Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d

Denis V. Okhrimenko; Marcel Ceccato; Sven Tougaard; Morten Foss; Eric Pezennec; Mette Solvang

doi:10.1039/D2RA07959C

Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d

Denis V. Okhrimenko,

^a Marcel Ceccato,^b Sven Tougaard,^c Morten Foss,^b Eric Pezennec^d and Mette Solvang^a

Author affiliations

^a ROCKWOOL A/S, Denmark

^b Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center (iNANO), Aarhus University, Denmark

^c University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

^d Knauf Insulation, Belgium

Abstract

The article mentioned in the title of this comment paper reports on an investigation of the organic binder presence and distribution on stone wool fibres with surface sensitive techniques (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), QUASES XPS modelling, time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) mapping) and attempts to correlate the results with fibre performance in in vitro acellular biosolubility tests. However, the study has assumptions, hypothesis and results that do not take into account the recognised science and regulations on biopersistence of stone wool fibres, limitations of the utilized surface sensitive techniques and modelling approach and it contains a contradiction with biosolubility experiments. In this comment article, we discuss these points, propose improved QUASES XPS modelling and present recent ToF-SIMS mapping results that reflect biosolubility behaviour of the stone wool fibres.

$Graphical abstract: Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d$

Associated articles

Article information

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA07959C
Article type: Comment
Submitted: 13 Dec 2022
Accepted: 25 May 2023
First published: 02 Jun 2023
This article is Open Access

Download Citation

RSC Adv., 2023,13, 16688-16692

Permissions

Request permissions

Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d

D. V. Okhrimenko, M. Ceccato, S. Tougaard, M. Foss, E. Pezennec and M. Solvang, RSC Adv., 2023, 13, 16688 DOI: 10.1039/D2RA07959C

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

RSC Advances

Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d

Abstract

Associated articles

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions

Comment on “Which fraction of stone wool fibre surface remains uncoated by binder? A detailed analysis by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” by Hirth et al., 2021, RSC Adv., 11, 39545, DOI: 10.1039/d1ra06251d

Social activity

Search articles by author

Spotlight

Advertisements