In-Situ Fabrication, Microstructure and Mechanical Performance of Nano Iron-Rich Precipitate Reinforced Cu and Cu Alloys

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This work is merely a compiling of authors' previous research works only.  Not a review paper with proper discussion and critical assessment.

2. Except for Figure 1, all other 16 figures are taken from the authors' own following 7 papers.

 [42] Chen, K.X.; Chen, X.H.; Ding, D.; Wang, Z.D. Crystallographic features of iron-rich   
  nanoparticles in cast Cu–10Sn–2Zn–1.5Fe–0.5Co alloy. Mater. Charact, 2016, 113, 34–42.

[44] Chen, K.X.; Chen, X.H.; Wang, Z.D.; Mao, H.H.; Sandström, R. Optimization of deformation properties in as-cast copper by microstructural engineering. Part I. microstructure. J. Alloys Compd, 2018, 763, 592-605.

[46] Chen, K.X.; Pan, S.H.; Chen, X.H.; Wang, Z.D.; Sandström, R. Optimisation of deformation properties in as-cast copper by microstructural engineering. Part II. Mechanical properties. J. Alloys Compd, 2020, 812, 151910.

[47] Chen, K.X.; Korzhavyi, P.A.; Demange, G.; Zapolsky, H.; Patte, R.; Boisse, J.; Wang, Z.D. Morphological instability of iron-rich precipitates in Cu-Fe-Co alloys. Acta Mater, 2019, 163, 55-67.

[48] Chen, K.X.; Chen, X.H.; Ding, D.; Shi, G.D.; Wang, Z.D. Formation mechanism of in-situ nanostructured grain in cast Cu–10Sn–2Zn–1.5Fe–0.5Co (wt.%) alloy. Mater. Des, 2016, 94, 338–344.

[68] Chen, K.X.; Chen, X.H.; Ding, D.; Wang, Z.D. Effect of in-situ nanoparticle wall on inhibiting segregation of tin bronze alloy. Mater. Lett, 2016, 175, 148–151.

[69] Chen, K.X.; Zhang, J.W.; Chen, X.H.; Ding, D.; Wang, Z.D.; Shi, R.J.; Zhang, A.J. The effect of iron on the microstructure and mechanical properties of a cast Cu–12Sn-1.5Ni (wt. %) alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2020, 785, 139330.

 3. Out of 107 references, only 12 references are from the last five years (2018 to 2022), not sufficient.

 4.  Not able to follow the correlation of discussions provided by the authors.  Most of the discussion is from others' own 12 papers [Ref. 42-50, 67-69]. Few sentences are difficult to understand. A Comparison of previous works is not done.

5. The mechanism/concept of in-situ nanoparticle strengthening and plasticizing by NPFG structure is not clearly described in the paper.

6. The structure of the paper could be improved. Gap analysis and future aspects are missing.

7. How the review paper compilation work is supported by these much of funding agencies (about 6)?

 

Funding: This research was funded by the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (No. 1024 2214072), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52101119, 51971031), the 1025 Young Elite Scientist Sponsorship Program by CAST (No. YESS20210139), the Interdisciplinary Re-1026 search Project for Young Teachers of USTB (Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universi-1027 ties, No. FRF-IDRY-20-034), the Central Funds Guiding the Local Science and Technology Develop-1028 ment of Hebei Province (226Z1001G), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 1029 (00007490)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review manuscript is well designed and well written and would be very helpful.  The paragraphs are too long. I suggest the length of the paragraphs be limited to 3 to a maximum of 7 to 9 lines.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving valuable comments and suggestions.

Question 1：The paragraphs are too long. I suggest the length of the paragraphs be limited to 3 to a maximum of 7 to 9 lines.

Response 1: On the basis of ensuring the overall logic of the article, we re-segmented the length of paragraphs in the full text to make the details expressed in each paragraph more specific.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is carefully prepared and of high quality. In my opinion, it is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving your approval.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments satisfactorily. 

Suggestion to remove the following Figures:

1) Fig. 3 (b)

2) Fig. scale bar 2mm of (a-f)

3) Fig. 14 (b-d)

Author Response

    Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and giving your approval. According to your comments, we have minor revised this paper on the basis of the original version. For details, please see the  Figure. 3(remove the original figure.3b) in page 10, the simplification and rearrangement of the figure. 10 in page 16 and the figure. 14(remove the original figure.14b-d)in page 22. Please see the attachment for details.