Bio-Fabrication and Experimental Validation of an Mg - 25Ca - 5Zn Alloy Proposed for a Porous Metallic Scaffold

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is interesting and definitely worth considering for publication. It seems to be very well prepared. Such elements as Introduction of the paper or discussion over the results of performed experiments have been very well presented. The only suggestions concern mainly editorial aspects and are described in more detail below:

• Citation in the text should be written e.g. “[1-6]” instead of “[1][2][3][4][5][6]” and this goes for the whole article.
• Section 3.1.: the abbreviation of SEM technique should be developed.
• Line 282 (section 3.5.): subscript should be given in a chemical formula of carbon dioxide instead of
• Dots after the names of sections (4-5) and subsections (4.1-4.6) should be removed.
• Figure 5. should be significantly improved because now results of XRD analysis are poorly visible and the same applies to Figures 11-13. Additionally, caption of Figure 5. should also be corrected.
• Language of the paper should be significantly corrected.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention and time in reviewing the document, we appreciate your contribution and comments that enrich the presentation and publication of the work.

Summary of comments.

1. We have made the adjustment in the reference style and marked it in yellow to highlight the adjustment.
2. The word SEM has been developed in section 3.1
3. The setting in section 3.5 has been made
4. The original image has been provided to improve the resolution as much as possible in the final edition of the document.
5. A language grammar check has been performed and an attached certificate has been provided.

After careful review of your appreciable comments, a manuscript is submitted that reflects the entirety of proposed changes and suggestions. I remain attentive to your response, appreciating the time spent in the review and contributions in improving the manuscript.

Your contribution in the revision of this document represents a significant improvement to the document, which we appreciate and express in a professional way, we reiterate our most sincere thanks.

Sincerely,

Luis Humberto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article considerate the preparation of an alloy of Mg - 25 wt% Ca + 5 wt% Zn and its morphological characterization, and further evaluate cell viability of the alloy. The experimental results and discussion are relatively complete. And the results have a positive effect on the design of biomedical alloys and various medical treatments. 

Further modification of language and grammar is suggested.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention and time in reviewing the document, we appreciate your contribution and comments that enrich the presentation and publication of the work.

Summary of comments.

1. We have considered your suggestion to improve the English language, we send the document to a grammar revision, and we attach the proof that they issue us.

Your contribution in the revision of this document represents a significant improvement to the document, which we appreciate and express in a professional way, we reiterate our most sincere thanks.

Sincerely,

Luis Humberto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article deals with bio-fabrication an Mg25Ca25Zn alloy and reports experimental validation of fabricated scaffolds. Authors used suitable method for full characterization of proposed material with accordance to medical application. The research results have been well-documented and carefully descripted  related to the literature. Overall, the article is written in logical way and good in English. Moreover the presented information can be very useful in medicine practice. I recommend this paper to publication in Crystals journal after minor revision as follows:

1. Figure 3 – please add suitable value for scale bar.
2. Please define all peaks in XRD pattern (Fig.5).
3. The caption of Figure 5 is not written in English. Please change it.
4. Figure 6 – please add scale bars.
5. Figure 12, 13 – please improve quality of these figures and add title of axis.
6. Figure 16 – please add scale bar.

Author Response

Thank you for your attention and time in reviewing the document, we appreciate your contribution and comments that enrich the presentation and publication of the work.

Summary of comments.

1. The value was added to the reference scale.
2. Within the corrections document, place the following comment,

This is the explanation why not all peaks have an identification, It is an effect that is presented and reported in the same way by other authors, at the same time the result is a contribution to continue with the research in the state of the art of this phenomenon that occurs specifically in these alloys, that originally an author's point of view could be analyzed under other configurations test and discarding Zn-poor areas.

A theory in the initial stage of development by the analysis of this signal by the ritveld method, indicates the formation of Zn phases not previously indexed, for which it continues to deepen, this can give material for a later publication.

3. The figure adjustment has been made.

4.The scale bar is added.

5. Image tags have been added and the original file has been provided to improve editing as much resolution as possible.
6. The scale bar is added.

Your contribution in the revision of this document represents a significant improvement to the document, which we appreciate and express in a professional way, we reiterate our most sincere thanks.

Sincerely,

Luis Humberto

Author Response File: Author Response.docx