Capabilities and Limitations of Using Desktop 3-D Printers in the Laser Sintering Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- The literature review and the way it is collected is not complete. The authors should really discuss all the papers in detail without mass citing them.
2- Also the write up in some cases does not follow the guidelines by the journal. For example, "Paper [36] described the develop...". You should really write the name of the authors, of if you use the Latex format, it should be \citet{xx}.
3- The last paragraph of the Introduction should discuss the novelty in the current manuscript and the contributions of the authors should be listed exactly. I do not see anything like this, and in fact, I do not believe the current paper is a full "research paper".
4- This manuscript seems more like a detailed literature review paper. If so, this should be reflected in the title.
5- Conclusion should be really expanded beyond the intiutive observations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The results presented in this paper for three desktop LS machine are not compared with the best results one can get by using an industrial machine. The reader cannot have a complete image of the best performance this technology is capable of. A quantitative comparison is easy to provide and will improve the paper impact.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented study is interesting benchmarking of commercial 3D printing machines based on LS technology.
The scope of article is interesting, authors used appropriate characterisation techniques.
To authors i have some question/remarks:
There are big differences in Young modules and other parameters in relation of orientation of testing bones to printing direction for selected combination of powder/printer. Even that authors claim that use standard setting of printing machine, i am sure, that in benchmark study of LS printers should be included optimization part, which ensure best setting for obtaining best results. Authors for some results indicated poorly optimized process parameters for given printer. I am sure that every printer has some tweaking possibilities (printing speed, laser energy tuning, etc.), which should be used for optimization of printing process and from this reason i miss such part in the study. Generally, settings given by producer are compromise between smooth printing process and mechanical/geometrical quality of printed models. Researchers are most advanced user and they should obtain the best mechanical/geometrical/printing results not be satisfied by default settings. And because article is focused to mechanical properties, smootness of surface i expect optimization part, especially in case that from obtained data it is obvious, that for some materials printing condition was not optimal, and mechanical properties are very dependant to the printing direction. Under optimal sintering conditions for LS process the results for all printers should be in terms of variation more similar like for PA2200. These not optimized conditions of printing are proven by quite huge standard deviation for selected printing combination.
The selected numbers shown in tables, especially size parameters are presented in tables for irrelevant number of decimal places. (D50 of powders, ΔHm, ΔHc, Ra, Rz, Rt, absolute deviations, etc.)
There quite lot of typos, like comma for decimal places devider for numbers, plots, etc.
There are lack of appropriate descriptions for selected plots - nr. 7 and tables. Generally descriptions of plots and tables should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors correct article in respect to my coments. The article seems good for now.
