The Effects of Process Conditions on Improvement of the Compressive Strengths of Reticulated Porous Zirconia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents the effect of different process conditions on compressive strengths of reticulated porous zirconia. It can be considered for acceptance if the authors can address the following issues.

The title is not quite proper, ‘optimised’ is very hard to be judged based on limited process conditions, while to say effects of process conditions have been studied is more accurate.

The Abstract needs to be revised, too much background information, and unnecessary refs. Move them to the Introduction section. Only briefly include the background information here. Refs 1-3 are not necessary here. Abstract normally should not include Refs, unless it is the foundation/basis of this work. The aim and methodology are included, but the main results and conclusion are missing.

The studies for porous zirconia ceramics in harsh environments have drawn much attention, except the sole Ref 4 which dates back to 2006, more relevant studies after that should be referenced to justify ‘much attention’. Among others, please consider the studies in aerospace under the harsh reentry heating environments: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.07.018; 10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.09.085; 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.113

In particular, 3 mol% yttria-stabilized zirconia is the most thermally stable types with the best tensile strength. Ref is needed for this justification, will Ref 14 do?

There are many ways to manufacture porous ceramics, such as partial sintering, the replica method, using a sacrificial template, and direct foaming. The ways to manufacture porous ceramics can be enriched, such as cold isostatic pressing and pressureless sintering by Zhang et al. Materials & Design (2014) 62:1-6. Such work can be mentioned for completeness and justify the difference.

The font sizes of all the figures can be improved, by enlarging them.

The conclusions section should be improved. It should be more precise, and focus on Concluding remarks, not discussion or research gap information or the experimental information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript Title: Improvement of the compressive strengths of reticulated porous zirconia with optimized processing conditions

Journal Title: Applied Science

Authors: Sujin Lee, Chae Young Lee, Jang-Hoon Ha, Jongman Lee, In-Hyuck Song and Se-Hun Kwon.

Manuscript ID: applsci-1584221

 

The work is contributed to the theme of investigation and authors showed novelty of the study. This manuscript is suitable for publication in Applied Science. However, this version of manuscript is not ready for publication in present form, there are major concerns to be addressed before its publication as follows:

- Authors mentioned that “The microstructures of the zirconia particles obtained with different ball-milling times of 0, 1, 4, 8, and 24 h are shown in Figure 3. The microstructure of the zirconia particles after ball-milling for 4 hours shows an uneven particle distribution, but it was also noted that many particles approximately 0.5 μm or less in size are distributed throughout the specimen”. However, from the SEM presented in Figure 3 it is difficult to make such a conclusion. High magnification SEM images should be also added to Figure 3 to show sizes of particles more clear.

- Please indicate if particle size distribution presented in Figure 4 are extracted from SEM images or particle size analyzer presented in Figure 3? If from particle size analyzer, I strongly recommend to compare obtained results with SEM images and also to construct plots of particle size distribution and average particle size.

- Authors mentioned that “The average particle 104 size in each case was examined using a particle size analyzer (LSTM 13 320 MW, Beckman 105 Coulter, USA)”. Please expand the description. Did you used dry form, did you used suspension, solvents and etc.

-If to compare Figure 4a and Figure 5b, it is seen that particle size and pore sizes are comparable in size. Please give an explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved their manuscript significantly, I would like to recommend for publication, good luck with their future research.

Author Response

We respect the reviewer’s distinguished expertise in this area. Also, we thank the reviewer for many helpful suggestions. The manuscript was improved according to what the reviewer kindly pointed out. Thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my comments/concerns in this revised manuscript. I have no additional concerns regarding this manuscript.

Manuscript could be recommended for publication in this form

Author Response

We respect the reviewer’s distinguished expertise in this area. Also, we thank the reviewer for many helpful suggestions. The manuscript was improved according to what the reviewer kindly pointed out. Thank you again.