Effects of Polymerization Time towards Conductivity and Properties of Poly(methyl methacrylate)/Polyaniline (PMMA/PANi) Copolymer
, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah 3, Mohd Nazim Mohtar 1,3,4,*, Norizah Abdul Rahman 1,5, Azizan Ahmad 6,7, Nurul Huda Osman 3,8 and Febdian Rusydi 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is not ready to publish. The English writing is unsatisfactory. The authors should check the gramma and some other writing errors before submission. On the other hand, the authors try to propose that 2 hour is the optimum polymerisation time for the PMMA / PANi copolymer system via the results from FTIR analysis and conductivity measurement. However, the results shown in the manuscript are not convincing enough to proof authors’ statement. Please provide some more explanations or evidences about it.
Here I list the parts of errors about writing in the manuscript:
bad description:
Page 2 Line 64 ‘conductivity properties’, it can be simply written as ‘conductivities’.
Page 2 Line 83, ‘Prior the addition of …’, here should be ‘Prior to the addition …’.
Page 2 Line 84, ‘… until gelation was occurred, indicated that …’, it is a misuse of passive and active descriptions. it should be ‘… until gelation occurred, indicating that …’.
Page 2 Line 84, ‘After a certain time, …’, the ‘a’ should be removed.
Page 3 Line 102, ‘… thickness pf 0.08 mm’, there is a typo here, it should be ‘of’ instead of ‘pf’.
Page 3 Line 105, ‘…. recorded in a room temperature …’, it should be ‘recorded at room temperature …’.
Page 3 Line 110, ‘… the control sample’, where do the authors mean ‘control’ here?
Page 3 Line 114, ‘… with scan rate of …’, I suppose ’scanning step size’ may be more suitable.
Page 3 Line 126, ‘In Meanwhile, …’, remove the ‘In’.
Page 3 Line 129, ‘… the sample accuracy.’, remove the ‘sample’.
Page 3 Line 136, ‘… and the unit for conductivity …’, here use ‘of’ instead of ‘for’.
Page 4 Line 152, There are double spaces between ’peaks characteristics that’ and ‘responsible …can be seen … 1595 cm-1 were attributed …’. And for the later part, a subject is missing before ‘were attributed …’.
Page 4 Line 163 - 165, ‘It is observable …’, bad description, rewrite the sentence into two.
Page 4 Line 165, ‘… has reached a liming conversion.’ Here ‘liming’ should be ‘limiting’ instead.
Page 4 Line 168 - 170, ‘ This can be happening … the radical from … and hence reduce the … and shorten the …’, just simply use ‘This can happen …’, and something is missing after ‘radical’, ‘reduce’ and ‘shorten’ should have ’s’ at the end.
Page 5 Line 177, ‘… amine as shifted …’, here there is a typo, it should be ‘was’ instead of ‘as’.
Page 5 Line 180, ‘… has occurred completely…’. What is the meaning of ‘occurred completely’?
Page 5 Line 200, ‘… Figure 3 (b) respectively.’ remove the ‘respectively’.
Page 7 Line 232 - 233, ‘For instance, the different in … was not much different between…’ This is such a bad description, leave alone the first ‘different’ should be ‘difference’ instead.
Page 8 Line 240, ‘FESEM analysis shows the … polymer is shown in Figure 5.’ remove ‘is shown’.
Page 8 Line 243, ‘… most of most of …’, remove one of the duplicated part.
Page 8 Line 245, ‘there is … can be seen …’, remove ‘can be seen’.
Page 8 Line 251, ‘despite prolong the …’, here should use ‘prolonging’.
Page 9 Line 266, ‘The conductivity of the film was due to the …’, here ‘was’ what? What do the authors want to imply here?
Page 10 Line 297, ‘In addition, prolonged the …’, here ‘prolonging’ is more suitable.
Misuse of single and plural forms:
Page 2 Line 95, ‘The precipitate collected … is regarded as …’ Here plural form is more suitable.
Page 3 Line 107, ‘The components … was …’, obviously, here should use ‘were’ instead.
Page 3 Line 110, ‘… the control sample’, here should use plural form.
Page 3 Line 114 -115, ‘The sample for … was spin-coated films …’, please stick to either single form or plural form, do not mix them together.
Page 4 Line 141, ‘The chemical structure … were …’, mixture of single and plural forms.
Page 4 Line 142, ‘ Figure 1 … shows the FTIR spectra for pure PMMA …’, use ‘show’ and ‘of pure PMMA’ instead.
Page 4 Line 143, ‘… while Figure 2 … is FTIR …’ use ‘are’ instead of ‘is’.
Page 4 Line 167, ‘… might increase the chances …’, it should be ‘… might increases the chance’.
Page 4 Line 173, ‘… stretching were shifted to …’, it should be ‘was’ here.
Page 4 Line 179, ‘… to higher frequency indicate that …’ here should use ‘indicates’.
Page 5 Line 200, ‘…, the characteristics peak…’ should be ‘the characteristic peaks’.
Page 6 Line 203, ‘As depicts in …’ should be ‘As depicted in …’.
Page 8 Line 240, ‘All of the … film showed …’, here should use plural form instead.
Page 9 Line 264, ‘the conductivity of all samples was …’ here should use plural form.
Display errors:
Page 3 Line 126 -127, ‘… of 0.02 m x 0.01 m …, … was 0.005 m …’, are the authors sue the units here are all ‘m’?
Page 3 equation 1, error of unit.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript just describes the synthesis and characterization of material. There is no proper application of it.
1. The abstract is very poor.
2. The title of manuscript should be modified. They did not mention about conductivity in the title.
3. The introduction of manuscript is very short. It should re-written.
4. The results and discussion are not proper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1801848
Type: Article
Title: Free-Radical Polymerization of Conducting PMMA/PANi Copolymer: Synthesis, Characterization, and Materials Properties
Authors: Helyati Abu Hassan Shaari, Muhammad Mahyiddin Ramli*, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah, Mohd Nazim Mohtar*, Norizah Abdul Rahman, Azizan Ahmad, Nurul Huda Osman, Febdian Rusydi
a) Figure 1 combines a and b in one Figure, the same for Figure 2 a, b, and c in order to see the comparison.
b) Section 3.3 UV-Visible Spectroscopy, calculate the other optical parameters it’s very useful such as reflectance, absorption, refractive index, extinction coefficient, and dielectric constant.
c) Why the author didn’t measure the XRD analysis for these samples?
d) Why the author didn’t measure the EDS analysis for these samples for the chemical composition?
e) Please, refer to these refs. Very useful for the calculation of optical parameters and XRD analysis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11581-017-2193-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2017.09.084
Best Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have finished the modification in the revised version according to the comments. I suppose now it is ready to publish.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to accept the revised manuscript in present form.
