Precise Characterization of CNF-Coated Microfibers Using Transmission Electron Microscopy
, Irina V. Krasnikova 2, Sofya D. Afonnikova 3, Aleksey A. Vedyagin 3 and Ilya V. Mishakov 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would recommend the paper for publications after minor revisions. The criticism follows:
1. As far my knowledge, the final material is not composite. CNF coated fiber is reinforcing phase. Authors should provide the matrix material.
2. Authors may cite these references that is close connected to the topic of their investigation:
(i) Composite Interfaces, 2021: 1 – 16.
(ii) Composite Science & Technology, 101, 2014: 1 – 10
3. In Fig. 3, CNFs are not seen properly in the SEM images. Please provide high magnification images to see the interaction between CNFs and CFs.
4. In reference section, format of all references should be unified.
5. Few grammatical errors are there in the article.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for attention to our manuscript as well as for valuable comments and recommendations. The answers to the comments are presented below.
I would recommend the paper for publications after minor revisions. The criticism follows:
- As far my knowledge, the final material is not composite. CNF coated fiber is reinforcing phase. Authors should provide the matrix material.
A1. Thank you for this comment. Actually, this is just a question of terminology. Such reinforcing materials are often called as “carbon-carbon composites” and “carbon-mineral composites”. Anyway, to avoid any confusion, we changed the term “composites” with the term “materials”, since no experiments on matrices were made.
- Authors may cite these references that is close connected to the topic of their investigation:
(i) Composite Interfaces, 2021: 1 – 16.
(ii) Composite Science & Technology, 101, 2014: 1 – 10
A2. Thank you for this advice. The mentioned references were cited in the Introduction section.
- In Fig. 3, CNFs are not seen properly in the SEM images. Please provide high magnification images to see the interaction between CNFs and CFs.
A3. Thank you for your suggestion. The requested SEM images with higher magnifications have been added to Figure 3 as the corresponding inset micrographs.
- In reference section, format of all references should be unified.
A4. The references were unified.
- Few grammatical errors are there in the article.
A5. The text was once again checked using a Grammarly® service and the found errors were corrected.
Once again, we are grateful to Reviewer for careful consideration of our paper and valuable comments!
On behalf of authors,
Dr. Ilya Mishakov
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
REVIEW COMMENTS:
I have gone through the manuscript “Precise Characterization of CNF-coated Microfibers using
Transmission Electron Microscopy” few times and I have the following comments. I recommend for MINOR REVISION of the manuscript.
1. Abstract need to be modified carefully. In my opinion, abstract doesn’t reflect the complete study carried out in this paper. Some conclusion points need to be mentioned in the abstract.
2. Keywords need to be revised. For example, coating with carbon nanofibers
3. The contents flow in the introduction need to be revised. For example, Line No.64 authors introduced the current work. Then in Line No. 72-76 authors mentioned the drawbacks of other methods. Then again line No. 82-86 discussing about the current work. It will really confuse the readers. Technical gap need to be mentioned clearly before introducing the current work and its advantages.
4. Line No. 104: Its mentioned as CCVD in the bracket for Catalytic pyrolysis. Please correct it.
5. Section 2.2, catalytic pyrolysis conditions need to be mentioned. Its not clear when catalytic pyrolysis is used and when CCVD is used.
6. Line No.143: Some kind of treatment (ultrasound or other impacts) is mentioned. But in figure sonication, irradiation, chemical etching etc. These methods need to be mentioned in the text.
7. Line No.151: Figure 1 caption need to be revised in a better way.
8. The last paragraph of conclusion need to be removed. “The authors believe that the developed technique….”. Any statement in the conclusion should be proven or supported by literature. It can’t be based on the belief of authors.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for attention to our manuscript as well as for valuable comments and recommendations. The answers to the comments are presented below.
I have gone through the manuscript “Precise Characterization of CNF-coated Microfibers using
Transmission Electron Microscopy” few times and I have the following comments. I recommend for MINOR REVISION of the manuscript.
- Abstract need to be modified carefully. In my opinion, abstract doesn’t reflect the complete study carried out in this paper. Some conclusion points need to be mentioned in the abstract.
A1. The abstract was modified as proposed.
- Keywords need to be revised. For example, coating with carbon nanofibers
A2. Thank you. The keywords were revised.
- The contents flow in the introduction need to be revised. For example, Line No.64 authors introduced the current work. Then in Line No. 72-76 authors mentioned the drawbacks of other methods. Then again line No. 82-86 discussing about the current work. It will really confuse the readers. Technical gap need to be mentioned clearly before introducing the current work and its advantages.
A3. Thank you for this comment. We decided to eliminate the introduction of the current work in Line 64.
- Line No. 104: Its mentioned as CCVD in the bracket for Catalytic pyrolysis. Please correct it.
- Section 2.2, catalytic pyrolysis conditions need to be mentioned. Its not clear when catalytic pyrolysis is used and when CCVD is used.
A4-5. We are sorry for this confusion. Actually, we meant the same process. The term “catalytic pyrolysis” was replaced with “CCVD process” all over the text.
- Line No.143: Some kind of treatment (ultrasound or other impacts) is mentioned. But in figure sonication, irradiation, chemical etching etc. These methods need to be mentioned in the text.
A6. Thank you. We mentioned these techniques in the text.
- Line No.151: Figure 1 caption need to be revised in a better way.
A7. The caption was revised as follows.
Figure 1. Procedure chart illustrating an approach used to examine the adhesion strength of CNF on the surface of microfibers.
- The last paragraph of conclusion need to be removed. “The authors believe that the developed technique….”. Any statement in the conclusion should be proven or supported by literature. It can’t be based on the belief of authors.
A8. The last paragraph was removed from the Conclusion section and placed at the end of the Results and discussions.
Once again, we are grateful to Reviewer for careful consideration of our paper and valuable comments!
On behalf of authors,
Dr. Ilya Mishakov
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments and I am satisfied with the improvements. Now , I recommend this manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for your interest to our study! On behalf of authors, Dr. Ilya MishakovReviewer 2 Report
1. In Table 1, More space to be added between items 1, 2, 3 and 4 to read the coating conditions for each case clearly.
2. In Table 1, sample designation – whole word should be in BOLD.
3. English language need to be checked properly throughout the manuscript. For example, Line No. 145 – study considers the following procedures – Please correct it
4. Line No 146-147: Mention exactly the treatment methods used in this study
5. Overall format of the manuscript need to be checked, especially Reference section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
We thank you very much for the careful consideration of our manuscript as well as for valuable comments and recommendations!
The answers to the comments are presented below.
I In Table 1, More space to be added between items 1, 2, 3 and 4 to read the coating conditions for each case clearly.
A1. Thank you for your suggestion! The corresponding correction has been made.
- In Table 1, sample designation – whole word should be in BOLD.
A2. Done.
- English language need to be checked properly throughout the manuscript. For example, Line No. 145 – study considers the following procedures – Please correct it
A3. Thank you! The manuscript language was revised accordingly.
- Line No 146-147: Mention exactly the treatment methods used in this study
A4. Agree. The sonication was specified as the only treatment procedure used in this study.
- Overall format of the manuscript need to be checked, especially Reference section.
A5. The format of the manuscript, including the reference section, has been checked.
Thank you once again!
On behalf of authors,
Dr. Ilya Mishakov
