Studies on Mechanical, Thermal and Morphological Properties of Betel Nut Husk Nano Cellulose Reinforced Biodegradable Polymer Composites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents an experimental investigation on Mechanical, Thermal and Morphological Properties of Betel Nut Husk Nano Cellulose Reinforced Biodegradable Polymer Composites. I believe this is a good topic for the scientific community. However, I do not think the manuscript can be accepted in the present form and should undergo major revisions as suggested below.
The synthax/grammar should be significantly improved for better clarity. Many sections are too verbose, redundant and unclear.
The detailed comments can be found in the attached pdf file. Please go through them carefully and make all the necessary changes.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the responses in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion this paper is not suitable for publication in current form.
Detailed comments on the manuscript are presented in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the responses in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the corrections.
Please recheck the error bars inserted for all the cases. How the error bar starts from the highest value?
Please again do the thorough grammar and spell check.
Good luck.
Author Response
- Please recheck the error bars inserted for all the cases. How the error bar starts from the highest value?
Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful review. The error bars have been rechecked and we have made the corrections. The error bars are smaller in the highest tensile values.
- Please again do the thorough grammar and spell check.
Answer: We have attempted to make the corrections thorough grammar and spell check and other mistakes throughout the whole manuscript and we have made all necessary changes in our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article was revised by authors. However, in my opinion, before publication, major revision should be performed.
My detailed comments in the attchment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- 2020 -> apply in whole manuscript
Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful review. We agree with your comments. We have made the corrections throughout the whole manuscript.
- (Line) 24 % and (Line 54) Please use uniform format in whole text. Nanocellulose
Answer: We have made the corrections and we have attempted to make the manuscript as accurate as possible.
- (Line 81) mention producer of used components
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 81) mention this localization (city, country)
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 82) mention the producer of used components
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 83) What about PVA Please add producer and some characteristics (density, molecular weight etc.)
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 151) why 21 minute - not 30 min or 20 min? It was optimized? If yes. please present additional results in text.
Answer: It was not optimized. It was selected according to get desired result. The selected range has been mentioned here.
- (Line 155 figure 1to 8), Please present these figure as one figure (1 a-h)
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 164-168) small later and (Line 231, 231, 234) value
Answer: We have made the corrections.
- (Line218 table 1) round values to decimal
Answer: The suggested edits have been made.
- (Line 270) please summarize into one or two figures
Answer: The figures of this section were modified.
- (Line 317) formatting of reference are incorrect. Please see guidance for authors or template file dedicated for Journal of Composites Science.
Answer: The references have been revised and we have made the corrections.
.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Most of my comments were included, however this paper still need minor revsion.
Please modify:
- Figure 1 is wihout caption (figures should have caption) - modify this part in proper manner
- Figure 2 (I cannot read the values on axis)
- Figure 4 (color used for figure label is different for nanocellulose and cellulose is it ok ? If yes please apply the same for Figure 3. If not please modify.
- Figures 5-10 - improve the quality and reduce the number of figures - the same figures are appendix ? If yes, these figures can be removed.
Author Response
Please find the responses in the cover letter
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
