Status of Research on the Use of Nanomodified Microcapsules in Cement-Based Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Status of Research on the Use of Nanomodified Microcapsules in Cement-Based Materials," by Xiao-Man Xie et al., thoroughly explores the application of nanomodified microcapsules in cement-based materials and coatings. The article provides a concise overview of advancements in researching nanomodified microcapsules and their practical implementation in cement-based materials. It clarifies phenomena observed in experiments and variations in performance through an analysis of underlying mechanisms. The paper commences by surveying the historical development of nanomodified microcapsules over recent decades, followed by an identification of various challenges and suggestions for future research directions. The insights presented aim to inspire the development and utilization of intelligent, high-performance coatings or cement-based materials.

To enhance the paper's academic rigor, I recommend the inclusion of a bibliometric analysis and a scientometric analysis. These analyses would offer valuable insights into research trends, publication patterns, and collaboration networks in the field of nanomodified microcapsules in cement-based materials and coatings. By examining citation networks, identifying influential authors and research groups, and assessing the evolution of research topics over time, these analyses can provide a more quantitative and data-driven perspective on the field's development.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to reviewers’ rigorous attitude and constructive comments. This useful feedback would lead to significant improvements for this paper. We have considered these comments carefully and made corresponding revisions. A detailed list of responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments is provided as follows:

 

Reviewers' comments:

The paper entitled "Status of Research on the Use of Nanomodified Microcapsules in Cement-Based Materials," by Xiao-Man Xie et al., thoroughly explores the application of nanomodified microcapsules in cement-based materials and coatings. The article provides a concise overview of advancements in researching nanomodified microcapsules and their practical implementation in cement-based materials. It clarifies phenomena observed in experiments and variations in performance through an analysis of underlying mechanisms. The paper commences by surveying the historical development of nanomodified microcapsules over recent decades, followed by an identification of various challenges and suggestions for future research directions. The insights presented aim to inspire the development and utilization of intelligent, high-performance coatings or cement-based materials.

To enhance the paper's academic rigor, I recommend the inclusion of a bibliometric analysis and a scientometric analysis. These analyses would offer valuable insights into research trends, publication patterns, and collaboration networks in the field of nanomodified microcapsules in cement-based materials and coatings. By examining citation networks, identifying influential authors and research groups, and assessing the evolution of research topics over time, these analyses can provide a more quantitative and data-driven perspective on the field's development.

Response:

Thanks for the advice. we are grateful to reviewers’ rigorous attitude and constructive comments. And reviewers’ useful feedback have led to significant improvements for this paper. We have added bibliometric analysis and a scientometric analysis to the revised version of the paper in response to reviewer comments. Thanks again to the reviewers for their comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide an overview of the use of modified microcapsules in cement-based materials, emphasizing their role in cement crack healing through the core material within the capsules. This review encapsulates recent advancements in composite coatings, particularly spotlighting novel progress in responsive microcapsules triggered by various external stimuli, such as mechanical loads, UV exposure, and electric fields. The referenced literature is partly comprehensive, encompassing a wide spectrum of research pertinent to the manuscript's subject. While the submitted work is suitable for publication in Processes, I propose adjustments based on the following comments:

1. Sectioning  of the manuscript should be included at the end of Section 1, explicitly outlining the content of each subsequent section and subsection.

2. In Section 2.2, the discussion regarding the dispersion of nanomaterials within the bulk matrix differs from the primary focus of this work, which involves using nanostructures to modify the microcapsules. Either remove this unrelated text or justify its relevance to this review.

3. Section 2.4 appears disorganized; for instance, on page 5, line 5 from the top, the discussion veers toward improving various properties of a matrix that repairs cracks, whereas the expected focus was solely on the modification of microcapsules. If matrix modification by nanoinclusions is indeed relevant, a separate subsection dedicated to this should be created.

4. Clarify the meaning of the second arrow (transition) in Figure 3, akin to the explanation provided for the first arrow.

5. Explicitly state in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 that the modifications discussed pertain to the shell of the microcapsules due to external agents. Distinguish discussions regarding modifications of the wall and core materials clearly throughout the text.

6. Improve the visibility of the scale text in Figures 11a-c, as it is currently difficult to discern.

7. Define the scale used in Figure 12 (e.g., mm, cm) for clarity.

8. Page 13 deviates abruptly in the middle of Section 2.2, discusses global energy issues and phase change materials. It might be prudent to create a new section (e.g., Section 3.3) to accommodate this content.

9. Revise the caption for Figure 15 to use complete sentences, for example: "Illustrating two distinct methods of releasing the core material..."

10. Provide meaningful definitions for subsection headings, such as 3.1.1 (should be 3.3.1), ensuring clarity and consistency throughout the sections.

11. Discuss the potential consequence when the entire core material is released into the matrix in Figure 16. Consider whether the empty volume of the capsule might become a new hazardous crack center for the cement.

12. Given the numerous citations in the paper, consider creating a table that systematizes these citations by linking them to the discussed microcapsule properties, facilitating easier reference for readers.

13.  There are many other review papers on this subject, for example, B. Liu et al, Polymers 2023, 15(12), 271,  Xue et al,  https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800177,  where many figures from this manuscript  are also presented. Also, there are very similar works in respected journals, such as Shang et al,   Scientific Reports 10, 8318 (2020), and many others. I am surprised that the authors didn't mention these works.  I advice them    to check the literature more carefully, to cite  the related papers, and make efforts to distinguish their review from others. Processes does not replicates published elsewhere works.   

In conclusion, this review holds promise for publication upon the authors' incorporation of the suggested modifications, especially according to my comment 13.

 

 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to reviewers’ rigorous attitude and constructive comments. This useful feedback would lead to significant improvements for this paper. We have considered these comments carefully and made corresponding revisions. A detailed list of responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments is provided as follows:

Reviewers' comments:

The authors provide an overview of the use of modified microcapsules in cement-based materials, emphasizing their role in cement crack healing through the core material within the capsules. This review encapsulates recent advancements in composite coatings, particularly spotlighting novel progress in responsive microcapsules triggered by various external stimuli, such as mechanical loads, UV exposure, and electric fields. The referenced literature is partly comprehensive, encompassing a wide spectrum of research pertinent to the manuscript's subject. While the submitted work is suitable for publication in Processes, I propose adjustments based on the following comments:

1.Sectioning of the manuscript should be included at the end of Section 1, explicitly outliningthe content of each subsequent section and subsection.

Response:

Thanks for the advice. We strongly agree with the reviewers' comments, and we have added relevant content at the end of Section 1.

 

2. In Section 2.2, the discussion regarding the dispersion of nanomaterials within the bulk matrix differs from the primary focus of this work, which involves using nanostructures to modify the microcapsules. Either remove this unrelated text or justify its relevance to this review.

Response:

Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted this part of the content, sorry for the inconvenience to the reviewer.

 

3.Section 2.4 appears disorganized; for instance, on page 5, line 5 from the top, the discussion veers toward improving various properties of a matrix that repairs cracks, whereas the expected focus was solely on the modification of microcapsules. If matrix modification by nanoinclusions is indeed relevant, a separate subsection dedicated to this should be created.

Response:

Thanks for your reminder, we're sorry to have made such a mistake. In the revised draft, we have modified this part and only discussed the modification of microcapsules.

 

4.Clarify the meaning of the second arrow (transition) in Figure 3, akin to the explanation provided for the first arrow.

Response:

Thanks for your advice, We have clarified the meaning of the second arrow ( transition ) in Figure 3 in the revised version. I am sorry for the inconvenience caused to you.

5.Explicitly state in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 that the modifications discussed pertain to the shell of the microcapsules due to external agents. Distinguish discussions regarding modifications of the wall and core materials clearly throughout the text.

Response:

Thanks for your reminder, We have made it clear in the first paragraph of Section 3.1 that the modifications discussed involve microcapsule shells due to external media. I apologize for the inconvenience caused to you.

 

6.Improve the visibility of the scale text in Figures 11a-c, as it is currently difficult to discern.

Response:

Thanks for your reminder, We are sorry that the scale of Figure 11 can not be clearly seen. We have re-modified Figure 11 in the revised version.

 

7.Define the scale used in Figure 12 (e.g., mm, cm) for clarity.

Response:

Thanks for your advice, we have modified the scale in Figure 12 and we apologize for any inconvenience caused to you.

 

8.Page 13 deviates abruptly in the middle of Section 2.2, discusses global energy issues and phase change materials. It might be prudent to create a new section (e.g., Section 3.3) to accommodate this content.

Response:

Thanks for your advice, Because the global energy problem and phase change materials are not related to the content of this section, we have deleted this part. we are sorry for the inconvenience caused to the reviewers.

 

9.Revise the caption for Figure 15 to use complete sentences, for example: "Illustrating two distinct methods of releasing the core material..."

Response:

Thanks for your reminder, we apologize for the improper description of the title of Figure 15. We have modified it according to the reviewer 's suggestion.

 

10.Provide meaningful definitions for subsection headings, such as 3.1.1 (should be 3.3.1), ensuring clarity and consistency throughout the sections.

Response:

Thanks for your reminder. we are very sorry for making such a mistake. We have checked and revised the section titles of the whole article.

 

11.Discuss the potential consequence when the entire core material is released into the matrix in Figure 16. Consider whether the empty volume of the capsule might become a new hazardous crack center for the cement.

Response:

Thanks for your advice. we have added this part of the discussion in the corresponding position of the revised paper.

 

12. Given the numerous citations in the paper, consider creating a table that systematizes these citations by linking them to the discussed microcapsule properties, facilitating easier reference for readers.

Response:

Thanks for your advice, The reviewer 's consideration is very comprehensive, we did not think of this aspect. We have added a table in the corresponding section to thank the reviewers again for their suggestions.

 

13.There are many other review papers on this subject, for example, B. Liu et al, Polymers 2023, 15(12), 271, Xue et al,  https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800177, where many figures from this manuscript  are also presented. Also, there are very similar works in respected journals, such as Shang et al, Scientific Reports 10, 8318 (2020), and many others. I am surprised that the authors didn't mention these works.  I advice them  to check the literature more carefully, to cite  the related papers, and make efforts to distinguish their review from others. Processes does not replicates published elsewhere works.

Response:

Thanks for your advice, The reviewer 's suggestion is very important. We have re-cited the relevant literature on the basis of the original, and added the part of scientometric analysis of microcapsules, and discussed the current hot spots and research trends. In addition, most of the other literatures discuss the composition and preparation of microcapsules, but the importance of this paper is the preparation and application of nano-modified microcapsules. We thank the reviewers again for their suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The aim of this paper is to summarize the progress in theoretical research and practical application of nanomodified microcapsules in coatings and cement-based materials, focusing on preparation processes and performance enhancements. The paper is interesting and well-documented.

 

As weak elements

Figures 11 and 16 could be aligned horizontally, which would make viewing them much easier. In general, the text around the figures should be reorganized.

Figure 14 could be enlarged in order to identify the represented quantities. Figure 20 should be on the same page as the figure caption. This could be achieved by moving the text.

A different type of font was used for lines 334-348, 437-464, 550-569! Please correct according to the author's guide. Please review the names of the sections (I didn't understand the meaning of the "Outlook" section after "Conclusions")! 

 

As notable elements

With over 120 bibliographic references, the paper is interesting and well-documented.

The authors present in 27 pages a complete work with a well-organized structure and which through its content shows a very good knowledge of the field but also a certain rigor in its drafting.

I also appreciate the effort to put together graphics, drawings, SEMs that highlight and complement the explanations in the text.

 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to reviewers’ rigorous attitude and constructive comments. This useful feedback would lead to significant improvements for this paper. We have considered these comments carefully and made corresponding revisions. A detailed list of responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments is provided as follows:

Reviewers' comments:

As weak elements

Figures 11 and 16 could be aligned horizontally, which would make viewing them much easier. In general, the text around the figures should be reorganized

Response:

Thanks for the advice. We have recomposed Figures 11 and 16 in the revised version, and thank you again for your suggestion.

 

Figure 14 could be enlarged in order to identify the represented quantities. Figure 20 should be on the same page as the figure caption. This could be achieved by moving the text.

Response:

Thanks for your reminder. For some reasons, we have deleted part of Figure 14. Thank you very much for your suggestion. For the position of Figure 20, we have re-adjusted to ensure that both the figure and the title are on one page.

 

A different type of font was used for lines 334-348, 437-464, 550-569! Please correct according to the author's guide. Please review the names of the sections (I didn't understand the meaning of the "Outlook" section after "Conclusions")!

Response:

Thanks for your advice. We apologize for the improper use of fonts in the paper, and we have revised this in the revised version of the paper. We have modified this part, sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly considered all of my suggestions and critiques. With the revisions made, the manuscript is now suitable for publication without further alterations.