Photopolymerised Coatings with Nanopigments Based on Dye Mixtures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript fulfills all the reviewer requirements.

I recommend to be accepted as it is.

 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to Reviewer 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript " Photopolimerized Coatings with Nanopigments based on Dye Mixtures", the authors have described the preparation of coatings with nanopigments via the dye mixture treatment of montmorillonite modified with cationic surfactants. In my opinion, this article requires additional work to be published in Coatings. Because that the data themselves are with good quality, the researchers can consider rebuilding from ground up. Improvements in research hypothesis, data processing and research presentation, would help to raise the manuscript quality for publication.

Abstract, Introduction, synthesis to conclusion whole paper need full improvement.

Conclusions are not supported by the presented results and in some points are vague.

Finally, I believe that the work is not suitable for publication in coating.

 

Some specific comments are as follows:

1.      What is the novelty and hypothesis of the research.

2.      What is the application of the research.

3.      Synthesis method is very complicated and complex.

4.      Discussion is very poor.

5.     Conclusions are not appropriate.

6.     No comparison with the previously reported work.

7.     Figures need full improvement.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

We partially agree with a Reviewer. We revised to the best of our abilities 1) the novelty and hypothesis, 2) the application of the research, 3) Synthesis method is described in more details, 4) Several points to Discussion are added, 5) Conclusions are lightly changed, 6) comparison with the previously reported work expanded 7)  Figures and legends improved. We believe that a manuscript will be useful to coatings researchers and chemists.

Reviewer 3 Report

Ivanov et al. report on dye-based coatings with nanopigments. The manuscript comprises two tables and 6 figures, among them are photodegradation studies of three compounds, time-dependent absorption spectra up to 25 hours, two kinetic traces, an AFM image, and small angle x-ray scattering of three samples. However, the authors missed to point out the new physical insight of this publication. At the moment, readers can have the impression that this is simply an addition of some more or less photostable compounds without further elucidations. Overall, the current version is difficult to follow from a scientific point of view and thus, disappointing. Readers of Coatings will have problems in following the rationale of this article and only experts on nanopigments will find some more parameters. As a consequence, it does not meet a scientific level that warrants publication in any peer-reviewed journal. Also, it has many typos. For example, it starts with one in the title. Next, it is not UV=VIS, but UV-Vis spectroscopy etc. I do not consider it as my job to proof-correct this submission. Finally, the scientific description sometimes needs considerable improvement. My current recommendation is that this contribution is not publishable and should be rejected. After careful improvements, resubmission could also be envisaged, but in this case the following issues are to be considered as well:

First of all, the sample characterization is poor. Purities of the chemicals and the resulting nanopigments are not given. Several definitions and motivations are missing: nanopigments, choice of dyes, colour coordinates L*, a*, b* etc. All this information is mandatory if someone wants to follow this contribution not to speak of repeating the experiments. The authors should concentrate on providing information in a transparent way that other people can learn new aspects from this contribution.

Line 37: The class of nanopigments needs to be described. Why is the current contribution relevant despite the fact that it simply adds some more pigments to the list? What is scientifically new?

The quality of the description of the synthesis and characterization in chapter 3.1 resembles a laboratory report rather than a scientific description and needs improvements.

Figure 2: It is impossible to comment on these rather unusual kinetic curves. Why did the measurements stop after 100 and 400 hours, respectively? There is no colour code in the figure caption. (1), (2), and (3) does not match with green, less green and blue. What about absorption spectra? What was the reason to choose 668 nm as excitation source for the degradation studies? What were typical experimental conditions (e.g. irradiance, spectral width)? What is known about the degradation mechanisms? What kind of degradation is this, i.e. how can 668 nm possibly break a chemical bond? What is the reason to choose these three systems and leave out the others, what about the kinetics of the other systems presented in Table 1? The ordinate nomenclature (“tau”) does not coincide with the abscissa (time).

Line 152: References are missing for “well-known synergistic effects …”. Synergistic effects in these systems are not explained.

Line 160 - 162: Where is the dye adsorbed – on the surfactants? Please provide data for experimental evidencing adsorption of individual substances.

Line 163 and beyond: There are equivalent questions as mentioned above. It seems to be pure speculation.

Line 190 ff.: How is light-stability (in contrast to photostability) defined? What are the criteria for the authors to claim that Reactive Blue 38 is less stable? Did the authors ensure the same absorption cross sections at the excitation wavelength (and otherwise identical experimental conditions)?

Line 198: Screening effect is not explained.

Line 201: What is the difference between screening effect and screening action?

Line 204 and Figure 3: How is “low light-fastness” defined? There are no values given. How is fastness defined in this work?

Figures 3 and 4: Suntest is not explained throughout the manuscript. There are commas for numbers on the ordinate. No colour fastness is given for Disperse Blue 56/Disperse Yellow 13 in Table 2, but it is measured in Figure 3. This is useless information.

Figure 4: What is the motivation to use 634 nm as excitation source? What kind of excitations source was used, irradiance, spectral width etc.?

There are only 17 references including one patent and one paper probably written in Russian (ref. 14). Seriously?

Here, I stopped the reviewing process.

 

Author Response

We revised to the best of our abilities point by point. We add more than 10 new paragraphs and some references. Revised or new paragraphs in the text are highlighted yellow. We believe that a manuscript will be useful to coatings researchers and chemists.

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript, the authors prepared a dye-based photopolymeric coating of nanopigment blends that exhibited excellent light resistance. The content of this work is very interesting and shows the possibility of using NPs in oligomer/monomer combinations. However, some modifications are needed and the comments that need to be addressed are listed below.

 

1. The English language is a problem. Take utmost care to avoid factual and grammatical errors. 

2. This should provide characterization test details, which can facilitate the reader's reference and comparison.

3. The authors should visualize the XRD and VU-vis plots and provide the corresponding plots to be placed in the manuscript

4. The authors should strengthen the background to enhance the support and necessity of this work for publication.

Author Response

We made attempts to improve the manuscript in line with the Reviewer’s comment. We revised to the best of our abilities point by point. We add more than 10 new paragraphs and some references. Revised or new paragraphs in the text are highlighted yellow. We believe that a manuscript will be useful to coatings researchers and chemists.referenced original publications. English was improved. factual and grammatical errors have been fixed.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made good attempts to improve the article. Now I may be accepted.

Author Response

We agree with a Reviewer. We revised to the best of our abilities (highlighted green) 1) new paragraph and 5 references were added to introduction 2) Methods were improved. 3) the research design was slightly modified. One other Table 3 was added in order to clarify results,  discussion and section 3.1. English was corrected. We believe that a manuscript will be useful to coatings researchers and chemists.

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept

Author Response

The authors are grateful to Reviewer. English language and style was editted.