Thermal phenomena and size effects of Mg powder in combustion process

Ki-Hun Nam; Jung Kyu Park; Jun-Sik Lee

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310185

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 30, 2024
23 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate, Editor PONE-D-24-21781Thermal Phenomena and Size Effects of Mg PowderPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jung Kyu Park, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== The author need to work on the following comments as 1. Provide the characterization study with details explanation.2. Improve the quality of the figures.3. Enlist the application of the present work.4. Add the highend characterization study images.5. Elaborate the results and discussion in details.6. Rewrite the conclusion section.7. Follow the journal template for reference section.============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: "This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1F1A1055898 & No. 2022R1F1A1074289)" Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. What is the novelty in the manuscript? 2. In title, this work focused on the results of thermal and size on Mg powder in combustion process, so, it is suggested to revise as: Thermal Phenomena and Size Effects of Mg Powder in Combustion Process. 3. In application industries, what is the range of size in Mg powder? In this manuscript, why did select the size for 75, 100, and 150 μm? 4. Figures are not clear, please label their numbers. Moreover, “Fig 4 and Fig 5 show infrared images of the highest temperature reached after ignition and thermal images depicting the Mg combustion process over time.” The images are in-situ combustion process? It should be selected different temperatures at the different stages in the combustion process, highlighting their stage characteristics and key parameters. Furthermore, the image should be described before the Mg powder (raw material) as the control group. 5. In section Results and discussion, the contents and results should be deeply described and thoroughly interpretated. 6. The references should be updated and supplemented. 7. The conclusion should be rewritten, for supplementing some quantization results. Reviewer #2: The subject of the manuscript focused on thermal phenomena and size effects of Mg powder is in good relevance with the scope of PLOS ONE. The introduction properly presents the issues related to post-ignition combustion and flow phenomena. Materials used as well as the experimental set-up and conditions are described. However, this description must be reorganized because some of the data regarding the research methodology was discussed in the Introduction section, and detailed data was not provided in the Materials and Methods section. This mainly concerns the characterization of the combustion product particles using SEM. A description of the conditions for testing the structure of Mg particles should be provided. Results and discussion part concerning the results obtained for the combustion characteristics and fire development of Mg through thermal and flow visualization is sufficiently detailed. However, the caption for Fig. 9 is missing. Moreover, the description of the SEM results should also include a reference to Fig. 1 illustrating the lack of agglomeration of Mg particles, which is less visible in Fig. 9. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310185.r001
Revision 1
21 Aug 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Comment 1: What is the novelty in the manuscript? -> Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We regret that the analysis does not have innovative analysis. We analyzed the risk depending on the particle size and the process of magnesium combustion. Through the risk analysis above, we focused on obtaining the scientific data necessary to prevent and respond to magnesium fires. The analysis was additionally written in the paper. Comment 2: In title, this work focused on the results of thermal and size on Mg powder in combustion process, so, it is suggested to revise as: Thermal Phenomena and Size Effects of Mg Powder in Combustion Process. -> Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We agree with this comment. We have changed the research title. From: Thermal and flow characteristic of magnesium powder combustion To : Thermal Phenomena and Size Effects of Mg Powder in Combustion Process. Comment 3 In application industries, what is the range of size in Mg powder? In this manuscript, why did select the size for 75, 100, and 150 μm? -> Response 3: We appreciate you pointing this out here. I think this point is an important part in this manuscript. Following your comments, we explain why we selected the sizes. Comment #4 Figures are not clear, please label their numbers. Moreover, “Fig 4 and Fig 5 show infrared images of the highest temperature reached after ignition and thermal images depicting the Mg combustion process over time.” The images are in-situ combustion process? It should be selected different temperatures at the different stages in the combustion process, highlighting their stage characteristics and key parameters. Furthermore, the image should be described before the Mg powder (raw material) as the control group. -> Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We deleted Figure 4 because it was not clear. And we comprehensively analyzed Fig 5 and Fig 6 and wrote additional content. Fig 4 : deleted and Fig 5 and Fig 6 is renamed to Fig 4 and Fig 5 Comment 5: In section Results and discussion, the contents and results should be deeply described and thoroughly interpretated. -> Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We have rewritten the contents in the Results and Discussion section. We have written additional content in the Combustion Velocity subsection. Comment 6: The references should be updated and supplemented. -> Response 6: We add and update some references. Manju M. Explosion characteristics of micron- and nano-size magnesium powders. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 2014, 27, 55–64. K.H. Nam, J.S. Lee, & H.J. Part. Understanding Combustion Mechanism of Magnesium for Better Safety Measures: An Experimental Study. Journal of Safety, 2022, 8, 11 Li, G.; Yuan, C.; Zhang, P.; Chen, B. Experiment-based fire and explosion risk analysis for powdered magnesium production methods. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 2008, 21, 461–465. Yuan, C.; Yu, L.; Li, C.; Li, G.; Zhong, S. Thermal analysis of magnesium reactions with nitrogen/oxygen gas mixtures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 707–714 Comment 7: The conclusion should be rewritten, for supplementing some quantization results. -> Response 6: We have written a new paragraph that can supplement the content in the conclusion. Fig 1, 3, 8 Replaced with high-resolution image (eps format) Fig 5. Create a new graph (eps format) Reviewer #2: Comment 1: However, this description must be reorganized because some of the data regarding the research methodology was discussed in the Introduction section, and detailed data was not provided in the Materials and Methods section. -> Response 1: Additional information on the experimental substance magnesium and the experimental method were explained. Comment 2: This mainly concerns the characterization of the combustion product particles using SEM. A description of the conditions for testing the structure of Mg particles should be provided. -> Response #2: We added a detailed description of the experimental equipment including SEM used in the experiment. Comment 3: Results and discussion part concerning the results obtained for the combustion characteristics and fire development of Mg through thermal and flow visualization is sufficiently detailed. -> Response 3: We have rewritten the contents in the Results and Discussion section. We have written additional content in the Combustion Velocity subsection. We have written a new paragraph that can supplement the content in the conclusion. Comment 4: However, the caption for Fig. 9 is missing. Moreover, the description of the SEM results should also include a reference to Fig. 1 illustrating the lack of agglomeration of Mg particles, which is less visible in Fig. 9. -> Response #4: Thank you for your comments. We comprehensively analyzed Fig 1 and Fig 8 and wrote additional content. Fig 9 is renamed Fig 8. Fig 1, 3, 8 Replaced with high-resolution image (eps format) Fig 5. Create a new graph (eps format) Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: reviewer-2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310185.r002
27 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate, Editor Thermal Phenomena and Size Effects of Mg Powder in Combustion Process PONE-D-24-21781R1 Dear Dr. Jung Kyu Park, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: My comments have been responded in detailed, this manuscript can be recommended to publish in PLOS ONE. Reviewer #2: The subject of the manuscript focused on thermal phenomena and size effects of Mg powder is in good relevance with the scope of PLOS ONE. The introduction properly presents the issues related to post-ignition combustion and flow phenomena. Materials used as well as the experimental set-up and conditions are described. The characterization of the combustion product particles using SEM was completed. A description of the conditions for testing the structure of Mg particles was provided. Results and discussion part concerning the results obtained for the combustion characteristics and fire development of Mg through thermal and flow visualization is sufficiently detailed. In the Results and Discussion section, the figures were reorganized and appropriate descriptions and comments were added. The quality of the manuscript is good. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Maria Zielecka ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310185.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate, Editor PONE-D-24-21781R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Park, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sameer Sheshrao Gajghate Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310185.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .