Durable Flame-Resistant and Ultra-Hydrophobic Aramid Fabrics via Plasma-Induced Graft Polymerization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments are added to the file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are grateful for your comments, please see the attachments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer’s comment
Manuscript ID: coatings-999120
In this work, the authors reported improved flame retardancy and durability of coated aramid fabrics using C6 fluorine and organophosphorus compounds. Enhanced hydrophobicity due to the phosphorus-fluoride coating allowed the treated fiber to keep its flame retardancy longer against repeated washing. For the demonstration, they have conducted surface roughness observation, elemental analysis, spectroscopy, flame retardant test, microscopy and thermal analysis. However, the results from the analysis cannot show consistency with each other and sometimes they are opposite. In addition, this manuscript has a lot of errors in the text which is not matched with Figures. Thus, the reviewer cannot recommend this paper to be accepted. It should be submitted to other journals after major revision.
- In this paper, the authors claim that “induced graft polymerization”. Please give a clear explanation of graft polymerization occurred in this study. What polymer was finally produced on the aramid fabric?
- Aramid is well-known polymer with outstanding heat resistance. Please explain why the authors need to improve the flame retardancy of aramid fiber.
- The authors should add FTIR curves of U and P in Figure 4.
- Results of EDS and XPS of UC show completely changed P and F values after 10 times of washing but the difference shown in TGA curves between UC and UCW10 is not significant. Please explain the reason. Also, the authors should add DTG curves in Figure 7.
- In Figure 5, the atomic ratio of P2p of UCW10 is about 5 times lower than that of UC, whereas their difference with that of F1s is relatively very small. The reaction between fluorine and phosphorus compound has not occurred for UC? then, why the reaction has occurred in the only PC?
- There are a lot of mismatches between text and Figures. Below are examples.
- Page 4 line 138: The EDS results show in Figure 1d that the ratios of C, O, N, F, and P were higher than UC, which 138 are 26.4%, 36.2%, 7.1%,11.5%, and 15.6%, respectively.
-Page 6 line 178: The primary O1s range in Figure 5a consists of two peaks at 178 531.8 eV for CONH, and 534.1 eV for…
- Page 7 line 207: Finally, in Figure 7c, after washing the degradation curve for UCW10 at (440.30°C. 80.3%) and PCW10 207 at (447.03°C, 89.7%) conform…..
- In Figure 7 (c), the text 80.3% should be changed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your time, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The focus of the manuscript is of great interest and it is certainly suitable for Coating journal. The manuscript however needs further improvements. In the last decades there is continued discussion within the fire protection industry on the environmental impact of fluorochemicals, and their potential toxicity to living beings. All these issues are absent in the manuscript and the authors should instead discuss them and in particular justify their choice. At the same time, it is important to understand in what this system is different respect to those reported in literature or respect to the solutions currently on the market.
Authors should check carefully the punctuation
Line 52: complete the sentence
Line 65: developed instead of fabricated
Line 90 and line 100: °C is the correct form
Line 123: it is not clear how many times the fiber underwent to the plasma and coating processes. Maybe, fabrics are processed just once but they are washed many times (10 for example in the same line)?
Line 137: harsh layer with flat pits and nanosize protrusion dots It is very hard to understand harsh layer from an SEM image? And flat pits?
Label figure 5a : PC instead of UC
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We are grateful for your comments, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
- The answers to all the questions pointed out by the reviewers should include in the manuscript as Q1.
- Q2 answer is not satisfactory. The question was, if the fabric is superhydrophobic, how you can wash that fabric?
- There is no elaboration for "At" which implies atomic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the manuscript according to the review's comment. However, the answers are still ambiguous. For instance,
- Q1: the authors should present the mechanism of the polymerization like the reference paper (2). It is not enough to present with the sentence " to avoid the complex of polymer chemistry we did not insert the bonds as they are only proposed from other studies."
- Q4: Why the authors deal with washing durability of phosphorus and fluorine compound separately? They are not chemically combined? Therefore, an explanation with an appropriate mechanism is necessary.
- Q5: If the effect of the coated material on TGA result is minor, why is the flame retardant (FR) property of the final product significantly different between UCW10 and PCW10? Please suggest the FR mechanism.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Generally the revision process involves an improvement of the manuscript, but this is not the case and the manuscript is still full of errors and imperfections. English needs to be improved.
The unit of measurement of temperature is still wrong. The correct form is °C, please amend in the text.
From the TGA it is evident that flame retardant is an intrinsic properties of the aramid fibers and the new coating does nor add any further effect. Please explain better this point in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Much better
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is good enough for publication
