Review Reports - The Effect of Microbead Fusion Flexible Friction-Assisted Electroforming on the Surface Roughness of Electroformed Layers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in the article is current and consistent with the journal's profile.
The authors used modern research methods and equipment.
The authors consider that the electroforming process they propose is new (for example, in the Abstract, it is stated that “This study introduces a novel electroforming process”, and in lines 83-84, it is mentioned that “This study proposes a new microbead fusion flexible friction-assisted electroforming (MF³AEF) process”. I believe that it should be written “an improved electroforming process”, since the proposed process is not new, that is, it is not based on the use of new working methods or principles, but is a known process improved by using a flexible sponge.
In the first sentence of the Abstract, it is stated that “The surface quality of high-performance electroformed components is critical to the overall performance of the devices”, without specifying which devices are in question.
In principle, there is a convention not to use abbreviations in the Abstract of a paper, to facilitate a quick understanding of the aspects addressed by the authors in the article. The abbreviation used in line 15 of the Abstract (“MF3AEF”) is written differently from the way used in other areas of the paper. However, it is necessary to include explanations for the abbreviations used in the text of the paper, at the first use of each abbreviation.
In line 19 of the Abstract, there is a reference to the surface roughness obtained by the investigated process, but currently, the roughness meters can measure the values of a large number of roughness evaluation parameters. It is therefore necessary to specify the roughness parameter used (this is probably the arithmetic mean deviation of the assessed profile, Ra).
In line 30, it is stated that “DCEF often faces limitations”, but it would have been more correct to write “sometimes” instead of “often”.
In lines 33-34 of the Introduction, the authors refer to “poor electroforming quality”. I think it would have been more correct to refer to the poor quality of the deposited layer, not to the quality of the electroforming process.
In line 37, at the end of the word “electroforming”, the sequence of characters “[i]” appears, which was not necessary.
The introductory paragraphs comprising lines 75-100 could constitute a first subchapter of chapter 2, entitled, for example, “Initial Considerations”. The content of the information in these lines is less adequate than what is considered necessary to contain, at present, the Introduction section.
In Figure 1, the flexible sponge is in contact with the cathode, while in Figure 2, this condition is no longer met.
In lines 84-85, it is stated that “As shown in Figure 1. (a), the anode and cathode are filled with hard ceramic during AAFF”. In reality, the anode and cathode are not filled with hard ceramic microbeads, but the space between them is filled with ceramic microbeads.
Is there any justification for the conical shape of the cathode basket in Figure 3 b?
It is customary for each piece of equipment used for experimental research to indicate the brand, the manufacturer of the equipment, and the country where the manufacturer of the equipment is located, as was done in the case of the X-ray diffractometer. Some such information, valid for, for example, the confocal microscope, etc., was not included in the article.
In Figures 4, 5, 6, etc., under each of the components of the figures, a graphic representation with text probably in Chinese was written, which could be an advertisement, without this being scientifically justified.
In lines 194-195, there is the statement “The MF³AEF process offers a more uniform surface stress distribution, significantly minimizing stress concentration”, which seems more like a hypothesis, and arguments should be provided to support it. The statement “The mechanical action helps to reduce internal stress and prevent layer detachment, thereby achieving superior surface quality at high current densities and rotation speeds” does not seem to be supported by evidence either.
In lines 100-101, it is stated that “Ra was reduced to 0.24 µm,” without the subject of the sentence being formulated correctly. It is possible that the values of the roughness parameter Ra were reduced.
The authors must pay more attention to the editing of the article and the expression in English.

In addition to the aspects of this type mentioned above, several other editing problems will be briefly presented below.

Frequently, authors have not left a blank space between the last word of a sentence and the parenthesis that begins a bibliographic reference. For example, in line 29, it is necessary to write “properties [1-3].” instead of “properties[1-3].”, in line 34: “quality [4].” instead of “quality[4].”, etc.

Reference [11] is not cited in the text of the article.

After the abbreviation “et al.”, a period and a blank space follow. In line 57, therefore, “Hu et al. [17]” will be written instead of “Hu et al[17],” in line 70, “Shen et al. [20]” instead of “Shen et al[20],” etc.

In lines 86-87, a blank space is required between the word “Figure” and the figure number (it will write “Figure 1(b).” instead of “Figure1.(b).”).

In the legend of Figure 2, it is not necessary to write the part following the figure number using bold letters.

In Table 1, spaces are required between the numbers and the units of measurement (for example, “1-2 ml” should be written instead of “1-2ml”, etc.).

In line 142, the abbreviation “Fig.” is used, but in the article template, the word “Figure” is recommended.

In line 148, there is the wording “Regarding surface roughness, the surface roughness”, which is not recommended due to the too close use of the concept “surface roughness”.

Commas were incorrectly placed between the subject and the predicate in lines 269 (“Using DCEF, shows”), 271 (“Using AAEF, exhibits”), 274 (“Using MF3AEF, shows”), etc.

In the list of bibliographic references, the existing recommendations in this direction in the article template were not followed. Thus, commas were not placed between the last name and the initial of each author's first name, periods were not placed after the initials of the authors' first names, the semicolon separator was not used between the names of the different authors, the year of publication was not to be written after the authors' names or in parentheses, in the title of an article, usually only the first letter is a capital letter, abbreviated journals titles were not used, journal titles and volume numbers were not written using italics, etc.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the comments for the Authors.

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved	We have revised in the arcticle.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [The topic addressed in the article is current and consistent with the journal's profile.]
Response 1: We agree with this comment.
Comments 2: [The authors used modern research methods and equipment.]
Response 2: We agree with this comment.
Comments 3: [The authors consider that the electroforming process they propose is new (for example, in the Abstract, it is stated that “This study introduces a novel electroforming process”, and in lines 83-84, it is mentioned that “This study proposes a new microbead fusion flexible friction-assisted electroforming (MF³AEF) process”. I believe that it should be written “an improved electroforming process”, since the proposed process is not new, that is, it is not based on the use of new working methods or principles, but is a known process improved by using a flexible sponge.]
Response 3: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 4: [In the first sentence of the Abstract, it is stated that “The surface quality of high-performance electroformed components is critical to the overall performance of the devices”, without specifying which devices are in question.]
Response 4: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 5: [In principle, there is a convention not to use abbreviations in the Abstract of a paper, to facilitate a quick understanding of the aspects addressed by the authors in the article. The abbreviation used in line 15 of the Abstract (“MF³AEF”) is written differently from the way used in other areas of the paper. However, it is necessary to include explanations for the abbreviations used in the text of the paper, at the first use of each abbreviation.]
Response 5: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 6: [In line 19 of the Abstract, there is a reference to the surface roughness obtained by the investigated process, but currently, the roughness meters can measure the values of a large number of roughness evaluation parameters. It is therefore necessary to specify the roughness parameter used (this is probably the arithmetic mean deviation of the assessed profile, Ra).]
Response 6: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 7: [In line 30, it is stated that “DCEF often faces limitations”, but it would have been more correct to write “sometimes” instead of “often”.]
Response 7: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 8:[In lines 33-34 of the Introduction, the authors refer to “poor electroforming quality”. I think it would have been more correct to refer to the poor quality of the deposited layer, not to the quality of the electroforming process.]
Response 8: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 9: [In line 37, at the end of the word “electroforming”, the sequence of characters “[i]” appears, which was not necessary.]
Response 9: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 10: [The introductory paragraphs comprising lines 75-100 could constitute a first subchapter of chapter 2, entitled, for example, “Initial Considerations”. The content of the information in these lines is less adequate than what is considered necessary to contain, at present, the Introduction section.]
Response 10:The suggestion is reasonable, but for the sake of maintaining the structure of the paper, we will not make any adjustments for the time being.
Comments 11:[IIn Figure 1, the flexible sponge is in contact with the cathode, while in Figure 2, this condition is no longer met.]
Response 11: We agree with this comment.In Figure 2, if the sponge comes into contact with the workpiece, particles would be difficult to express, so a certain distance is set between the sponge and the workpiece in this figure
Comments 12:[In lines 84-85, it is stated that “As shown in Figure 1. (a), the anode and cathode are filled with hard ceramic during AAFF”. In reality, the anode and cathode are not filled with hard ceramic microbeads, but the space between them is filled with ceramic microbeads.]
Response 12: We agree with this comment.But in Figure 1. (a), free particles and ions should also be depicted. Therefore, to clearly illustrate the diagram, the anode and cathode are not filled with hard ceramic microbeads.
Comments 13:[Is there any justification for the conical shape of the cathode basket in Figure 3 b.]
Response 13: This is a cylinder, not a cone. The visual difference is caused by the shooting angle.
Comments 14:[It is customary for each piece of equipment used for experimental research to indicate the brand, the manufacturer of the equipment, and the country where the manufacturer of the equipment is located, as was done in the case of the X-ray diffractometer. Some such information, valid for, for example, the confocal microscope, etc., was not included in the article.]
Response 14: The test was collaboratively completed by an external unit, and no relevant model was provided.
Comments 15:[In Figures 4, 5, 6, etc., under each of the components of the figures, a graphic representation with text probably in Chinese was written, which could be an advertisement, without this being scientifically justified.]
Response 15: The image does not contain advertising information; it is the logo of the author's organization.
Comments 16:[In lines 194-195, there is the statement “The MF3AEF process offers a more uniform surface stress distribution, significantly minimizing stress concentration”, which seems more like a hypothesis, and arguments should be provided to support it. The statement “The mechanical action helps to reduce internal stress and prevent layer detachment, thereby achieving superior surface quality at high current densities and rotation speeds” does not seem to be supported by evidence either.]
Response 16: Generally, stress concentration can lead to the fracture of the electroplated layer. However, during and after the experiment, the electroplated layer on the surface of the workpiece did not fracture. Therefore, the conclusion that stress concentration is reduced was drawn.
Comments 17:[In lines 100-101, it is stated that “Ra was reduced to 0.24 µm,” without the subject of the sentence being formulated correctly. It is possible that the values of the roughness parameter Ra were reduced.]
Response17: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
Comments 18:[The authors must pay more attention to the editing of the article and the expression in English.]
Response18: We agree with this comment.The English expression of the article has been revised
Comments 19:In addition to the aspects of this type mentioned above, several other editing problems will be briefly presented below. Frequently, authors have not left a blank space between the last word of a sentence and the parenthesis that begins a bibliographic reference. For example, in line 29, it is necessary to write “properties [1-3].” instead of “properties[1-3].”, in line 34: “quality [4].” instead of “quality[4].”, etc. Reference [11] is not cited in the text of the article. After the abbreviation “et al.”, a period and a blank space follow. In line 57, therefore, “Hu et al. [17]” will be written instead of “Hu et al[17],” in line 70, “Shen et al. [20]” instead of “Shen et al[20],” etc. In lines 86-87, a blank space is required between the word “Figure” and the figure number (it will write “Figure 1(b).” instead of “Figure1.(b).”). In the legend of Figure 2, it is not necessary to write the part following the figure number using bold letters. In Table 1, spaces are required between the numbers and the units of measurement (for example, “1-2 ml” should be written instead of “1-2ml”, etc.).
Response19: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, a copper electroformed layer was fabricated using a microbead fusion flexible-assisted electroforming method using sponges and microbeads, and the surface conditions were analyzed. Some readers will be interested in the data. However, the following questions remain:

・Although the sponges are important in this study, there are no photographs (or the detail information) of the sponges.
・It is better if you could provide DCEF analysis images such as Figures 5, 6, 8, and 9 (support information is OK).
・If the sample shape is complex, it will be difficult to optimize the contact pressure and brush speed. So, this can put too much pressure on certain areas and cause defects in the surface of samples. What about these risks?
・The conclusion states, "(2) Analysis shows that the MF3AEF process removes hydrogen bubbles that may adhere to the cathode surface by the irregular movement of microbeads in the electroforming solution.". However, the supporting data not be able to found.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review the report on

The Effect of Microbead Fusion Flexible Friction-Assisted Electroforming on the Surface Roughness of Electroformed Layers

The overall findings presented in the manuscript are well-established and contribute meaningfully to the field. However, a few minor issues were identified that require attention. These have been noted and raised as specific queries within the review. I recommend that the article be accepted for publication after a minor revision to address these points.

Queries:

The authors have not reported on the flexible sponge specifications used between the electrodes.
Lines 105 and 108, Before the experiment, the anode surface was cleaned of grease and impurities with deionized water and wrapped with a polyester anode bag to prevent anode sludge produced during the electroforming process from entering the electrolyte and affecting the electroforming results.
How come grease is removed with DI water for washings? Need to use an organic solvent like acetone/ethanol before DI water? No image reported for the Anode in Figure 1.
Table 1, Composition of electroforming copper solution and process conditions. Here, Potassium pyrophosphate, 300g/L, and copper pyrophosphate, 70 g/L, need molar concentrations.
3. Performance testing, which is the measurement of surface morphology roughness, was characterized by a confocal microscope. Is it used for the same?
Figure 7 needs to be clear; the graph should be replaced with clear data points.
In the results and discussion part, no suitable citations were cited; hope authors need to cite more references.

Results: Minor Review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	yes
Is the research design appropriate?	yes
Are the methods adequately described?	yes
Are the results clearly presented?	yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
· Comments 1: [The authors have not reported on the flexible sponge specifications used between the electrodes.]
Response 1: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.
· Comments 2: [Lines 105 and 108, Before the experiment, the anode surface was cleaned of grease and impurities with deionized water and wrapped with a polyester anode bag to prevent anode sludge produced during the electroforming process from entering the electrolyte and affecting the electroforming results.How come grease is removed with DI water for washings? Need to use an organic solvent like acetone/ethanol before DI water? No image reported for the Anode in Figure 1.
Response 2: The workpiece mentioned in the text was cleaned with ethanol solvent before being rinsed with deionized water. The anode workpiece is a copper plate.
Comments 3: [Table 1, Composition of electroforming copper solution and process conditions. Here, Potassium pyrophosphate, 300g/L, and copper pyrophosphate, 70 g/L, need molar concentrations.]
Response 3: The concentration of potassium pyrophosphate is 300g/L, and the concentration of copper pyrophosphate is 70g/L. This way of expressing concentration is conducive to experimental operation.
Comments 4: [Performance testing, which is the measurement of surface morphology roughness, was characterized by a confocal microscope. Is it used for the same?]
Response 4: The images obtained from confocal microscopy more intuitively reflect the surface morphology, and the roughness values obtained from these images can quantify the quality of the surface morphology.
Comments 5: [Figure 7 needs to be clear; the graph should be replaced with clear data points. In the results and discussion part, no suitable citations were cited; hope authors need to cite more references.]
Response 5: We agree with this comment.Therefore, we have revised in the arcticle.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf