Next Article in Journal
Chemical and Mechanical Characterization of the Alternative Kriab-Mirror Tesserae for Restoration of 18th to 19th-Century Mosaics (Thailand)
Previous Article in Journal
Special Issues of “Materials for Luminescent Detectors and Transformers of Ionizing Radiation”
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 9
10.3390/ma16093320
Review Report
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Comparative Investigation of the Surface Properties of Corn-Starch-Microfibrillated Cellulose Composite Films

Materials 2023, 16(9), 3320; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16093320
by Zuzanna Żołek-Tryznowska 1,*, Ewa Bednarczyk 1, Mariusz Tryznowski 1 and Tomasz Kobiela 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Mohammad Akrami
Materials 2023, 16(9), 3320; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16093320
Submission received: 29 March 2023 / Revised: 19 April 2023 / Accepted: 20 April 2023 / Published: 23 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Materials and Surface Treatment Processes Used for Engineering Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor

In this study, author have investigated the surface property of micro fibrillated cellulose/Corn starch composite as biocompatible materials using SEM and AFM. The wettability, surface free energy and roughness were also evaluated.

 

However, authors have to address below comments:

·         More quantitative and numerical results are necessary in the abstract. The results must be quantitavely show the wettability, surface free energy and roughness for improved surface property in comparison. The conclusion of the study must be added as a last sentence of abstract. The preparation method should be mentioned in Abstract.

·         The text requires editing of English language.

·         Revise Figure caption in a scientific manner. For example” Table 1. Formulations of starch-based composites in g”. Replace “in g” with scientific sentence.

·         Start the “Results and discussion” section with in a scientific manner. Starting with “After drying” is not suitable and it hasn’t continuity.

·         Figures are not uniform and doesn’t have unique style and font. Please revise them. Correct the resolution of Fig.1. Scales in images of Table2 are not clear and the measurement method has not been mentioned. Please explain Figure 2 and 3 captions more in details. It needs uniform style of numbering as recommended.

·         In FTIR results, which absorption band show the difference after adding MFC?

·         There is no literature survey and comparison with similar articles in discussion section.

·         There is no enough references for “results and discussion”. It should be enriched.

·         Author should address the novelty and advantages of the study

Best

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

.

Back to TopTop