Effect of Humidity on Metallizing on Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) with Atmospheric UV Treatment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s comment:

This manuscript deals with the humidity on metalizing on PPS with atmospheric UV treatment. In all, the paper falls within the scope of this journal and is written in a clear way and most of the claims are supported by data and figures. It is of great significance to scholars and the results are very important significance for industry manufacturers. Although the manuscript is relatively well organized, certain details, explanations, language and typographical corrections are needed to improve its details.

Thus, I indeed think the paper can be accepted after a major and serious revise.

 

1. line 24, the Key words can not cover the main content of the work, for example, metalizing should be used.In addition, why “Chrome less pretreatment” can be used as Key words ?
2. Section 2.1. Experimental procedure should give a detailed description of Table that other scholarscan repeat the plating process. For example, “The test pieces were wiped with ethanol and then UV-treated.” in line 64, ethanol concentration, time, UV treatment information should be given.
3. Line 71. Power strength time of dry air should be given.
4. Line 73. Is sensitizer activator a material or two materials ? If two materials, “and”should be added between “sensitizer activator” . In addition, specific chemical reagents used as sensitizer and activator should be given in experimental procedure and table 1.
5. Line 131. “The difference of adhesion strength is due to the presence of the elastomer.”What is the elastomer in Prototype A ? What is the relationship of the elastomer and the adhesion strength ? What is the difference of A504X90B and prototype A ? Action mechanism of A504X90B’ and prototype A with Ni film should be studied deeper.   
6. ALL figures do not have scale mark.
7. Line 136. what is PG67G-022B ? Is it Prototype A ? puzzling
8. Line 134 and Table 2. is coefficient  equal to slope in table 2 ? Should be consistent.
9. In Table 2, it has no meaning to supply intercept.
10. Line 155 and Figure 1. isotherms belonging to type III should give an explanation.
11. Lines 204-208, 228. Why does the adhesionstrength decrease after the reaction ? Can it be concluded that the adhesion between PPS and film is mainly controlled by physical adsorption?
12. References should be updated.

 

 

In addition, there are many grammatical errors, misuse of some terms, and many sentences do not be read well more or less . For example:

• Lines 54-55. Nevertheless, there hasbeen no report investigating the relationship between the effect of humidity during UV 55 treatment and the adhesion of plating.
• Lines 54-55.89-91. Scatter plot was created with the volume absolute humidity on the horizontal axis and the measured adhesion strength on the vertical axis, and is shown in Fig.1.
• Line 168. It was suggested that this was mainly due to peeling at the interface between the plating

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: coatings-1723270 entitled:

 

Effect of Humidity on Metalizing on Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) with Atmospheric UV treatment

Authors

Toshimichi Yamagishi *, Tomoaki Inoue , Mitsuhiro Watanabe

 

General comment

The paper presents a study regarding the Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) reinforced with filler. The research was focused on effect of atmospheric UV treatment upon PPS.

 After revision, some recommendations and observation remain:

 

1. At R62 authors write, “We used Toray Industries, Inc. PPS resin "TORELINA ™" A504X90B and prototype A as test pieces. A504X90B contains 40% fiberglass. Prototype A is based on A504X90B”

 

In necessary in experimental part to detail the nature and amount of elastomer used in prototype A.

Reformulate paragraph 2.1 because is not clear why further in experiments authors refers only to A504X90B sample and prototype A is omitted. Insert short procedural data about how was obtained the test piece from PPS resin (molding, etc). Specify if the glass fibers are distributed uniformly, and mentioned the initial and after UV treatment roughness of PPS test pieces.

 

2. Specify the UV treatment duration. (“We recorded the relative humidity and temperature every 2 minutes during UV ... during the treatment time”). It seems that the adsorption of water is higher comparatively with the value reported for PPS resin "TORELINA ™" A504X90B (0.02%). Discuss this aspect in correlation with surface changes observed (XPS data).

 

3. Linked to observation at pct 1, is necessary to insert images of peeled plating film surface for prototype A and BET measurements.

 

4. At R136, authors mentioned the coefficient of determination of PG67G-022B. No other mention about PG67G-022B appear in text.

 

5. Linked to observation at pct 1, the peel strength for the PPS film systems could increase with increasing surface roughness, Ra or R rms, of the PPS coating. What is the authors view about this aspect?

 

6. In abstract is more appropriate to write that the adhesion strength between the plating film and the PPS resin is affected by the humidity and not to use the word correlates (as the mentioned in text coefficient of determination is low).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: coatings-1723270 entitled:

 

Effect of Humidity on Metalizing on Polyphenylene Sulfide (PPS) with Atmospheric UV treatment

Authors

Toshimichi Yamagishi *, Tomoaki Inoue , Mitsuhiro Watanabe

 

General comment

The paper presents a study regarding the Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) reinforced with filler. The research was focused on effect of atmospheric UV treatment upon PPS.

 After revision, some recommendations and observation remain:

 

1. Add caption of figure 3.

 

2. The amount of water taken up depends on environmental conditions, such as relative humidity and temperature, as well as the relative polarity of the solid. Plots of water either adsorbed or absorbed, as a function of relative humidity at constant temperature, commonly known as sorption isotherms, are needed for the understanding of the various types of isotherms. However, a number of phenomena, such as a sorption induced swelling and vapor diffusion can explain the effects of water on the physical and chemical properties of solids. Such an opinion is supported by recent knowledge on polymeric structure with large amount of micropores.  It means that both adsorption and absorption phenomena should be taken into considerations.

 

Regarding the question:  It seems that the adsorption of water is higher comparatively with the value reported for PPS resin "TORELINA ™" A504X90B (0.02%). Discuss this aspect in correlation with surface changes observed (XPS data).

 

As the author writes in the answers "comparing the amount of water adsorbed on the surface and the amount of water absorbed inside, the adsorbed water is much higher and the amount of water absorbed can be ignored" the question is after UV irradiation, the absorbed water remains low (less than 0.02%)? The question referred to the fact that when a specimen is exposed to UV radiation a combined action of factors (UV, temperature, humidity, etc.) takes place and that allows a certain crosslinking or splitting in the polymer matrix (reduction of the molecular weight) causing damage to mechanical properties. This was the main intention of this question to detail these structural changes brought about by PPS by UV irradiation.

 

3. For clarity, some specification will be welcome. I understand that PPS resin "TORELINA ™" A504X90B (40% fiberglass, Toray Industries, Inc.) represents A504X90B and prototype A is the same resin but with elastomer (Row 73). Both specimens were investigated for adhesion. BET is not clear for which specimen was performed (figure 2). I assumed that is for A504X90B.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx