New Flexible Protective Coating for Printed Smart Textiles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presented in the study looks interesting, however there are some corrections are required to be done as listed.

1. Abstract need to improved focusing on what is new and achievements in number.
2. Introduction section need to be improved with potentional references in this field published recently.
3. More clarifications  are required in experimental section in well organized form.
4. Comparative study with reported results are required.
5. deep discussion is required why your approach is worthy  than others

Author Response

• Abstract need to improved focusing on what is new and achievements in number.

Abstract has been completed with a description of the achievements in number and with emphasis on the innovativ aspect of the study (line 16 to 28)

• Introduction section need to be improved with potentional references in this field published recently.

Recent references were added

• More clarifications are required in experimental section in well-organized form.

The chapter Material and Method has been new organized and supplemented

• Comparative studies with reported results are required.

        Deep discussion is required why your approach is worthy than others

The results have been compared with other studies in the discussion, the benefits of this approach have been highlighted.

• English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

The englisch style have been carefully revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors present an interesting study on the development of thin protective layers for screen-printed smart textiles. The paper is very interesting, but for its publication, it needs to make some changes.
.- The introductory section is adequate, contains a sufficient number of references and the objective of the research is well described.

.- Materials and Methods: The approach is inadequate. It is important to know every step of the working methodology. A diagram or chart is needed. In this way, it is possible to know the methodological steps before starting to develop point 2.1.  This suggestion is basic for a proper and easy reading of the paper.

Line 99, Where is Figure 2, 9. Is this a mistake?

Line 108. You must remove Table 1.  Table 1 is not cited in the text

Section 2.7 does not provide information of interest. It may be interesting to keep it if similar work is cited.

.- Results: Results shown in the paper validate the research proposal.

-. Discussion: This section should include a comparison with other similar experiments. In addition to the paper you should cite these works.

.- Conclusion: It is not possible to summarise an investigation in four lines. Please, you must expand this section.

Author Response

• Materials and Methods: The approach is inadequate. It is important to know every step of the working methodology. A diagram or chart is needed. In this way, it is possible to know the methodological steps before starting to develop point 2.1

The methodology has been presented in the chapter Materials and Methods, the orgnisation of the chapter have been revised

• Line 99, Where is Figure 2, 9. Is this a mistake?

        Line 108. You must remove Table 1.  Table 1 is not cited in the text

Formatting problems have been resolved

• Section 2.7 does not provide information of interest. It may be interesting to keep it if similar work is cited.

Thanks to the pinhole test it is possible to show that a coating has been applied continuously which is necessary to exhibit the good barrier properties of the coating

• Discussion: This section should include a comparison with other similar experiments. In addition to the paper you should cite these works.

The results have been compared with other studies in the discussion, the benefits of this approach have been highlighted.

• Conclusion: It is not possible to summarise an investigation in four lines. Please, you must expand this section.

Conclusion was supplemented

• English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

the Englisch style has been carefully revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made a substantial improvement in the new version of the document. Authors have answered all the questions raised by the reviewer. But I have an important doubt.

• Authors indicate that nine samples have been taken (see line 244). A statistical baseline study is needed to validate the results.

With this new contribution, I think that the paper now meets the quality requirements for publication.

Author Response

• Authors indicate that nine samples have been taken (see line 244). A statistical baseline study is needed to validate the results.

9 samples were silmutaneously printed to caracterise the properties of the printed samples, without external conditions, such as humidity or temperature, having an influence on the results. One to two samples were used per test (e.g. pinhole test, abrasion test or SEM-microscopy). In these conditions a statistical baseline study is not possible. The authors have completed the text in order to make it more comprehensible and to avoid misunderstandings.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for your response. With the changes made the paper is suitable for publication.