Compatibility of LaFe13−x−yMnxSiyH1.6 and Eutectic Liquid GaInSn Alloy†
, Joseph Rendall 1, Mingkan Zhang 1, Michael R. Koehler 2, Kashif Nawaz 1 and Ayyoub M. Momen 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors
Unfortunately, the article is more of a report on the results obtained on various devices than a scientific article that brings something new.
The presentation of the results leaves much to be desired
References do not contain references to recent literature.
I don't understand why you would post dozens of results directly from the measurements without analyzing them thoroughly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article provides information on the reaction between good HTF material, Galistan, and modification of known magnetocaloric material La(Fe,Si)13 – hydrated and Mn-substituted LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6. The study presents only structural results, which clearly show that the reaction of these two materials is not compatible, and Galistan cannot be used as the HTF material with the LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6 group of materials. However, the use of the results may be limited due to the explanation of the low compatibility of the materials with the formation of GaO(OH), which is limited only to hydrated materials.
The weak point of the article is its overall preparation. The text is not written carefully (omitted words, even in the title, double-copied paragraphs, etc.) and requires thorough proofreading to improve the quality of the article. This also applies to figures, as the presentation of results should be improved.
The biggest issue of the article is the Introduction part, which requires a complete rewrite. This part of the reviewed work is too extensive, contains too general information and should be rewritten to emphasize the importance of the work and the reason why the tested materials from the LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6 group were selected.
Considering the highlighted problems, the article in its current form cannot be accepted. To reconsider the article, the Introduction must be heavily rewritten, most importantly to present the importance of the research to the reader, as well as to improve the technical quality of the article.
The detailed comments are below.
1. The title should be rephrased, for example “Compatibility of LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6 and Eutectic Liquid GaInSn Alloy”
2. The statement on the first page is incorrectly placed and should, if possible, be moved to the Acknowledgments section.
3. The Introduction part starting of 33 to 66 lines, including Figure 1, must be rewritten or omitted. The information contained in this part of the article is very general and does not require such detailed description, please rephrase it into a one paragraph of 3-4 sentences with appropriate quotations.
4. The material selection information of LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6 materials is not well introduced. Please explain in text why this group of materials was chosen, especially since it is a hydrated form of the well-known La(Fe,Si)13 materials.
5. Reference [4] is probably not appropriate to be cited. Please find another article to cite the Galinstan properties.
6. In the paragraph starting from the 46 line, the stoichiometry of the alloys and compounds should be written correctly, for example Gd5(Si2Ge2) instead of GdSiGe. This is very important as these two stoichiometry are not the same materials. This is also noticeable in the all sections of the article.
7. The paragraph from 95 to 102 lines is a copied paragraph from 88 to 94 lines. Delete one of them.
8. Line 94: Liquid metals ARE especially…
9. Table 1 should be omitted as the information presented is repeated in the text.
10. How this work is corresponding to the article on the compatibility of GaInSn with Gd? (SCARPA, Federico; SLIMANI, Sawssen. Galinstan liquid metal as heat transfer fluid in magnetic refrigeration. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2023, 120971.) Can you explain the difference of the evaluating the compatibility of the materials presented in your and the one mentioned above? Why is Galistan a good HTF material for Gd and not for LaFe13-x-yMnxSiyH1.6?
11. In section 2.3 the technical details as in the sentence in line 155 “The instrument was equipped…” are not necessary.
12. In section 3 sentence in line 167 seems to be out of place. Please correct or rephrase.
13. Figure 4 is difficult to read, the form of the presented data should be changed. Consider using 2D graphs with the as-received and Galinstan-exposed results side by side, or presenting Galinstan-exposed data directly beneath the corresponding as-received material.
14. The style of the text describing the results in lines 190-195 and 204-207 should be improved.
15. What about comparing the XRF results of the sample S-11 in the form of as-received and Galinstan-exposed?
16. The phases LaFe11.31Si1.81H1.51 I and II notation should be described in the Table 3 caption.
17. It would be nice to show one sample containing both LaFe11.31Si1.81H1.51 I and II to compare the peaks of these two phases. The lattice parameters of 11.58 and 11.57 A for sample S-4 are similar and it is good to have insight into the distinguishability of the peaks.
18. Line 241, 257 – wrong notation, FeLaSiH instead of LaFe11.31Si1.81H1.51.
19. In the supplementary materials, please correct lattice parameters notations – for the cubic phase only a parameter, for the hexagonal and tetragonal only a and c.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language of the article is good, however, many technical errors, such as omitted words, incorrectly transcribed paragraphs, or incorrect notation of compounds make it difficult for the reader to read the text. Careful re-editing of this work should solve all of the above-mentioned problems. Detailed information for improvement is included in the review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors
I have some questions and comments about the article.
My questions:
1. In Figure 5, the units should be in brackets
2. in references, the text must be supplemented and standardized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the revised version of the article, the authors addressed most of the presented issues. After minor revisions, the article may be considered for acceptance.
The detailed comments:
1. Figures 3-6 should have corrected labels. For XRD results, the left axis should be "Intensity (arb.units)" and the bottom axis should be "2θ (degree)". For XRF results, this should be the appropriate name of the physical parameter and its unit in brackets.
2. In lines 246-266, the highlighted notation FeLaSiH is still not consistent with the previous paragraphs, this should be corrected to LaFeSiH.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
