Effects of Zirconium-Based Crosslinkers with Different Zirconium Contents on Pigment Coating in Paper

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript "Effects of Zirconium-based Crosslinkers with Different Zirconium Contents on Pigment Coating in Paper", the investigation in the article focused on the investigates the impact of zirconium-based KZC series crosslinkers with varying zirconium contents and the polyamine-based crosslinker (PBC) on the properties of coated paper, focusing on key performance metrics such as viscosity, wet rub and pick resistance, dry pick resistance, gloss, brightness, ink set-off, and print mottle.

 

-The study investigates the effects of zirconium-based crosslinkers on pigment coating, which is highly relevant. However, the introduction could benefit from more clarity regarding the practical applications and specific problems this study aims to solve. For example, expanding on the challenges currently faced in paper coating due to conventional crosslinkers could enhance the motivation for the research.

- While the article mentions varying zirconium content (7%, 10%, 20%) and its effects, the rationale behind selecting these specific percentages isn’t clearly explained. Further elaboration on why these particular concentrations were chosen would provide better insight into the experimental design.

- The "Materials and Methods" section provides a good overview of the experimental process, but it could be enhanced by adding more detailed descriptions, particularly about the equipment used for measurements. Including the operating conditions for the viscosity and gloss measurement tools would help readers replicate the experiments more precisely.

- The results provide meaningful data, but the discussion could benefit from deeper interpretation. For example, the slight reduction in gloss and brightness with KZC20 could be further explored in terms of how this might affect the overall marketability or usability of the paper. Are there scenarios where this trade-off is acceptable, or should adjustments be made to the formula to mitigate this?

- It would be beneficial to compare the findings with other crosslinker systems (not just polyamine-based ones) used in similar applications. Providing a comparison with other environmentally friendly alternatives could strengthen the case for the zirconium-based crosslinkers presented.

- The figures included are clear, but some could benefit from additional labels or explanatory notes. Additionally, referencing the figures more frequently within the text could make it easier for readers to connect results with visual data.

- The paper mentions the environmental benefits of zirconium-based crosslinkers due to the absence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), but more specific data on this aspect would be valuable. For instance, can the reduction in VOC emissions be quantified compared to traditional crosslinkers? Including such data would highlight the ecological impact more convincingly.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the effects of zirconium based KZC series crosslinkers with different zirconium contents and polyamine based crosslinkers (PBC) on the properties of coated paper, with a focus on key performance indicators such as viscosity, wet friction and tear resistance, dry tear resistance, gloss, brightness, ink transfer, and printing spots. Overall, the logic of this research work is clear and innovative, providing valuable insights for evaluating the development and optimization of high-performance coated paper. Before acceptance, there are several minor issues that need to be resolved.

1. The coating lacks analysis of microstructure and chemical composition, including surface and cross-sectional SEM, surface FT-IR, XPS, XRD, which are crucial for the coating.

2. Some recent references related to coating is necessary, such as, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jma.2024.05.012.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx