Assessing the Fatigue Stress Behavior of Starch Biodegradable Films with Nanoclay Using Accelerated Survival Test Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should consider the following comments for further improvements to the manuscript.

1.       The abstract should be concise and easy to understand, capturing the concept of the work in the manuscript within a brief paragraph rather than being lengthy.

2.       Keywords should generally not contain the words that are in the manuscript's title. The manuscript shows that the keywords that contain the majority of the words are also present in the title.

3.       Discuss briefly and compare the Accelerated Survival Test Methods with other methods for fatigue stress behavior in thin films.

4.       The thickness of the film could not be seen anywhere in the text..

5.       It would be better if the authors included a schematic diagram of the thin film process in 2.2. Film preparation..

6.       Discuss the sample ID in section 2.5. Experimental design.

7.       The authors can discuss why increasing the nanoclay and decreasing the glycerol concentration leads to an increase in the film's tensile strength.

8.       It would be better if the author discussed the motivation for each figure in the corresponding text.

9.       The authors did not perform any characterizations to analyze the properties of thin films.

 

10.   Simplify the conclusion to focus solely on the work's primary findings. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Information on material is not clear: 2 starches were isolated? Both of them were used simultaneously? Considering that legume starched are hard to isolate in term of purity, was this considered and assessed?

Why raw data on film thickness is not presented?

What kind of load cell was used in TA-XT Plus?

Based on what data exactly the formulations were chosen? What others were considered in preliminary tests? 50% of glycerol seems high?

The discussion of the results is far more complex than the introduction – there is lack of consistent to whom the manuscript is addressed.

Overall, the manuscript presents interesting research results, but the authors failed to present basic research that justified the undertaken topic and experimental setup in applied manner.

 

Some of the minor remakrs to be considered:

Line 44 Starch is not most abundant biopolimer – cellulose is.

Line 49 why amylose particularly? Starch

Line 52 – semi-crystalline

Figure 1 the axis lacks information

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is about the fatigue stress behavior of starch-based biodegradable films, using an accelerated aging test method to evaluate the performance of films made of different concentrations of starch, glycerol, and nanoclay. In addition, for the first time, the log tensile strength parameter divided by the cycle to rupture has been attempted as a response variable for further studies of biodegradable films.

This is an interesting research direction, but some improvements are needed before publication:

1. The article mentions the use of different concentrations of starch, glycerol, and nanoclay for the preparation of films and the application of various elongation levels as stress variables. However, regarding how these specific experimental conditions (such as the range of elongation levels, stress time, and response variables) were selected, please explain.

2. Why is the log tensile quotient selected as the response variable, and how can it fully reflect the fatigue stress behavior of the film?

3. The article uses a multivariate regression analysis to explore the factors that affect the log tensile quotient. It is recommended that the authors further clarify the statistical model used, as well as their assumptions.

4. Although the literature theoretically proposed the importance of studying the fatigue stress behavior of biodegradable films, there is currently a lack of specific schemes and application suggestions from theory to actual production practice.

5. The latest research results on biodegradable materials should be supplemented, especially those related to the latest progress in nanoclay addition technology.

6. The article mentioned the films under different experimental designs, but there is not enough description about the statistical analysis methods and error evaluation of the experimental data.

7. Although the literature pointed out the potential of this new parameter logarithmic pull quotient, it does not clearly propose future research directions or areas for further exploration.

8. The content of the article is a bit thin, and it is recommended to add a section on finite element analysis. Regarding the establishment of the finite element model, it is recommended to cite this reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2024.108983

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx