All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The article is suitable for publication in its current form. The changes I requested have been made.
The article is suitable for publication in its current form. The changes I requested have been made.
The article is suitable for publication in its current form. The changes I requested have been made.
The article is suitable for publication in its current form. The changes I requested have been made. I would be very grateful if you would give me the opportunity to review suitable articles in your journal in the future.
The review can be accepted.
The review can be accepted.
The review can be accepted.
The review can be accepted.
Please revise according to the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
BASIC Reporting
Positive aspects:
The article has examined the subject of flame retardation modification of PC/ABS alloys in a very comprehensive and systematic way. This is a really remarkable and interesting issue. Language and narrative are often technically sufficient, clear and understandable. Sentence structures are fluent and technical concepts are used correctly. Literature screening methodology is presented in detail, systematically and transparently. A sufficient number of articles have been examined and there is a rich reference part. The subject is of importance interdisciplinary; Electronic, automotive and building sectors have a wide application potential.
What to develop:
Some parts of the article have claims that are not directly supported by resources. In particular, in the "future predictions" section (Chapter 4.2), support should be made with examples from the related studies. More appropriate references should be added to such sentences. Some of the visuals (eg Figure 1, 5, 10) are not clear; Resolution should be increased and explanatory subtitles should be added. This situation should definitely increase very important resolutions. The input part is long and contains some parts again. Paragraphs can be simplified and the target audience and motivation can be emphasized more clearly. Introduction section should be reduced at least 100 words. Some technical definitions should be defined more clearly where they first used, such as LoI, UL-94, Phrr. This is a very important situation when the initiatives use the full form of the expansions should be given in full form after the shortening should be passed.
Study design
Positive aspects:
Literature screening is very comprehensive using different databases (Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, etc.). The scanning process is clearly explained step by step and the criteria of inclusion and exclusion of the selected articles are clearly indicated. Configuration progresses in logical and sub -heads: halogenic, phosphorus -based, silicone -based and synergistic flame retardants are systematically handled in separate sections. A really comprehensive literature screening is presented when it is very new in the publishing process of articles.
What to develop:
The screening strategy specified in the methodology section is very successful, but it is recommended to add a visual supportive configuration such as a priska diagram. This article should definitely be added to the Prisma diagram. Performance, environmental impact and cost comparison for each flame retardant could be summarized more systematically as a table. Some sources (eg [66], [97]) may not appear in the reference list, although it is mentioned in the text. References should be checked at the end of the text. Please perform careful control throughout the article.
VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
Positive aspects:
The findings are properly structured and classified for the purpose of the article. The effectiveness of synergic systems was correctly transferred by reference to numerous experimental studies. The results contain analyzes that are consistent with existing research and indicate the research gaps. Indeed, if the number of work done in this field is low, it will be a really different and remarkable work.
What to develop:
Although the comments made in terms of environmental sustainability were appropriate, it would be useful to give more literature examples about biobas flame retardants. The future developments (Chapter 4.2) are predictive; However, a methodological classification or strategic research suggestions (eg TRL level) were not presented. At least please talk about this situation with 2-3 sentences.
General Comments
Strong Aspects:
The subject is discussed in the current, technically in -depth and interdisciplinary nature. The authors dominated a large literature, especially the fact that they include the Chinese literature has added wealth to work. The language quality of the study is generally good, but some technical terms should be added to the first place. Tables and shapes are prepared in accordance with the content of the article. I believe this article will take too much reference.
Weaknesses:
Some paragraphs have semantic repetitions. Especially under the subtitles of 3.5.1–3.5.3, some information reiterates each other. Sources are a large number, but the references should be checked and completed in the last list. Although it is not an ethical situation to be considered, the author's contribution declaration has been given in detail, but it seems to be missing ethical approval or financing support. Please pay attention to these situations.
No comments
no comment
no comment
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the research progress in flame retardant modification technology for PC/ABS alloys. However, some details need to be further improved. Therefore, it is recommended that the following issues be addressed before acceptance.
1. Abbreviations used in the text should be marked with their full names when they first appear. These issues need to be checked and standardised, like PHRR.
2. Some subheadings are inappropriate, such as Current status of domestic and international research which is not suitable for a international journal.
3. It is recommended to use ChemDraw to draw the chemical structures in the figure in order to standardise the style and improve readability.
4. The chemical structure of PC/ABS should be provided, and a diagram should be constructed based on its application scenarios.
5. Some subheadings are difficult to understand, such as 2 Research Mechanisms
6. One figure should be provided to help decsribe the Overview of Flame-Retardant Modification for PC/ABS.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.