The Engineering Design and Prototyping of an Auxiliary Standing Toilet Chair Driven by Electric Cylinders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached file of review comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper thoroughly reviews existing auxiliary standing toilet chairs, identifying key limitations. This provides a strong foundation for the proposed improvements. The study appropriately considers human biomechanics (hip, knee, and ankle joint angles) to ensure ergonomic usability, which is crucial for elderly and mobility-impaired users.
2. The study compares only a few patents. A broader review might reveal additional prior art or alternative mechanisms.
3. Elderly populations exhibit wide variability in joint stiffness, muscle weakness, or spasticity. Adding user validation, safety considerations (especially fail-safe mechanisms), and cost analysis would significantly enhance its impact on academia and industry.
4. The design only discusses force and position, but how about the velocity?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Current study utilizes four bar linkage to perform kinematic design of an auxiliary standing toilet chair. It claims one of the derived designs exhibited greater seat rotation angle and reduction in force requirement. While the presented result sound promising, this reviewer recommends authors to address the following comments.

• The Introduction could be formatted for better flow. Literature review in general is expected in the introduction chapter; however, this reviewer feels the literature review spans all the way to 8th page since the actual contribution of the work starts in chapter 4 (mechanism design). This reviewer suggests shuffling materials so that chapter 1 clearly indicate the background information, literature review-state of the art (with minimized merged citations - for instance, creative design methodologies current study is cited [7-11], in line 46, without description that explains what authors mean by 'creative' ), problem identification, followed by author's novel approach.
• Some figure needs polishing. figure 1.(b) has red underlines from word. This makes this figure unprofessional. Also, it is suggested to use vector graphics for figures like this.
• The way link member is referred is confusing. For instance, (3) in line 73, this type of parenthesis seems reserved for formulas. This can be changed for better readability.
• If any figure is taken from elsewhere it needs to be cited. Figure 7(a), (b) and Figure 9(a), (b) seems to have been taken from patent documents. What do numbers on this figure represent?
• This reviewer can see that the designs authors present requires less amount of force. How about in terms of energy, work or power? Mechanical advantages can be better described with these parameters compared to force alone. 
• What is the unit of the values shown in Figure 14(c), 15(c), 16(c), 17(c)?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.