Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper reviewed the porous titanium fabrication by the metal injection molding with using space holder method. The authors review the effect of several important parameters on the porous Ti structure and its mechanical properties. The paper is well organized and written except needing several minor revision, e. g., pay attention on the subscript and superscript in the text; Figure 6: the information of porosity should be presented; Figure 8: the detailed information of 50NaCl, 50PMMA, etc. should be clarified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well organized.

Personally, I would add a little more discussion on the effect of particle size/particle size distribution, as well as on the mixing methods between all the components before MIM.

Also, there are several typos/corrections to make through the document:

 

Line 133 : the pressure value is not clear : range (reverse order) or superscript ?

 

Figure 1 (and everywhere) : be consistent by using « molding » or « moulding ».

 

Table 1 : revise the title !!!

 

Ref [31] is not found in the text…

 

Line 211 : define « CP ».

 

Line 230 : subscript for « 2 ».

 

Line 242 : subscript for « 2 ».

 

Line 252 (and everywhere)  : be consistent : space or not between values and « % »

 

Line 278 : modulus

 

Line 301 : define PMMA

 

Table 2 : revise for subscripts and spaces, powder (2X)

 

Line 313 : both names for [74], not “et al.” see also lines 328 and 343 (# missing) and 448

 

Line 361: s^-1 (superscript)

 

Line 383 : change “informed” by “reported”.

 

Line 391 : define PEG

 

Line 432 : revise ref # order

 

Line 443 : define TGA

 

Line 519 : (and everywhere)  : be consistent : space or not between values and « ^oC »

 

Table 3 : what is the presentation order here ?

 

Line 546 : 10^-3 (superscript)

 

Line 559 : remove the first “of”.

 

Line 573 : 10^-2 (superscript)

 

Line 631 : subscript for « 2 ».

 

Line 637 : change “accordance” by “agreement with”.

 

Line 641 : 46.8 mm (space missing).

 

The reference list is not presented uniformly, especially the journals’ names and authors’ name format. Revise all according to the format required.

 

[23] and [87]: not all capital letters for names.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: An overview of highly porous titanium processed via metal injection molding in combination with the space holder method Authors: Francisco Cavilha Neto, Mauricio Vitor Giaretton, Guilherme O. Neves, Claudio Aguilar, Marcelo Tramontin, Cristiano Binder, Aloisio Nelmo Klein General Comments: o This paper represents an updated overview on recent progress titanium foam manufacturing by metal injection molding. As a review paper, this is a good review, very simplified and easy to read.

o The structure of the article fulfills the structure of a research article. The paper is properly organized. o Five Keywords that help increase the discoverability of the article via search engines are included by the authors.

I suggest publishing the paper after minor changes:

1. pg. 3, line 133, -4 should be superscript;

2. pg. 13, lines 524-527: “According to the literature, in studies on the PM combined with SH method with pure Ti the sintering temperature reported varied, but in around 30% of the studies 1250 ºC was used [86], with holding times in a range of 1 to 4 h [22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 69]” – should be reformulated;

3. pg. 13, line 529: the table title should be on the next page;

4. pg. 15, line 573, -2 should be superscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the recent studies on the highly porous titanium processed via metal injection molding combined with the space holder method are  introduced and summarized. The reviewer can understand the meaning of this review, but disagree the quality of it. For example, the caption of the Table 1 is not suitable to it. Also, since explanations for figures are inadequate, the readers cannot understand the results and conclusions correctly. The reviewer strongly ask the authors to revise it to improve the quality of the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept.