Solid-State Foaming Process Optimization for the Production of Shape Memory Polymer Composite Foam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their explanations and for taking into account most of my comments and suggestions. It is a pity that the changes were not marked in the text, it would be easier to search for them. The manuscript is well compiled and needs only some minor corrections. Here are some considerations to take into account:

1. p.1, l.19-20: CC and JSD are unknown shortcuts to the reader who is reading only an abstract.
2. The authors used a strange form of referring to the cited publications, e.g. [3] investigated ...., [7] inserted ....., [9] synthesized ...., etc. As if articles would research something, synthesize something ..., not scientists.
3. Figure 9 and 10: The direction (exo or endo) should be marked on DSC thermograms.
4. Figure 10 and 13: Change the legend. Instead PE should be CC.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Write the references about the Taguchi plan.
2. P6 Table 1 : Show the reason that choose these pressures.
3. P10 Figure 6. b) after : Small cavities entered the sample, Are there any influences to the physical properties? 

Author Response

please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

The paper titled "Optimization Solid-state Foaming Process for Production of Shape Memory Polymer Composite Foam" proposes the use of Taguchi Design to optimize the foaming parameters in the fabrication of polymer-based foams. The foams here presented seems to be obtained by a chemical foaming process, not by a solid-state foaming route as they suggest in the title and manuscript. This is an important mistake. I suggest you to please take a look into it (please check, for example, the works of Prof. Vipin Kumar about solid-state foaming). 

Moreover, a full review through the paper lead me to the following comments:

- In the Abstract some results are missing.

- Introduction:

It need to be updated, particularly about the foaming production routes, and in better agreement with the goals of the paper.

-Experimental: 

In the title is said: "Shape Memory Polymer Composite Foam", However, no mechanical test was made to prove that particular mechanical behavior. Mechanical properties must be included.  

Moreover, at least a simple SEM analysis showing and analyzing the cellular structure of the obtained foams is required.

-Results: 

Picnometry mesurements would improve the measurement of the foams porosity and their cell connectivity. 

Moreover, providing error bars or standard deviations is generally advisable, but particularly in a work employing the Taguchi methodology.

-Conclusions

Taking into account the previous comments, this section would be to be updated.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion the manuscript must be completed, especially in the field of experimental research. I also strongly suggest that the text be checked by a native speaker.

Below I have listed my comments and highlighted the parts that must be completed.

1. p.1, l.25-28: Please divide your sentence into shorter ones.
2. p.2, Figure 1: The captions in the Figure 1 are not clear.
3. p.2, l.61 and 63: Introduce a shortcut description of PDLLA and NPs.
4. p.3, l.95: PE is not a good name for this polymer, because it suggests that it is polyethylene.
5. p.3 (and others), l.108: Should be: wt.%
6. p.3, l.108: Introduce an abbreviation description of JSD and JSD+2.
7. p.3, l.128: Should be: “amount of NPs”
8. p.4, Table 1: Is it foaming temperature? But you show also results for lower temperatures. Why did you include only these two temperatures here? Especially since the maximum of foam ratio for JSP is at 240 °C. Correct an unit for Temperature.
9. What was the reason for the assumption of temperature and the process time increase and reduction of foaming time simultaneously for Run 1^th (and in case of others Runs)? In this case, it is not possible to draw a conclusion about the impact of individual parameters if more than one of them are changed. Was it not better to change only one variable (e.g. temperature) to be able to compare its real impact?
10. p.4, Figure 2: This process model does not apply to JSD polymer?
11. p.4, l.140: How did you distribute nanoparticles in the polymer matrix to ensure their uniform dispersion?
12. p.5, l.156: Explain what was a foaming factor in this process?
13. p.6, l.172: What was the foam machining process?
14. p.8, l.217: It was risky that you used such a high foaming temperature without checking if the pure polymer would break down in it.
15. p.8, Figure 9 and Figure 10: Show on thermograms where is exo and endo.
16. p.9, l.234: Is such accuracy of particle diameter values needed?
17. p.10, l.260: Decide whether you type in uppercase or lowercase in figures.
18. p.11, Figure 13 and 14: Are these the average value for both polymers?
19. p.11, Figure 13 and 14: Why is the polymer type numerically represented? There should be names on the x axis.
20. p.11, Figure 13 and 14: An increase in temperature was observed with a simultaneous change in holding and foaming time. It is therefore unknown what actually affected the density and foam ratio.
21. p.11, l.268: Therefore, the addition of nanoparticles has no reasonable reason, hasn't it? Especially for these two foaming temperatures.
22. p.12, l.295: According to Table 1, you did not consider the system in which you heat these samples (with such parameters) for 15 but for 10 minutes. Maybe for 15 minutes the results would be different?
23. p.12, l.297: What are these previous results? They are obtained at what parameters? For the same polymers?
24. p.12, Table 3: What was a difference between samples S1, S2 and S3?

There are also many language errors:

Please correct the Fe₃O₄ pattern in the whole text. Correct the font type in the names of the authors cited and standardize the way they are cited.

p.1, l.12: Should be: “The foaming parameters used in this research were: the polymer type….”

p.3, l.88-89: Where is the verb in the sentence?

p.3, l.89-90: Should be: The powder was then dried gradually via air.

p.10, l.244: Without one “designing”

p.10, l.257: Why plural (polymers)?

p.12, l.288: Please, correct the sentence.

Please use punctuation properly as it is difficult to read the text now; for example in sentences:

p.1, l.28-30

p.2, l.51-53

p.9, l.227-228