Effects of Carbon Nanotubes on Thermal Behavior of Epoxy Resin Composites
Yuefeng Zhu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file for authors' responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript under the title: “Effects of Carbon Nanotubes on Thermal Behavior of Epoxy Resin Composites” is in line with Journal of Composites Science. This topic is relevant and will be of interest to the readers of the journal. It based on original research. The article has a typical organization for research articles.
Before the publication it requires significant improvements, especially:
- Main comment. The effect of adding CNTs to epoxy composites on their thermal stability has been well studied in works over the past 20 years. You must significantly expand the experimental section and show the scientific novelty of this study, as well as how this work differs from those available in the literature. It would also be good to show how the introduction of CNTs affects the thermal conductivity, thermal resistance, and thermal diffusivity of the epoxy composition.
- The "Introduction" section: it has been proven that the effect of various modifying additives and fillers on the thermophysical and mechanical properties of epoxy polymer composites is determined by many factors: ……. I think the related references should be cited corresponding to each aspect, e.g. (but not limited to these), which will undoubtedly improve the "Introduction" section:
· Russ J Appl Chem 90, 267–276 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1070427217020173
· Polymers 2021, 13(19), 3332; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13193332
· Polymer-Plastics Technology and Materials, 59, 874–883, https://doi.org/10.1080/25740881.2019.1698615
· Polymer Composites, 36, 1891-1898 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.23097
- Section 2. it is necessary to add the physicochemical characteristics of all components used – give a table with the main physicochemical and technological properties.
4 4.Section 2. Equipment - you must specify the type, brand, city and country of manufacture for each type of equipment.
5 5.Fig.2-3. The values of the storage modulus must be converted to MPa.
6 6.Fig.4-5. The values of the Loss modulus must be converted to MPa.
7. 7. Error bar should be added in Figure 3, 5, 7, 10, 11.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for authors' responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Considering the revised manuscript, the reviewer provides some specific revisions and suggestions as follows:
(1) Figure 3b: The CNTs should be marked out.
(2) Figure 4-7: The modulus axis should be scaled in normally way, e. g. rather 2.0´103 than 2.0E+3.
(3) Line 219-220: An additional remark should be given as “s0 and e0 is the initial (t=0) stress and strain, respectively”.
(4) Line 338: “11.4, 11.5, and 13.9°C” should be “11.4, 12.6, and 14.0°C” according to Table 3;
Line 339: “0.18, 3.7, and 4.2°C” should be “0.20, 3.8, and 4.3°C” according to Table 3.
(5) Line 379-380: “theoretical density of CNTs is 2.6 g/cm3” is not correct. According to the reviewer’s knowledge, the density of CNTs is about 1.6 g/cm3. In addition, the densities of the nanocomposites described in Line 381 have been calculated by Eq. 6 with density of CNTs of rather about 1.6 g/cm3 than 2.6 g/cm3. Moreover, the series of nanocomposites densities “1.2501, 1.2502, and 1.2505 g/cm3” should be “1.2501, 1.2502, and 1.2503 g/cm3”, and then, the ratio of the actual density to the theoretical density for the pure epoxy and nanocomposite samples described in Line 387 should be recalculated as “0.9240, 0.9255, 0.9270, and 0.9278”. Finally, the relative density, that is the ratio of the actual density to the theoretical (or measured) density for the nanocomposites mentioned above increases with increased CNTs content, the authors are suggested to give a rational analysis or discussion.
Considering the revised manuscript, the reviewer provides some specific revisions and suggestions as follows:
(1) Figure 3b: The CNTs should be marked out.
(2) Figure 4-7: The modulus axis should be scaled in normally way, e. g. rather 2.0´103 than 2.0E+3.
(3) Line 219-220: An additional remark should be given as “s0 and e0 is the initial (t=0) stress and strain, respectively”.
(4) Line 338: “11.4, 11.5, and 13.9°C” should be “11.4, 12.6, and 14.0°C” according to Table 3;
Line 339: “0.18, 3.7, and 4.2°C” should be “0.20, 3.8, and 4.3°C” according to Table 3.
(5) Line 379-380: “theoretical density of CNTs is 2.6 g/cm3” is not correct. According to the reviewer’s knowledge, the density of CNTs is about 1.6 g/cm3. In addition, the densities of the nanocomposites described in Line 381 have been calculated by Eq. 6 with density of CNTs of rather about 1.6 g/cm3 than 2.6 g/cm3. Moreover, the series of nanocomposites densities “1.2501, 1.2502, and 1.2505 g/cm3” should be “1.2501, 1.2502, and 1.2503 g/cm3”, and then, the ratio of the actual density to the theoretical density for the pure epoxy and nanocomposite samples described in Line 387 should be recalculated as “0.9240, 0.9255, 0.9270, and 0.9278”. Finally, the relative density, that is the ratio of the actual density to the theoretical (or measured) density for the nanocomposites mentioned above increases with increased CNTs content, the authors are suggested to give a rational analysis or discussion.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached cover letter and the responses by point-by-point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have removed this reviewers concerns.
Author Response
The authors really appreciate the reviewer again for taking time reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments. Please review the second-round revised version of the manuscript with revisions heighted in green.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did not convince the reviewer of the scientific novelty of this work. The topic is outdated. CNt-reinforced epoxy composites are studied since the begining of 21st century. I do not believe the paper can be interesting the readership of Journal of Composites Science. Therefore, I'm against the publication of this paper.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached cover letter and the responses by point-by-point.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments have been responded rationally and all of the pointed errors have been corrected. The reviewer suggests accept.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have tried to improve the manuscript, in this form it can be recommended for publication.
