Nanobubble Technology for A Water-Repellent Treatment on Cotton Fabrics: A Comparative Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
1) The legend of Figure 1 must be on the same page with the image.
2) Format errors: for example, Figure .1: and Figure 2. The format must be consistent throughout the manuscript
3) Redraw Figure 1. The letters are strange types to the paper.
4) Line 124: Fig.1: In the legend, it is Figure 1 but abbreviated in the body. Must appear similar. Check all figures and the way mentioned in the body. Apparently, all the Figure Xs are not correctly mentioned.
5) Figure 2 is not mentioned in the body. Must be explained in the body.
6) Table 1 in the legend but Table I in the body. Similarly Table II, Table IV, Table V ... in the body but Table 2, Table 4, Table 5.... in the legend. These must be corrected. Worse, I observed Table 4 and Table IV in the body. These must be corrected in entirely.
7) Line 434: Gr醘ico de Sedimentaci髇, is it correct?
8) The legend of Figure 11 must be moved to the previous page.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1. In Method A, “The liquor-to-goods ratio (RdB) was 5:1.” While, in Table 1, the RdB is “1/5”, please correct.
2. Please provide the full chemical structure of Fluorotex ECO, and PU/B in Figure 1.
3. In characterizations, please clarify how do you “estimate the spread of the fluoropolymer chain length” based on your ATR-FTIR Spectrum.
4. In ATR-FTIR characterization , “The C-F stretching peaks are barely detectable between 1210 and 1150 cm-1. These peaks prove the surface coating with the fluoropolymer. They are overlapped to cellulose peak [15].” But I can’t find any FTIR information in reference [15], the reference does not mention anything about the FTIR spectrum, could the authors let me know why do you put this reference, and how the barely detectable peaks of C-F can prove the surface coating is fluoropolymer?
5. In Durability to wash, the authors mentioned that “The washing durability was evaluated for three cycles using only the samples A4 and B4”, while I can only find the contact angles for cycle 1 and cycle 2 in table 5, where are the contact angles for the third washing?
Author Response
Please see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Accepted as its present form.
Author Response
accepted as its present form
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I do not see my questions are addressed. the authors should read my question carefully.
In point 2, I asked for the "full chemical structure of Fluorotex ECO"
In point 3, my question is ""why do you put this reference, and how the barely detectable peaks of C-F can prove the surface coating is fluoropolymer? "
in point 4, my question is "please clarify how do you “estimate the spread of the fluoropolymer chain length” based on your ATR-FTIR Spectrum."
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have improved the article's presentation by including specific comments that clarify its content. However, it would have been appreciated if the authors had highlighted the manuscript revisions, which they have made to help track changes for reviewers.
The manuscript could now be accepted for publication.
Author Response
accepted for publication by the reviewer 3
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I have asked twice for the full chemical structure of Flurotex Eco, while, I am still not clear about its structure and the reaction between the blocked isocyanate and the Fluorotex Eco. I give up to wait for the answer.
In figure 2 and figure 4, the "Fluortex ECO" should be "Fluorotex ECO".
In Table 1, why there are two "Acetic Acid" listed ? and what the "ou" mean in "10% ou 30%" and "5 ou 15 g/l"?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors reported a comparison study using two coating methods to prepare water repellent cotton fabrics, and concluded that the nano-bubbles technology is an effective method to perform water repellent finishing.
Overall, I don’t think there is sufficient novelty to support this manuscript be qualified to publish in ChemEngineering. The manuscript is more like a test report other than a research paper.
I got the following questions when I read the manuscript, and would like to share with the authors.
1) What is the chemical structure of fluoropolymer and crosslinking agent, as well as the detergent? How the crosslinking agent react with the fluoropolymer and cotton fabrics?
2) What does the BNP stand for in line 97?
3) Line 104, and 105, If the volume of water used in contact angle is too much? Approximately 1 ml per droplet?
4) Line 175, 176. “The C-F stretching peaks are barely detectable between 1210 and 1150 cm-1. These peaks prove the surface coating with the fluoropolymer.”. I don’t see any discernible peaks in figure3. I don’t know how the barely detectable peaks can prove the surface coating with fluoropolymer.
5) Line 200 and 203, the 110 °C and 120 °C should be 110° and 120°.
6) I could not find table III.
7) What do the FA and CA stand for in table I, II, IV, and V?
8) I confused about the content in table I, II, IV, and V, it is better the authors restructure these tables.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report:
1. The abstract should be more details with the numerical values of treatment conditions and key findings.
2. In line 43, what is the meaning of Rdb? You should justify the term with proper reference. The liquor to good ratio are not abbreviated as Rdb.
3. In line 44, the references used [7-10], the paper contains the dyeing process, not finishing. However, you claimed it for finishing process. Need to cite proper reference.
4. The reference 11 and 12 are also wrong, their paper don’t mentioned about Nano-bubbles technology.
5. You should add more literature about textile finishing for producing water repellent cotton fabrics. You can also add the mentioned paper in your literature background.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04582-9
6. In line 70, what is the meaning of grammage and togs? Where did you find the term? You should use the standard measurement unit.
7. In line 73, the meaning is not clear. “The fabrics thus washed were air-dried.”
8. The paper has a significant writing issue, you need to improve the quality of writings.
9. Please define the abbreviation while appearing for the first time. E.g., 76 ATR FTIR and check throughout the manuscript.
10. What was the size of cotton fabric in both treatment conditions?
11. The figure 1 is the copied one, but you did not mentioned any references and also you need to take permission to use it in your paper.
12. You did not mentioned any reference in your test procedure. You must mentioned it in mechanical test, air permeability, water repellent, laundering test and so on.
13. In figure 3, the spectra provides the same peaks for treated and untreated samples. Therefore, how did you confirmed that cotton fabrics are properly treated? Also there is no references are mentioned for your result which are compatible with your findings.
14. Did you wash the samples after treatment, you must represent the result of contact angle at least 20 washing cycle.
Bar graph of contact angles cannot give the proper evidence of water repellent test. You must represent the images of contact angle measurements, otherwise the data’s are invalid. You can see the images in this paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04582-9.
15. The statistical analysis are not clear and cannot give any results. You can analyze your different parameters using Taguchi design to optimize the conditions, you can follow the following papers.
Taguchi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-04401-9
16. You must compare your result with previously published papers.
17. The conclusion sections need to improve including the future prospects and limitations of your present work
18. You must show the Nano-bubble technology using microscopy images, otherwise, how the reader can confirm that you have treated cotton fabric in this way.
19. What is the mechanism of the reaction, please add the mechanism of the reaction between the cotton fabric and treated chemicals.
20. You should add physical images of your different treated samples.
21. In your result part of durability to wash, there is no result related to your mentioned standard “ISO 105 C01”.
I would like to recommend accepting your manuscript once the whole paper has been reopened and extensively studied the rich characterizations with sufficient reason behind the results. I am sorry for this time but highly appreciate for re-submission.
Please note that the references I suggested are an example to help the author improve the revision quality. I strongly recommend the authors use their best discretion to decide whether or not reviewer-suggested references are appropriate and necessary citations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Summary: In this manuscript, the authors reported water-repellent cotton treated through nanobubble technology.
Recommendation: The manuscript seems just an ordinary laboratory report. It must be entirely modified. At this stage, even it is not sufficient to provide technical comments. It is far-fetched.
