Properties of Emulsion Paints with Binders Based on Natural Latex Grafting Styrene and Methyl Methacrylate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please answer or fix the following parts

1. Line 52: “is weather-resistant” was repeated, please delete it.

2. Line 76: “owever" ==> Typo, please fix it

3. The two paragraphs (line 83~92, line 93~100 ) are repetitive, it’s better to combine to just one paragraph about the drawback of natural latex

4. Paragraph 101~112: Not sure about the necessity to bring up “Liquid Natural Rubber (LNR)”.Maybe can combine with previous paragraph

5. There are redundant contents in the introduction, should be more related to the experimental part. It’s better to focus on grafting monomers + Blending with PVAc.

6. Line 116: Any experimental data showing how much grafting improved the LNR performance??? Maybe should cited some data from reference 8.

7. Line 118~119:  It’s better to phrase this before mentioning the performance is worse than PVAc binder, otherwise the logics seem to be conflict.

8. All the introduction seems confusing and departed about the main objective of this research, as well as the statement from line 127~132.

9. Materials part is not clear. Please provide the manufacturer of Hight Ammonia Natural Rubber Latex (HANR latex). Which content does the 15%(v/v) indicate in Line 135? In addition, is PT the manufacture of all the monomers? What is the grade of all the chemicals?

10. From method 2.2.1, it seems you did the preparation of the HANR latex, however, in material part it said it’s obtained from the province of Riau, Indonesia. Please be clear about the materials. Did you purchase HANR latex or made by your lab.

11. Line 151, “Fresh latex was then measured by DRC"==>The language was used here is confusing . It seems DRC is an equipment or methodology of how to measure Fresh latex, please fix it.

12.  Line 159, what is the stirring speed ??? The manufacturer of nitrogen gas should be listed in the material part. Same for Sodium Do-159 decyl Sulfonate (SDS) and initiator. Please add all the chemicals were used in the material part.

13. In 2.2.2 section, what is the temperature of the polymerization grafting? Please list details of each experimental steps.

14. Line 166, need details of creaming ? How to do it? Experimental condition and instrument??

15. Line 260~281: This entire paragraph doesn’t seem to be written in English, please fix it.

16. Language issues: Too many “however”

17. Line 355: Table 3 or table 4?

18. Hydrophobicity pf paint was mentioned various times, is there any data measuring the hydrophobicity to support the conclusion such as contact angle?  

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers who have reviewed the draft journal manuscript we sent you. Your suggestions are very helpful for us in improving the quality of our journal manuscript drafts. On your suggestions, we have made some improvements to the manuscripts we send. Here we attach the responses and improvements to the manuscript that we have done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work "Properties of Emulsion Paints With Binders Based on Natural Latex Grafting Styrene and Methyl Methacrylate" shows different studies where some properties were avaluated. This is really interesting, however there is no evidence of the grafting reaction. How did you demostrate the graft? It is possible to have a mix only?

In the section 2.2.3, you mentioned  NRL -g-(MMA-co-St). Was a grafting copolymerization reaction carried out?

Finally in the page 8, there is a parragraph that is not in english. I consider this a hug oversight.

For these reasons, I recomend this manuscript have to be not accepted in this form. Evidence of the grafting, chemical structures and schemes should be included. 

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers who have reviewed the draft journal manuscript we sent you. Your suggestions are very helpful for us in improving the quality of our journal manuscript drafts. On your suggestions, we have made some improvements to the manuscripts we send. Here we attach the responses and improvements to the manuscript that we have done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

11)     Line 50 ~53: “PVAc-based binders are most commonly used in emulsion paints because PVAc is an adhesive that can be easily dispersed in water, produces a thin and colorless film, us weather-resistant, is weather-resistant, has good initial adhesion, is resistant to biodegra-52 dation, and is the low cost”è Grammar is still wrong,

22)     Line 71: “The use gum Arabic…”è should be “ The use of gum arabic…”, same problem with line 80

33)     Line 88: “This is 88 because raw natural rubber latex only contains Dry Rubber Content (DRC) ranging from 20-40%”è Please explain why 20~40% of DRC is not good. If the reason is in the following sentence, please combine them.

44)     Line 371: “Various other methods are applied to improve the performance of NRL in terms of 371 adhesiveness and water resistance. This is done to change the hydrophilicity and polarity 372 with a combination of NRL-g-20%St and NRL-g-30%MMA at a ratio of 1: 1 (Sample 373 NgSt/NgMMA)”è It said there is various methods can be applied to improve the performance, but the next sentence only list one method. Please modify it.

55)     Line 220” This is done…”è Please avoid using “ This is done…”, and maybe consider just said “ it can increase the efficiency…..” or just  add after previous sentence “due to the ability to increase the efficeiency….”

66)     For  line 230: “using creaming and centrifugation method”è Please add “ please details in Method 2.2.3”

77)     Line 557 : “ Hydrophobicity of what???, Please write a brief explanation about the assumption or conclusion of the effect of hydrophobicity from the literature you cited.  

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers who have reviewed the draft journal manuscript we sent you. Your suggestions are very helpful for us in improving the quality of our journal manuscript drafts. On your suggestions, we have made some improvements to the manuscripts we send. Here we attach the responses and improvements to the manuscript that we have done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx