Magnetic Susceptibility of a Nanocomposite Based on an Opal Matrix with Yb2Ti2O7 Particles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. What is the main question addressed by the research work?
Authors studied the DC and AC magnetic susceptibilities of opal matrix-based nanocomposites with Yb2Ti2O7 nanoparticles in the wide range of magnetic fields as a function of temperature. They determined the spin relaxation times in nanocomposites by running several experiments.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
This topic is not original but relevant to the field and can be considered as a good addition to the scientific research work. There are research works in this field like https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008791117 or DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.127207 and etc. Magnetic nanoparticles result in very interesting properties of nanocomposites and often rely on the degree of dispersion, interparticle interactions etc.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?
They concluded that in these nanocomposites are exhibiting ferromagnetic state at low temperatures.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?
Yes
6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes, they look consistent and relevant.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Thank you so much for letting me review this work.
1. Page 1, line 38:
“dipole-dipole interactions and short-range” dash sizes should be the same
and should be corrected throughout the entire manuscript.
2. Page 3, line 109: “Close-packed opal matrix has a periodic structure, thus nanoparticles introduced into interspherical voids are located approximately periodically” This sentence contradicts itself; first, authors describe the matrix as periodic and then they use “approximately” word to describe the particle locations. You need to characterize that in one way or another. What does it mean “approximately”?
3. Page 3, line 128: “which the shape of silicon dioxide spheres is not distorted is enough” The authors need to correct the sentence.
4. Page 5, line 182: I would suggest the authors to zoom in the area from 0 to 2 H and include it to left corner of the Figure 3. I would like to see the magnetic saturation/unsaturation.
5. Page 6, line 185: “Figure 4.” There should not be the dot right after the number.
6. Page 6, line 191: Why did the authors choose these strengths of the field?
7. Page 7, lines 196-198: Why are Figures 5b and 5c different? Can I ask you to make temperature axis and inverse susceptibility the same, I mean ticks, font size, legends, etc. Can you also zoom in regions between 0-50 °C and include them in the figures.
8. Why do authors decide to measure up to 200 degrees? Is there any particular reason?
9. Page 10, line 276: “The approximation results are represented …” I would suggest changing the word “represented” to “given” for example.
10. Page 10, line 277: “Two relaxation times model is seen to describe experimental data more exactly than one relaxation time model” The authors do not describe how they have been fitting the experimental data? It is unclear. Again, font size and legend are different from other figures. May I ask authors to keep just one style for all?
11. Page 10, lines 282-288: The authors tell the readers that the two-relaxation times model describes better frequency dependence of susceptibility, my question is, if you add one more time are you going to get better fit or worse? Why this is so important, what they have been trying to discuss?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
The paper “Magnetic susceptibility of nanocomposite based on opal matrix with Yb2Ti2O7 particles” has been revised according to your recommendations. The necessary changes and corrections have been made to the text. The responses to the Reviewer, as well as the major changes, have been clarified in detail in attached file “Response to Reviewer 1”. The authors are grateful for considering our work and giving us the recommendations. We hope that we have coped to improve the article and now it can be published in the Journal of Composites Science.
Yours faithfully,
from authors
Olga Nemytova
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript corresponds to the Materials. The Introduction (Lines 22-91) and the list of references (Lines 378-432) are quite complete.
The methodology of the study is described in sufficient detail; however, it can still be improved.
The text is reasonably clear and easy to read.
All structural units of the manuscript are logically interconnected, except the conclusion, which should be more detailed.
The manuscript contains important scientific results for practice.
Comments and suggestions:
1. Must be correct affiliation style. (Line 4-7)
2. The experimental procedure must be mentioned precisely, possibly including a figure to describe it.
3. Figure 2: Nanoparticle (grain)-size distribution diagrams must be included, to determine the average nanoparticle size.
4. Conclusion must be more detailed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
The paper “Magnetic susceptibility of nanocomposite based on opal matrix with Yb2Ti2O7 particles” has been revised according to your recommendations. The necessary changes and corrections have been made to the text. The response to the Reviewer, as well as the major changes, have been clarified in detail in attached file “Response to Reviewer 2”. The authors are grateful for considering our work and giving us the recommendations. We hope that we have coped to improve the article and now it can be published in the Journal of Composites Science.
Yours faithfully,
from authors
Olga Nemytova
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you so much for letting me to review your manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Αll corrections have been made, and the article can be accepted.
