问问各位大侠编辑是什么意思
Manuscript ID CPS-2013-0030 entitled "Preparation and characterization of the microencapsulated phase change materials by using nonionic emulsifiers" which you submitted to the Colloid and Polymer Science, has been reviewed. The comments from reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s), I must decline the manuscript for publication in the Colloid and Polymer Science at this time. However, a new manuscript may be submitted which takes into consideration these comments.
Please note that resubmitting your manuscript does not guarantee eventual acceptance, and that your resubmission will be subject to re-review by the reviewer(s) before a decision is rendered.
You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of your manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer.
Once you have revised your manuscript, go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cps and login to your Author Center. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to the Colloid and Polymer Science, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision within a reasonable amount of time, we will consider your paper as a new submission.
I look forward to a resubmission.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This manuscript deals with the fabrications and characterizations of microcapsules containing phase change materials. They employed a series of well-known non-ionic surfactant to fabricate stable microcapsules. This manuscript addresses a stream of conventional research, but it potentially has meanings for development of methodology.
First, this manuscript is easy to follow and the explanations are quite clear. However, it is very difficult to witness the originality or novelty of this manuscript at a glance. Here are some comments from my viewpoint.
1. I cautiously suggest that English needs much work in spellings, grammar, and expressions.
2. The abstract is not really clear. It must be more concise and succinct.
3. Introduction part is quite boring. It should be also more compact and can be shortened significantly. Most of all, the highlights of this study were not conspicuously stated in this paragraph.
4. Page 2 : What is SMA?
5. Page 2 : The important of PCM has relations with this study?
6. The combinations of TWEEN and SPAN have been employed for more than decades. Are these ideas new?
7. The authors have missed several important precedented works using tween and span cosurfactant systems for microcapsule fabrications.
8. Experimental : please provide locations for chemical vendors.
9. Please provide stoichiometry informations for every fabrication procedures.
10. R & D : A lot of things might happen in co-surfactant or co-emulsifier systems. So it is critical to state clearly all the possible phenomena which can occur implicitly or explicitly during each step. I believe this is the core value of this work. This content should be included in section 3.1. However, this manuscript has left out all the important explanations for possible mechanism or dynamics of co-surfactant system under given conditions. The uses of primitive terminologies in this paragraph also make this manuscript loose.
11. Most of the sentences in R and D section are ambiguous and unclear. Please make it fathomable even to readers of general interests.
12. Page 8 Line 7 The so called HLB balance influences the rate of polymerizations? It is true?
13. What is the relation between viscosity of the emulsion and particle size? Please specify.
14. Page 8 line 6 from bottom. “The stability of compound emulsifier is better than single surfactant.” I cautiously think that this is nonsensical reasoning.
Based on these comments, I do not recommend the publication of this manuscript at this condition. I might reconsider this manuscript only after major alterations.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
In this work, the authors described the result that not only exterior (morphology) but also interior structures (properties of the core and shell) of microencapsulated phage change materials were able to be regulated by using nonionic emulsifiers. Their data of several analyses seemed to be supportive to their findings. I consider their study would be publishable in the journal Colloid and Polymer Science and it could probably attract attention of the audience. I also consider that there are some problems that should be revised before publication though their work would be interesting. I have written some comments including insignificant points in the following.
(1) I cannot find the weight ratio of the compound nonionic emulsifier (the mixture of Tween80 and Span80). The authors described the grams of some compound nonionic emulsifiers in Fig. 3.2 and Table 3.1; however, I cannot know whether such values mean the gram of the whole mixture or that of each emulsifier.
(2) In the caption of Fig.3.1 (a), the emulsifier used was designated as op-10, while in the text, the emulsifier used in Fig.3.1 (a) was designated as tween60 (page 9).
(3) The molecular formula “CnH2n+2” (page 5) was not correct. Instead, the formula must be expressed by “CnH2n-2”.
(4) In the Materials subsection (page 5), the first letter of each emulsifier is capital, but in the other sections, the letter is lower case.
(5) It is better to mention the type of the spectrophotometer (page 8) more clearly (now, “721-UV, china”).
(6) The authors had better carefully verify their English. There are some mistakes found: e.g., “For instance, Solid-liquid…(page 2)” ; “…can be overcame…(page 3)”; “… of Microcapsules. (page 6)”; “tab 3.1. (page 6)”; “compacter (page. 14, probably “more compact” is preferable) ”; “Transmitance (Fig. 3.6)”; “…leak in acetone (page 18, “leaked” or “leaks”)”.
(7) Please give a glance at the recent paper published in Colloid and Polymer Science. Usually, authors does not number any section. So, figures are to be numbered simply in the order; e.g., Fig. 1; Fig. 2…. In this manuscript, figures (and tables) were numbers as Fig. 3.1, Fig. 3.2, … |