An Investigation into the Effect of Length Scale of Reinforcement on the Cryogenic Response of a Mg/2wt.%CeO₂ Composite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments and questions for the authors are presented in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper shows for the first time the results of the study on the properties of magnesium-cerium oxide composite containing micron and nano size CeO2 particles after the deep cryogenic treatment in liquid nitrogen. The paper is interesting but before it is published it requires a minor revision.  

 

 

Abstract:

Explanation of the CYS abbreviation (compressive yield strength) should be introduced.

NO need to place (LN) again (in line 21).

 

The introduction part is concise and explains the background of the research as well as the reasoning for using deep cryogenic treatment. 

However, the authors should put more accent on the CeO2 utilisation in the composite – why this oxide is an interesting/promising component?  

 

 

The authors should decide whether they use cc or cm3 as the volume unit.

 

2.2.

Line 87: „environment environment-friendly”

 

3.1

After DCT the Authors observe significant reduction of porosity in Mg-2CeO2 (LN-nano) and insignificant reduction of porosity for Mg-2CeO2 (LN-micro). But they do not discuss this phenomenon in terms of the initial porosity of both materials – significantly higher porosity is observed for Mg-2CeO2(LN-nano) than for Mg-2CeO2(LN-micro). It seems that in „micro” labelled sample the porosity is very stable. More detailed study on textural properties of both composites (low temperature N2 sorption, or Hg-porosimeter) would give more information about pore sizes, pores shapes and pore distribution. And this would help to explain the observed phenomenon.

 

 

3.2 

The discussion on grain sizes – the table lacks the data after DCT. From the text it is understood that there is no change, but adding such data is always better for the reader. There is lack of interpretation of the results given in Table 3 – why the size grain decreases by ca. 90% after CeO2 introduction? 

 

I have no comments to sections 3.3. and 3.4.

 

Conclusions could be improved if the authors perform more detailed study of the porosity of the samples before and after DCT.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the Authors for responding to the review.

I have one more doubt related to thermogravimetry:

A thermogravimetric graph is usually plotted as a function of mass versus temperature. The presentation of the temperature-time relationship in Figure 5 is incomprehensible.

Is the ignition temperature of some composites higher and some lower than their melting point?

 

There are still some minor errors in the manuscript:

line 67 should probably be "virtue" instead of "vurtie";

there is a double space on line 270

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf