Recent Progress in Research of Solid Tritium Breeder Materials Li2TiO3: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a review on various aspects related to solid tritium breeder materials, in particular lithium titanate (Li2TiO3). The paper describes the fabrication methods and the characteristics of the material. The review is very deep and complete with several references considered. The paper is clear and well written. I just have a couple of minor comments the authors may consider to improve the manuscript.
-It would be better to briefly describe figure 1 to explain the structure of the review.
-Some minor English corrections can be done to improve the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) line 100 the pass of take is took and the past perfect taken the word taked does not exist
2) There are some unuseful spaces in some sentences along the paper
3) Standarized the abreviation of TD. In the tables are found TD and in the text T.D.
4) line 415, ...future fusion reactor.6. Modification, what does .6. Modification means
5) Neutron irradiation: I did not understand how does the neutron flux influence or should be seen in the Fig 7a.
6) line 390 destroied spelling incorrect
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled "Recent Progress in Research of Solid Tritium Breeder Materials Li2TiO3: a Review" is interesting and merit to readers.
However, major points have to address before publication;
- English must be improved by professional English editing service or native speaker.
- Abstract need quantitative information
- Application of Deuterium in spectroscopy as a background correction needs an introduction
- Core-shell material should be introduced.The authors should refer reference: Langmuir 37 (9), 2963-2973 (2021)
- Co-precipitation method for material synthesis should be introduced.
- Section 6. Modification has mistake with above section.
- Discussion of phase transformation is too less.
- Summary of this review needs again emphasize the main points of the paper.
- Resolution of figure must be improved. Many figures are not clear. It is imposible to see
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in Coatings.
