Modified Ammonium Polyphosphate and Its Application in Polypropylene Resins

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors need to address following queries to improve the quality of article .

·         Article must undergo language proof reading by the language experts or native speakers. As I have found grammatical errors and typo errors.

·         The abstract is a summary of the introduction, materials and method, results and conclusion. This order needs to be followed. The methodology, results (quantifying data) and conclusion component of the abstract should be properly captured.

·         Introduction doesn’t give the background of the study. It is advised improve the introduction significantly.

·         Literature review looks shallow, add quantitative results of literature.

·         Highlight contribution of the study to knowledge gap/specific problem.

·         2.1. Materials -  Better make table for this.

·         “density 0.901g/cm3” Correct the SI unit “3” must be superscripted.

·         “⁴According to the existing theoretical and experimental” What “4” indicates?

·         On what bases, the specified levels for each factors are selected?

·         How specimens for SEM prepared? Add the same under the methodology.

·         What is the Y axis in Figure 1.

·         “KAPP are given in 5Figure 4.” What is that “5” indicates?

·         Figures 5 and 6 are not cited in the explanation.

·         Properly number the subfigures of figure 7 and 8.

·         “It can be seen from Table 10 that with the increase” There is no table 10 in the article.

·         “3.4.1. Analysis of the bending properties of flame retardant PP” But figure 10 represents tensile properties. Rectify the same.

·         Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.

·         What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? kindly state

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files.

SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR:

omments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors need to address following queries to improve the quality of article .

• Article must undergo language proof reading by the language experts or native speakers. As I have found grammatical errors and typo errors.
• The abstract is a summary of the introduction, materials and method, results and conclusion. This order needs to be followed. The methodology, results (quantifying data) and conclusion component of the abstract should be properly captured.
• Introduction doesn’t give the background of the study. It is advised improve the introduction significantly.
• Literature review looks shallow, add quantitative results of literature.
• Highlight contribution of the study to knowledge gap/specific problem.
• 2.1. Materials -  Better make table for this.
• “density 0.901g/cm3” Correct the SI unit “3” must be superscripted.
• “4According to the existing theoretical and experimental” What “4” indicates?
• On what bases, the specified levels for each factors are selected?
• How specimens for SEM prepared? Add the same under the methodology.
• What is the Y axis in Figure 1.
• “KAPP are given in 5Figure 4.” What is that “5” indicates?
• Figures 5 and 6 are not cited in the explanation.
• Properly number the subfigures of figure 7 and 8.
• “It can be seen from Table 10 that with the increase” There is no table 10 in the article.
• “3.4.1. Analysis of the bending properties of flame retardant PP” But figure 10 represents tensile properties. Rectify the same.
• Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.
• What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? kindly state

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: ·  The article has been touched up by language experts

• Background to the study is added to the introduction on the second page
• References added to 32 at the end of the article
• The introduction highlights the strengths of the study and compares it with similar studies
• 2.1Materials Tables have been drawn
• 3 of 0.901g/cm3 has been corrected
• 4 deleted I meant to insert a reference to a relevant theory but forgot to delete it
• In response to questions about the level of selection factors. Read the relevant literature, select four main factors affecting the solubility of APP, choose a broad range and verify them by pre-experiments
• The preparation of SEM powder samples and cross-sectional samples has been clearly described on page 5
• Figure 1 Y-axis represents the mean of the test indicators, e.g. 1.67 = (2.42 + 1.46 + 1.12)/3
• Figures 5 and 6 have been quoted in the article on page 9 for FTIR and XRD analysis respectively
• The subplots of Figure 7 and Figure 8 in the XPS analysis on page 10 of the article are numbered
• No Table 10 in the text has been corrected to Figure 10 on page 13
• Figure 10 shows the data for bending strength, which has been corrected
• Corrected in the conclusion thereby reflecting the purpose of the study
• The practical implications have been pointed out in the conclusion: this may offer a new way to improve the flame and mechanical properties of PP

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate you for the research, for the scientific content of the work. I recommend slight improvements.

The abstract must be completed with the objective that led to the writing of this paper.

The keywords must be completed with other words that do not appear in the title

The conclusions section should be expanded, highlighting the impact of the research

References should be expanded and arranged according to the journal's instructions

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files.

SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR:

The abstract must be completed with the objective that led to the writing of this paper.

The keywords must be completed with other words that do not appear in the title

The conclusions section should be expanded, highlighting the impact of the research

References should be expanded and arranged according to the journal's instructions

COMMENTS FROM THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #2: ·  The purpose of this paper is to: screen the best process for coupling agents and provide a simple and environmentally friendly method for treating APP with coupling agents

-Keywords corrected

-The findings and implications of the study have been expanded in the conclusion section of the article

-Added relevant references and corrected the formatting of the references

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present here the preparation of characterization of modified ammonium phosphate-containing polypropylene composites for flame retardant applications. It is an interesting topic for the fabrication of polypropylene composites and measurements of the physicochemical properties of polypropylene composites with for flame retardant applications. However, this manuscript lacks some vital information. Also, the discussions for this version to support the big achievement of these fields are weak. Therefore, the authors need the revision of the manuscript for publication in the coatings journal. Some questions and suggestions are as followed;

 

[1] Introduction section is too weak. We suggest that authors should add detailed previous studies and background information related to this work in Introduction section to increase understanding of this manuscript by journal readers.

 

[2] We suggest that authors should add several informations and experimental results about the polypropylene composites fabricated by different formulations, if possible.  

 

[3] We suggest that authors should compare the chemical composition of the bulk with chemical composition of the surface using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in Figures 7 and 8 and Table 6 for readers’ smooth understanding.

 

[4] Conclusions section is too weak. We suggest that authors should add the detailed results as conducted by authors in Conclusions section.

 

[5] We suggest that authors should correct Table format with the guideline of the coatings journal.

 

[6] We suggest that authors should add further literatures in order to increase understanding of this manuscript by journal readers in References section.

 

[7] We suggest that authors should correct typographic error such as superscript and case-sensitive and unit issues in the whole manuscript.

 

[8] The form of references described in the References part does not match with the guideline of the coatings journal. The authors should revise the references’ form accurately.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files.

SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR:

[1] Introduction section is too weak. We suggest that authors should add detailed previous studies and background information related to this work in Introduction section to increase understanding of this manuscript by journal readers.

[2] We suggest that authors should add several informations and experimental results about the polypropylene composites fabricated by different formulations, if possible.  

[3] We suggest that authors should compare the chemical composition of the bulk with chemical composition of the surface using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in Figures 7 and 8 and Table 6 for readers’ smooth understanding.

[4] Conclusions section is too weak. We suggest that authors should add the detailed results as conducted by authors in Conclusions section.

[5] We suggest that authors should correct Table format with the guideline of the coatings journal.

[6] We suggest that authors should add further literatures in order to increase understanding of this manuscript by journal readers in References section.

[7] We suggest that authors should correct typographic error such as superscript and case-sensitive and unit issues in the whole manuscript.

[8] The form of references described in the References part does not match with the guideline of the coatings journal. The authors should revise the references’ form accurately.

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #3: ·  

• [1]   In the introduction section of the article on page 2, new previous research and background relevant to this study has been added.
• [2] For reasons of time, it is not possible to add relevant experimental results, and the results of previous research, strengths and weaknesses are compared in the introduction.
• [3] Sorry reviewer 3, as the only significant changes in the chemical content of the text are in P and Si, which are clearly marked in the text, and the substance of the surface chemical composition has not changed, only the relative content has changed.
• [4] Detailed results of the study have been added to the conclusion section to facilitate Duzheng's understanding
• [5] Formatting issues have been re-edited
• [6] References have been added that are relevant to the study of this paper.
• [7] The article has been reworked for typography, formatting, capitalisation, superscripts, etc.
• [8] The bibliographic format of this paper has been recorrected with reference to the journal's bibliographic format

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all the queries. Article may be accepted in present form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript in current version is acceptable in Coatings journal.