needs a serious analysis at least.
Authors attention is requested for the followings:
The sentence “The toxicity of lead glass is much lower than that of pure lead brick, but it also has some problems, such as poor chemical stability and low visible light transmittance” (lines 37-38) is dubious. It is generically an untrue statement as lead oxide silicate glasses are neither toxic not unstable – see e.g. A. Varshneya “Fundamental of inorganic glasses”, Sheffield, SGT, (2006).
Lines 48 and 49: The units of mass attenuation coefficient are square metres per kilogram not micrometres. The mass attenuation coefficient is defined as the ratio of the linear attenuation coefficient and absorber density (μ/ρ).
Line 52: The statement “By measuring the Removal cross-section (RCS) of the studied glass,…” contradicts the Abstract statement “by calculating the removal cross-section (RCS) of the glass under test” (line 16) as well as the content of paper (see e.g. line 109).
Line 59: Give data on “The raw materials of each glass” used in synthesis of glasses.
Line 120: The “a wide diffraction peak” is typically characterised as a hump rather that peak aiming not to confuse is with diffraction peaks from crystals – see e.g. the reference given above.
Lines 137-138: The statement “The generation of the crystalline phase will reduce the mechanical strength of the glass and increase the difficulty in processing” is not necessarily true, in many cases the glass crystalline materials are more durable than homogeneous glasses – see as an example the open access paper with references there https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084117.
Figure 3(a) suggest that authors have synthesised a phase separated glass due to spinodal decomposition – see the Figure 4-6 in the above reference, page 81.
Figure 3(b) does not necessarily indicate on crystalline nature of the particle shown.
Line 144: It is necessary to give the temperature at which “its viscosity is low”.
Lines 152-154: The controversial statement “the ionic radius of boron ions is small, which will make the average ionic radius of the glass smaller, which in turn causes the density of the glass to decrease” needs corrections. The small average ionic radius of glass will cause the specific volume to decrease not the density.
Lines 155-156: The statement “the higher the density, the better the density of the glass” is useless.
Line 262: Although the authors gave the reference on lines 112-113 (The calculation process of RCS can be found in references [20,21]) the need to specify at least the energy range of fast neutrons for which the RCS are presented.
Line 279-280: The statement “the glass network structure is optimized” is not supported by manuscript, moreover the glasses synthesised are quite probably phase separated due to spinodal decomposition.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am glad that you have reviewed the manuscript. The following is the response to your review comments.
- The sentence “The toxicity of lead glass is much lower than that of pure lead brick, but it also has some problems, such as poor chemical stability and low visible light transmittance” (lines 37-38) is dubious. It is generically an untrue statement as lead oxide silicate glasses are neither toxic not unstable – see e.g. A. Varshneya “Fundamental of inorganic glasses”, Sheffield, SGT, (2006).
Reply:
We have removed these erroneous descriptions and rewrote the introduction to this section at another reviewer's suggestion, which you can review in the new manuscript.
2.Lines 48 and 49: The units of mass attenuation coefficient are square metres per kilogram not micrometres. The mass attenuation coefficient is defined as the ratio of the linear attenuation coefficient and absorber density (μ/ρ).
Reply:
Here should be the linear decay coefficient (μ). We have corrected this error.
3.Line 52: The statement “By measuring the Removal cross-section (RCS) of the studied glass,…” contradicts the Abstract statement “by calculating the removal cross-section (RCS) of the glass under test” (line 16) as well as the content of paper (see e.g. line 109).
Reply:
The RCS values used in this study are all theoretical calculations, this is a low-level error, and we have changed this.
4.Line 59: Give data on “The raw materials of each glass” used in synthesis of glasses.
Reply:
We have made corresponding changes to the manuscript.
5.Line 120: The “a wide diffraction peak” is typically characterised as a hump rather that peak aiming not to confuse is with diffraction peaks from crystals – see e.g. the reference given above.
Reply:
We have corrected this erroneous statement.
6.Lines 137-138: The statement “The generation of the crystalline phase will reduce the mechanical strength of the glass and increase the difficulty in processing” is not necessarily true, in many cases the glass crystalline materials are more durable than homogeneous glasses – see as an example the open access paper with references there https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084117.
Reply:
The object of this study is homogeneous glass. For pure glass materials, we do not want them to crystallize because the mechanical properties of the glass will suddenly change at the crystallizing point and cause the glass to crack at the crystallizing point. So the prepared glass cannot be made into a bulky material. Here, our description is not adequate, so we add modifiers based on your suggestion to make the statement here more rigorous.
7.Figure 3(a) suggest that authors have synthesised a phase separated glass due to spinodal decomposition – see the Figure 4-6 in the above reference, page 81.
Reply:
As you said, the original image 3 cannot support our research conclusion, and we have deleted it and the corresponding text.
8.Figure 3(b) does not necessarily indicate on crystalline nature of the particle shown.
Reply:
As you said, the original image 3 cannot support our research conclusion, and we have deleted it and the corresponding text.
9.Line 144: It is necessary to give the temperature at which “its viscosity is low”.
Reply:
We have revised the manuscript accordingly.
10.Lines 152-154: The controversial statement “the ionic radius of boron ions is small, which will make the average ionic radius of the glass smaller, which in turn causes the density of the glass to decrease” needs corrections. The small average ionic radius of glass will cause the specific volume to decrease not the density.
Reply:
We have removed this erroneous inference in the manuscript, thank you for pointing it out.
11.Lines 155-156: The statement “the higher the density, the better the density of the glass” is useless.
Reply:
This is a rudimentary mistake. We're sorry for that. What we're trying to write here is "generally speaking, the denser the glass, the stronger its radiation shielding properties."
12.Line 262: Although the authors gave the reference on lines 112-113 (The calculation process of RCS can be found in references [20,21]) the need to specify at least the energy range of fast neutrons for which the RCS are presented.
Reply:
Based on your suggestion, we have revised the description in this section
13.Line 279-280: The statement “the glass network structure is optimized” is not supported by manuscript, moreover the glasses synthesised are quite probably phase separated due to spinodal decomposition.
Reply:
Due to the epidemic and epidemic prevention policies, we cannot test the structure and mechanical properties of the glass in the near future (within the manuscript revision period). We are sorry for this. In Section 4.1, we added images recorded during glass preparation and added corresponding descriptions, which can support our claim to a certain extent.
In addition, we have retouched the English language and style of the manuscript. Thank you for your review comments.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Shiyu Yin
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
If Editorial Office of Crystals accepts manuscripts dealing with glasses I have no objections to do that.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made corrections according to the comments of the reviewers. The article may be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in the revised form
