Preparation of a New Type of Expansion Flame Retardant and Application in Polystyrene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general

The manuscript is written clearly and logically. However, this manuscript does not contain direct evidence of scientific novelty.

 

In specific

Lines 13-14.

For example, the authors decelerated in abstract two new scientific things: (1) new method  “…we prepared a new type of flame retardant (MAP) by electrostatic self-assembly method” and (2) new method “The new type of flame retardant (MAP) was introduced to modify PS and its effect on the flame retardancy of PS composites was investigated”.

 

Lines 68. It was written “Li et al. [20] successfully prepared a new type of [zinc borate] (ZB) whisker and used it as a flame retardant synergist for PP/IFR composites.

Lines 74-75 It was written “…ZB also improves the yield strength, elastic modulus and impact strength of PP composites” [21].

Lines 76-84. It was written Melamine (MEL) can effectively inhibit combustion….[22]…. to prevent combustion [23].

The authors must convincingly prove the scientific novelty of this manuscript in comparison with the articles [20-23].

Another way to prove it is to conduct a patent search. The result of this patent search should be that these two methods were used for the first time, that is, the fulfillment of the criterion of world novelty for these technical solutions.

 

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional  review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestion, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft and introduced scientific novelty in more detail in the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Preparation of a new type of expansion flame retardant and application in polystyrene" presents a relevant theme and within the scope of this journal, and can be considered after some corrections suggested below:

(a) The abstract is generally well written, however in terms of content it is generic, i.e., the authors lack an in-depth study of the quantitative results of this research;

(b) Scientific innovation is limited in the introduction of the paper, the authors must go deeper and detail what this research differs from countless others that exist on this topic, this must be evidenced together with the objectives at the end of the introduction;

(c) The state of the art of the evaluated topic needs to be improved by the authors, note that some topics are absent and need to be known with current research;

(d) The description of the methodological procedures is relatively short and with little impact, in addition, the authors can add an experimental flowchart;

(e) “It can be observed from the Figure4.a that Con- 164 trol PS burns quickly after ignition, HRR rises sharply, and PHRR value is high. When 165 flame retardants were added to PS, the HRR curves of PS/20%IFR and PS/20%IFR were 166 significantly reduced, PHRR was significantly decreased, and the total combustion time 167 was extended.” This excerpt should be better justified and explained by the authors.

(f) “In addition, the elongation at 213 break of the sample decreased from 2.5% to 2.1% due to the addition of IFR. The mechan- 214 ical properties of the samples deteriorated obviously because of poor compatibility be- 215 tween inorganic IFR and PS. However, the elongation of PS/20%N-IFR composite remains 216 at 2.2%.” This excerpt should be better justified and explained by the authors.

(g) The conclusion not complete enough, the authors should dedicate themselves to improving this section and showing that they effectively fulfilled their objectives with this experimental program.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional  review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestion, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, detailed corrections are listed below.

(a) The abstract has been revised accordingly to supplement the quantitative research results.

(b) The research differs from countless others in that the introduction is added.

(c) The research topic is supplemented accordingly.

(d) We have added  an experimental flowchart.

(e) Further explanation is given and highlighted in yellow

(f) Further explanation is given and highlighted in yellow

(g) The objective of the experiment is further explained in the conclusion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript reports the preparation of an intumescent flame retardant formulation for poly(styrene). It is relatively brief and somewhat disjointed. Halogen-free flame retardants are mentioned in the introduction. The greatest advance in this area has been with biobased organophosphorus flame retardants [see Polymers, 2019, 11, 2033 for a leading reference] and these are not discussed. The introduction should be expanded to place the current report in context with respect to poly(styrene) flame retardancy.

The manuscript will require some rather massive rewriting for accuracy, clarity and readability before consideration for publication. Corrections are penciled-in directly on pages of the manuscript attached. These are illustrative of the kinds of changes needed throughout. In rewriting, careful attention should be paid to the use of articles, tenses and proper sentence structure. Every attempt should be made to clearly state what is intended. Sentences should express complete thoughts. Author's names, et.al, and personal pronouns should be omitted. Blends are referred to as composites. This should be corrected. "Synergistic effect" should be "cooperative effect" (the action of multiple flame retardant entities occurs in parallel, one does not impact action of the other). "Free radicals" should be "radicals" (free radical represents older nomenclature  and the radicals described here are highly encumbered). Superfluous phrases should be avoided.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional  review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestion, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. We have read the relevant literature you mentioned and cited relevant viewpoints to expand the background report of the introduction. The incorrect grammar in the manuscript has been corrected, and the irregular  sentences have been rewritten to ensure the clarity and accuracy of expression.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript "Preparation of a new type of expansion flame retardant and application in polystyrene" presents an important scientific issue related to increasing the non-flammability of polystyrene foams.

I believe that the manuscript can be admitted to the next stages of the proceedings, provided that the following comments are taken into account. 

1. The introduction is written briefly and should be significantly supplemented with examples of similar tests on obtaining non-flammability of polystyrene foams.

2. I consider the description of the apparatus used during the research to be insufficient. This should be supplemented.

3. The manuscript lacks a diagram of the test stands and photographs showing the test stand, sample preparation and testing.

4. The manuscript lacks information on the statistical analysis of the obtained results and whether any general form of the equation (e.g. polynomial) was derived showing the impact of individual input quantities on the output quantity.

5. The conclusions of the manuscript should be supplemented with additional information on the measurable benefits of using modified polystyrenes and exemplary, further directions of research in this area should be indicated.

6. The manuscript lacks a list of abbreviations, symbols and notations that would make it easier for readers to use the manuscript.

7. The literature review refers to only 26 literature items, of which only 5 are younger than 3 years.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional  review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestion, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, detailed corrections are listed below.

1. The introduction is enriched with the introduction of the  tests  of polystyrene foams.

2. We have improved description of the use of apparatus.

3. We have added  an experimental flowchart.
4. The relevant statistical analysis are supplemented in 3.2 and highlighted in yellow.
5.  The conclusion has supplemented the related advantages of modified polystyrene and indicated the future research direction in this area.
6. We have added a  a list of abbreviations, symbols and notations in  manuscript.
7. The references have been supplemented and updated.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

ok.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript needs to be checked for proper use of articles. Author's names and et. al. should be omitted.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Author's names and et. al. have  omitted in manuscripts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors of the manuscript acted on most of my comments. Unfortunately, the manuscript still lacks photographs (research and test stand) showing the physical implementation of the described research.

In addition, the revised manuscript still lacks a table listing the symbols and abbreviations used.

Please complete the manuscript in accordance with the comments provided.

Author Response

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. 

We don't think we should put the photos of the test stand and other physical objects in the manuscript. If you need, we can put them in the supporting materials and send them to you.

 The symbols and abbreviations are appended at the end of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx