Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Prediction Model of Silicon Content in Molten Iron Based on Comprehensive Characterization of Furnace Temperature
Previous Article in Journal
Phase Separation in a Novel Selective Lithium Extraction from Citrate Media with D2EHPA
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Critical Evaluation and Thermodynamic Optimization of the Cu-Zn, Cu-Se and Zn-Se Binary Systems

Metals 2022, 12(9), 1401; https://doi.org/10.3390/met12091401
by Yu Tang 1, Jie Ma 2,*, Dong Han 1, Jian Wang 1,3,*, Haiying Qi 4,* and Liling Jin 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Metals 2022, 12(9), 1401; https://doi.org/10.3390/met12091401
Submission received: 23 June 2022 / Revised: 14 August 2022 / Accepted: 19 August 2022 / Published: 24 August 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted paper provides review, critical evaluation, and thermodynamic modeling of Cu-Se-Zn binary subsystems. The review and critical evaluation of the thermodynamic data for these binary systems is very thorough and extensive. The resulting modeling work appears to be of high quality and show significant improvements in the phase diagrams and thermodynamic properties compared to the previously published work that is compared in the analysis.

This reviewer recommends this paper for acceptance after addressing the following minor comments:

1.     Some formatting in Table 1 appears incorrect. For example, space groups for fcc and bcc are missing the “-3”, e.g. showing “Fm m” instead of “Fm-3m”. In addition, for γ-CuSe, the prototype “orthorhombisch” should be “orthorhombic”

2.     Some possible placeholder text appears in the first paragraph of Section 3 (page 9, lines 307-309)

3.     Coordination-equivalent fractions are used in Eq. 3, but not defined as an equation.

4.     Eq. 8, subscripts appear to be incorrect for the summation notation

5.     The mathematical description of the partitioned model for bcc seems incorrect and written in a non-standard way. The ordering contribution to Eq. 14 (written in Eq. 16 and 17) should be subtracting a contribution of the ordering energy where all site fractions are replaced by mole fractions.

6.     In general, the figures are too small and low resolution. The inset labels are difficult to read in print form or digitally without zooming in.

7.     Tabulated Calphad model parameters in publications often have typographical errors or missing information. Please include a thermodynamic database file as supplemental material so this work can be reproduced by openly available software, such as a ChemSage DAT file (usable by FactSage, Thermochimica, or PyCalphad) or a TDB (usable by Thermo-Calc, Pandat, OpenCalphad, PyCalphad, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop