Effect of Starch and Paperboard Reinforcing Structures on Insulative Fiber Foam Composites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Effect of Starch and Paperboard Reinforcing Structures on Insulative Fiber Foam Composites” by Glenn, G.M.; et al. is a scientific work where the authors study the thermal and mechanical properties of tailored fiber foams composites with paperboard and starch reinforcement materials. For it many complementary techniques were used in this research. This is a well-designed work and it could be interesting for a certain target audience specialized in this field. Furthermore, the manuscript is generally well-written.

However, it exists some points that need to be addressed (please, see them below detailed point-by-point). The most relevant outcomes remarked by the authors can contribute in the growth of many fields like the development of more durable green friendly composites with enhanced mechanical properties. For this reason, I will recommend the present scientific manuscript for further publication in the Polymers once all the below described suggestions will be properly fixed.

Here, there exists some points that must be covered in order to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript paper:

1) KEYWORDS. The authors should consider to add the terms “starch” and “plant based composites” in the keyword list.

 

2) INTRODUCTION. This section clearly depicts the state-of-the-art of the examined field in this research. However, it may be advisable to state the excellent mechanical performance of starch when it is embedded in polymer matrices [1]: “The objective of this study (…) mechanical properties of fiber foam/paperboard composites with and without a starch binder (…) EPS foam packaging” (lines 94-97).

[1] Niu, Z.; Chen, F.; Zhang, H.; Liu, C. High Content of Thermoplastic Starch, Poly(butylenes adipate-co-terephthalate) and Poly(butylene succinate) Ternary Blends with a Good Balance in Strength and Toughness. Polymers 2023, 15, 2040. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15092040.    

 

3) MATERIALS & METHODS. “2.7. Mechanical properties” (lines 191-205). It may be advisable to add those related physical equations used by the authors to ascertain the mechanical performance of the tested samples.

 

4) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. “In the present study, cellulose fiber-based foam panels (…) uniform thickness” (lines 261-264). Did the authors quantify the cellulose content (in addition to lignin, hemicelluloses, ashes, …) of the employed pulp softwood fibers and the corn starch used in this research? Some information should be furnished in this regard.

 

5) Linked with the aforementioned point. What is the chemistry of the formed foams? What is the nature of the expected specific interactions that these foams could take place with the other materials present in the formed composites?

 

6) Did the authors observe some aggregation effects induced by this foam formation? A brief statement should be added in this regard.

 

7) “This may have been due to the binding effect of starch (…) strengthen the walls (…) flexural stress throughout the structure” (lines 397-399). Here, even if I agree with this statement provided by the authors, it should not be neglected the high interfacial forces exerted between cellulose fibers and the polymer matrix which lead to the increase of the composite mechanical performance [2].

[2] Marcuello, C.; Chabbert, B.; Berzin, F.; Bercu, N.B.; Molinari, M.; Aguié-Béghin, V. Influence of Surface Chemistry of Fiber and Lignocellulosic Materials on Adhesion Properties with Polybutylene Succinate at Nanoscale. Materials 2023, 16, 2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16062440.

 

8) CONCLUSIONS. This section clearly states the most relevant outcomes found in this work. The authors should consider to add a brief statement about the future action lines to pursue this research.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written albeit it may be desirable if the authors could recheck it in order to polish final details susceptible to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experimental article “Effect of Starch and Paperboard Reinforcing Structures on Insulative Fiber Foam Composites” examines fiber foam composites with the addition of a binder (starch) and three different reinforcing paperboard elements (angular, cylindrical and lattice). The authors found that cellulose for cardboard has not exhausted its capabilities. Discussing the results of extensive research on the resulting composites, the authors concluded that these new composites represent a promising biodegradable alternative to polystyrene foam inner packaging. The authors of the article in their research use modern research methods characteristic of this area: respirometry tests, determination of density, thermal conductivity, various mechanical strengths, porosity, microscopy. The positive side of the article is that the authors frankly simply described the results obtained, emphasizing that, despite the advantages of polystyrene foam, there are still opportunities to refine a high-quality material from well-studied cellulose.

To publish a manuscript, it is recommended to eliminate the comments and follow the recommendations given in the list.

 

Notes and recommendations:

1. Abstract. It is necessary to include a phrase reflecting the novelty of the results obtained.

2. Section Introduction. In this section, out of 31 sources, there are only eight articles from 2022-2024, and not all of them are scientific articles. It is necessary to strengthen the relevance of research on the topic of the article with fresh publications.

3. It is necessary that cited articles are indicated in the text in square brackets.

4. Lines 337-366. A discussion of the degradability of composites should be accompanied by a table (or figure) with the decomposition periods of the components and comparison with polyurethane foam.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a significant effort to cover all the suggestions raised by the Reviewers. For it, the scientific quality of the manuscript was greatly improved. Based on the significance of the most relevant outcomes of this research and the scope of Polymers, I warmly endorse this work for further publication in this journal.