Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript No.: coatings-1782048-peer-review-v1

Title: Design and Analysis of A 5-Degree of Freedom (DOF) Hybrid Three-Nozzle 3D Printer Based on Wood Fiber Gel Material

Coatings

 

Reviewer’s Decision: Accept after major revision

The authors of this work describe the 3D printing of wood-based fibrous gel and their design and analysis using the degree of freedom. The research is of has scientific significance due to the involvement of green materials and should be published in Coatings. However, before it can be published, the manuscript needs to be significantly improved. As a result, I recommend accepting the manuscript after significant minor revisions. The following are the detailed comments:

1.                  Title: The title appears to be confusing, as it seems to be two an emergence of three different domains. It should be more focused on an application using wood-based fibrous materials. Please update the title necessary.

2.                  Abstract:

The abstract is a condensed version of the entire article. There are numerous grammatical and formatting mistakes in the abstract as well as the body of the work. Please revise the manuscript's grammar and language throughout. The abstract part is more introductive, and it has to be updated to include results.

3.                  Introduction: The introduction is nicely written but some sentences are confusing please replace them as per suggestions or rephrase them accordingly.

                                   i.         Line 52-54 “Lignin, one of the main components of chemical pulp black liquor, is the second most abundant natural polymer in the world and the only renewable raw material consisting in large quantities of aromatic hydrocarbons." should be written as “Lignin, a major component of chemical pulp black liquor, is the world's second most abundant natural polymer and the only renewable raw resource that contains considerable amounts of aromatic hydrocarbons.”

                                 ii.         Line 68-70 “As different molding materials have different traits, the additive manufacturing molding mechanism also varies. It would not be possible to realize form for all materials in one way." should be written as “The addition of methacryloyl groups to gelatin preserves the material's distinctive properties while also contributing to its photo-crosslinking capacity, allowing it to be used as a core component of hydrogels and 3D printing inks.”

                               iii.         The manuscript lacks the literature citation of some highly interesting most recent relevant works, and thus the reference citations are not up to date. More specifically, since this manuscript is on wood-based hydrogel, it will benefit from citations of most recent papers published on wood-based materials (such as lignin and cellulose, etc.) for 3D printing.

4.                                          Materials and methods: well written.

5.                                          Results and discussions: There are several image presentation issues needed to be readdressed as follows:

·       The reference style is differently described in this section from the introduction which may confuse the reader during citation. It is strongly recommended to correct referencing style as per Coatings MDPi to avoid confusion.

·       The resolution of Fig 2 is poor please provide a high-resolution image and the arrangements should be alphabetical.

·       Scales are missing in Fig 2 (c).

·       Fig. 3 is missing please provide it.

·       A high-resolution Fig. 4 is required as some images have poor resolution and also provide their reuse rights.

·       Permission of reuse and citation of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 if not drawn by the author.

·       The degree sign for temperature and angle is different and please address the issue in the whole manuscript.

6.      Conclusion: The conclusion section is the most important result summary of a research article, so it should be based on the result outcome and cross-comparison. The author should modify the conclusion as per the comments given for the results and description. It should be written in a single and comprehensive paragraph and also replace the word “summary” with “conclusion” as a general practice. The summary is different from the conclusion or provide the conclusion section and provide the summary section separately but provide the conclusion to have a positive impact on readers.

 

In summary, the reported research work has significant value, however, a major and thorough improvement/correction of English language, grammar, syntax, etc. is necessary to improve the quality of the paper and to make it publishable in the Coatings.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer:

 

Dear Editor,

We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spent making their constructive remakes and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought by the reviews were accurately incorporated and considered. We list a tabular point-to-point response to reviewers ' comments and indicate the revisions. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

 

Reviewer 1

 

#	Comments	Responses
1	Title: The title appears to be confusing, as it seems to be two an emergence of three different domains. It should be more focused on an application using wood-based fibrous materials. Please update the title necessary.	Revised Thank you for your comments and support, which is of great significance to us. First, we correct the title. Secondly, as you said, the title should be more focused on an application using wood-based fibrous materials. so we re-edited the title,  changed "based on" to" for". Finally express sincere respect to you.
2	Abstract: The abstract is a condensed version of the entire article. There are numerous grammatical and formatting mistakes in the abstract as well as the body of the work. Please revise the manuscript's grammar and language throughout. The abstract part is more introductive, and it has to be updated to include results.	Revised Thank you for your comments, which is of great significance to us. First, We carefully reviewed and revised the grammar and related formatting in the article. Secondly, We re-edited the part of the abstract to add the specific content in the conclusion
3	Introduction:  i.    Line 52-54 “Lignin, one of the main components of chemical pulp black liquor, is the second most abundant natural polymer in the world and the only renewable raw material consisting in large quantities of aromatic hydrocarbons.” Should be written as “Lignin, a major component of chemical pulp black liquor, is the world’s second most abundant natural polymer and the only renewable raw resource that contains considerable amounts of aromatic hydrocarbons.” ii.     Line 68-70 “As different molding materials have different traits, the additive manufacturing molding mechanism also varies. It would not be possible to realize form for all materials in one way.” Should be written as “The addition of methacryloyl groups to gelatin preserves the material’s distinctive properties while also contributing to its photo-crosslinking capacity, allowing it to be used as a core component of hydrogels and 3D printing inks.”   iii.   The manuscript lacks the literature citation of some highly interesting most recent relevant works, and thus the reference citations are not up to date. More specifically, since this manuscript is on wood-based hydrogel, it will benefit from citations of most recent papers published on wood-based materials (such as lignin and cellulose, etc.) for 3D printing.	Revised Thank you for your comments, which is of great significance to us. i. We have made the changes according to your suggestions. ii. Line 68-70, First, We very much agree with the experts' opinions and thank them for their suggestions. Secondly, Here is just an overall introduction of different materials of different forming mechanism, without specifying the specific kind of material. Therefore, we have made only partial changes. iii. Thank you for your comments, which is of great significance to us. We have updated some of the references（P.13）.
4	Materials and methods: well written.	Thank you very much for your approval
5	Results and discussions: There are several image presentation issues needed to be readdressed as follows: · The reference style is differently described in this section from the introduction which may confuse the reader during citation. It is strongly recommended to correct referencing style as per Coatings MDPi to avoid confusion. · The resolution of Fig 2 is poor please provide a high-resolution image and the arrangements should be alphabetical. · Scales are missing in Fig 2 (c). · Fig. 3 is missing please provide it. · A high-resolution Fig. 4 is required as some images have poor resolution and also provide their reuse rights.  ·  Permission of reuse and citation of Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 if not drawn by the author. · The degree sign for temperature and angle is different and please address the issue in the whole manuscript.	Revised Thank you for your comments, which is of great significance to us. ·We re-edited the referencing style（p.13-p.14）. ·We re-edited the image to improve its resolution and adjusted the order of alphabetical in Fig 2. ·We re-drew the scale of the coordinates in Fig 2. ·we have re-arranged the order of all the diagrams. ·We re-edited Fig.4 to improve its resolution. · We did design Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, and we re-edited the image for the resolution. ·Thank you for your comments, We have completely changed the sign of temperature. I am sorry our carelessness caused you trouble.
6	Conclusion: The conclusion section is the most important result summary of a research article, so it should be based on the result outcome and cross-comparison. The author should modify the conclusion as per the comments given for the results and description. It should be written in a single and comprehensive paragraph and also replace the word “summary” with “conclusion” as a general practice. The summary is different from the conclusion or provide the conclusion section and provide the summary section separately but provide the conclusion to have a positive impact on readers.	Revised Thank you for your comments, we replaced the word “summary” with “conclusion” and material rheological mutation results were provided to support for 3D printing(p.12,line16-19).

 

Yours sincerely

Jifei Chen

Reviewer 2 Report

Report on the manuscript

 Title: Design and Analysis of A 5-Degree of Freedom (DOF) Hybrid Three-Nozzle 3D Printer Based on Wood Fiber Gel Material

 Authors: Chen Jifei, Zhao Qiansun, Wu Guifeng, Su Xiaotian, Chen Wengang and Du Guanben

 

 

Manuscript number: coatings-1782048

 The subject is marginal but the work deserves attention. I think the readers of this valuable journal will appreciate the results of this manuscript and the novelty of the paper.  General speaking, the manuscript is well written and organized.  There are many and bushy calculations, but these seem to be right. I've rebuilt some of them.

For these reasons I can recommend the acceptance of this paper but some major corrections need to be made. Before the Editor makes a decision, I suggest that the authors take into account the following corrections

 1.    Please improve the abstract. General considerations and other secondary explanations have no place in an Abstract. Please present, shortly, what you actually did in the work, which is your own contribution.

2.    Some editing "glitches" need to be corrected.  A lot of punctuation marks, commas, semicolons, etc. are missing. Please review the entire work to remove these minor but annoying mistakes.

3.    Punctuations are used randomly. Insert comma or full stop every time when is necessary.

4.    A eat number of notions and results are "borrowed" from different already published paper, by the same authors.

5.    As such, I think the authors need to emphasize more clearly the contribution of the manuscript from a scientific point of view.

6.    The section Summary (Conclusion ??) must to highlight more clear the own contributions of the authors

 If the authors take into account all these corrections, the manuscript deserves to be published.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer:

 

Dear Editor,

We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spent making their constructive remakes and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought by the reviews were accurately incorporated and considered. We list a tabular point-to-point response to reviewers ' comments and indicate the revisions. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

 

Yours sincerely

Jifei Chen

 

Reviewer 2

 

#	Comments	Responses
1	Please improve the abstract. General considerations and other secondary explanations have no place in an Abstract. Please present, shortly, what you actually did in the work, which is your own contribution.	Revised Thank you for your comments, We re-edited the part of the abstract to add the specific content in the conclusion and introduced the thesis mainly completed the design, calculation, simulation and other work process and results.
2	Some editing "glitches" need to be corrected.  A lot of punctuation marks, commas, semicolons, etc. are missing. Please review the entire work to remove these minor but annoying mistakes.	Revised Thank you for your comments, we have modified the editing "glitches" by carefully checking the full text. I am sorry our carelessness caused you trouble.
3	Punctuations are used randomly. Insert comma or full stop every time when is necessary.	Thank you for your comments, we have modified the Punctuations by carefully checking the full text. I am sorry our carelessness caused you trouble.
4	A eat number of notions and results are "borrowed" from different already published paper, by the same authors.	Revised Thank you for your kind reminders, The results of this paper has not been reported. In this paper, a printer with three nozzle and five degrees of freedom is designed and analyzed for wood fiber gel as printing material.
5	As such, I think the authors need to emphasize more clearly the contribution of the manuscript from a scientific point of view.	Revised Thank you for your comments, which is of great help to us. The forming mechanism and viscosity of Wood fiber gel material with temperature were analyzed. On this basis, the relevant model is established, the mechanical properties are analyzed, and the relevant conclusions are drawn
6	The section Summary (Conclusion ??) must to highlight more clear the own contributions of the authors	Revised Thank you for your comments, we replaced the word “summary” with “conclusion” (p.12,line13)and material rheological mutation results were provided to support for 3D printing(p.12,line16-19). And through the analysis, the design of the printer in dynamics, modal analysis and other aspects meet the requirements

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The suggested comments has been addressed successfully and some English issues are there and can be addressed during proofreading.