Study of [Bmim]Cl/LiCl Co-Solvent Dissolution of Waste Wool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors addressed all the queries. The manuscript looks much better after revision. Now the submitted original research can be accepted. I wish all the best to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Authors:

Dear Authors,

Overall this is an interesting manuscript investigating the dissolution and regeneration of waste wool keratin using an ionic liquid co-solvent system. The experiments are well-designed and the results contribute valuable insights into the effects of adding LiCl on keratin dissolution. However, there are a few areas that need clarification or improvement:

- The introduction could be expanded to provide more background on the challenges of keratin dissolution and existing methods. Explaining why ionic liquids are a promising green solvent would help motivate the study. 

 

- In the results section, the text often just describes trends shown in figures/tables without much interpretation or discussion. More explanation of why the results occurred and their significance is needed.

- Figure 3 and Figure 5 seems to be duplicate images, could you provide the raw data of these images and also requested to repeat these studies.

- The XRD, SAXS, FTIR and AFM data provide useful characterization of the keratin structure, but the results could be explained and discussed in more depth. How do the findings relate to keratin dissolution and regeneration?

- Figure 8 is a repeated image of Figure 7. Actual data of the FTIR is missing.

- The conclusions summarize the main findings but do not provide much insight into the broader implications of the research. The authors should expand on the significance of the results for future applications of waste wool keratin. 

- There are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that needs to be revised. Carefully proofread the manuscript.

- The quality of the figures could be improved - axis labels and units are missing in some cases.

-When preparing the manuscript, please ensure all planned figures, images, and other materials are included in their correct positions within the document. It appears a few images may be duplicated or missing in the current version. Reviewing the manuscript components before submission helps minimize reviewing delays and allows providing your complete work on initial assessment.

 

I can understand creating an extensive manuscript is extremely laborious, and accidental omissions are easily made. Please take a pass through the document to confirm figures cited match those provided. Having all materials in place upon submission is appreciated as it respects reviewers' time and allows the fairest evaluation of your research.

Overall the research is valuable but the manuscript would benefit from expansion of the background, more in-depth explanation and discussion of the results, and tying the conclusions to the broader context and future applications. Addressing these points will improve the clarity and impact of the work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wrote an interesting work in the field of characterizing the structure and properties of keratin post-dissolution and regeneration. I would like this article to be useful not only to the authors themselves, but also to those specialists who work on this problem because the text is difficult for reading and understanding in some parts. It seems to me that taking into account the comments and recommendations given below will contribute to the achievement of this goal.

Comments and Recommendations:

1. Line 102 contains a reference to formula (26), which is not in the text.

2. There are a lot of figures in the article, which should clearly confirm some statement, conclusion, assumption. This is important, but it is necessary to provide each drawing with an explanation of what position of the authors it confirms, what it was made for, what feature of the each drawing is valuable evidence of something what is important for the authors. It should be done even if it seems obvious to the authors. The reader should not guess what the authors meant.

3. The authors studied the effect of LiCl on the solubility of keratin in [Bmim]Cl, and also characterized the structure and properties of keratin after dissolution and regeneration, and believe that their method provides the basis for promising studies of the adsorption behavior of keratin on textile materials without significantly altering the structure or function of wool keratin. It would be interesting to know what new practical opportunities the introduction of this development opens up and how the situation in the relevant area can then change in reality, what is the sequence of further steps. A brief schematic description of this perspective by the authors was very useful and interesting to readers.

This paper is well enough written to understand most of main results. The manuscript seems to be appropriate for publication. I am therefore inclined to think that such a work corresponds to the content of the Journal "Coatings" and can be published there after taking into account mentioned comments and introducing corresponding corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Please find enclosed a review.

Kind regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to provide my final recommendation and express my congratulations on the work you have done for the paper titled " Study on [Bmim]Cl/LiCl co-solvent dissolution of waste wool." I had the privilege of serving as one of the reviewers for your manuscript.

Your commitment to enhancing the quality of the paper is evident in the comprehensive revisions you have made. The clarity and coherence of the manuscript have been notably improved, and the research findings are now presented in their best light. I am delighted to recommend that your paper be accepted for publication in its current form. It has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the scientific community, and I believe it is ready to be shared with a wider audience.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper, and I look forward to seeing it published in the near future.