Numerical Simulation of a Simplified Reaction Model for the Growth of Graphene via Chemical Vapor Deposition in Vertical Rotating Disk Reactor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDevelopment of the reliable theoretical reference for the graphene production is very important. In this research, authors managed to create an appropriate reaction model defining the process of CVD growth of the graphene in VRD reactor. The effects of various reaction conditions and parameters on special structure and quality of obtained graphene were revealed. The reported data look novel, consistent and therefore must be interesting for the readers of Coatings Journal. This work deserves publication as soon as few comments and issues are addressed (Minor Revision is needed).
1) Page 2, Subsection 2.1: The sentence “When we are doing a simulation,Grid profile of simplified VRD reactor is shown in Figure 3” should be rephrased.
2) A general remark: The quality of pictures and graphs presented in Figs 2, 4, 8-14 is obviously very low. It must be improved substantially!
3) Page 5, Formula (2): Why the subscript ‘surfacereaction’ is written in one word?
4) Page 6: It’s not clear why the Ea value of 2.5086·105 J/mol was taken? The corresponding reference is expected here.
5) Page7, Table 1: The separate math sign (1.0 or 1,0) should be uniform.
6) Page 8: The only phrase on this page contains 4 “increase” words within the same sentence. Please, rephrase.
7) Page 13, Figure 10: According to the presented fittings, all R2 values are above 0.97, whereas at w = 600 rpm, R2 is quite different – 0.667. The explanation of this fact is appreciated.
8) Page 15: “1) hydrogen as a cocatalyst” – what makes authors call H2 ‘cocatalyst’ for this process? Any reference to support this?
9) Page 19: “… a pair potential Morse potential…” – please, rephrase.
10) Page 25, Conclusion: “… the homogeneity and density of the graphene surface from being affected by too high or too low a nucleation density of graphene” – exactly the same phrase was written in previous paragraph (Page 24). The text repetitions must be removed.
11) There are some issues with the text formatting (absent spacing, subscripts etc.). Please, correct.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
The article has been revised. Please see the attachment.Thanks again for your hard work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, Yang and co-workers performed numerical simulations of a simplified reaction model for the growth of graphene by chemical vapor deposition in a vertical rotating disk reactor. More specifically, computational fluid dynamics were employed to investigate growth of graphene at a macroscopic modelling level, while molecular dynamics were performed to obtain insight at a microscopic perspective. With this approach, the authors were able to identify ideal growth conditions, which should be a very useful starting point for graphene production. The manuscript is also generally well-written and scientifically sound. Nevertheless, there are some points that could benefit from improvement.
-The resolution of several figures must be improved;
-It is not clear why there are connection gaps between data points in Figure 12;
-The authors should discuss in more explicit detail if the obtained conclusions regarding growth conditions are in line with existent literature;
-In the introduction section, for non-specialists, the authors should indicate if there are more processes for graphene growth other than chemical vapor deposition, and identify them. They should indicate more clearly why the focus on this process for graphene growth;
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
The article has been revised. Please see the attachment.Thanks again for your hard work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed satisfactorly some of my comments, but not all:
-Regarding my previous point 3, the authors have not really discussed if the obtained results are in line with literature. They have just expanded the Conclusion section by focusing once more on their own results. Moreover, the authors highlighted some lines, but some of them were not changed or where even outside of the main text (corresponding instead to Author Contributions and Funding sections);
-Regarding my point 4, the authors did not address if there are other processes for graphene growth and, if so, why the focus on CVD. They have just added more information about CVD in the abstract;
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
The article has been revised and answered in accordance with the requirements. Please see the attachment.Thanks again for your hard work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
