Study of Surface Wear of Punches and Molds for Optimization of Nuclear Fuel Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a very interestting topic, about the connection of nuclear energy and tribology, the wear analysis of production components of nuclear fuel production. The topic itself is great, however lots of areas were identified where the article can and should be improved.

My notes are the following:

• please revise the article with a native-speaking person. In lots of sentences, english grammar errors were identified (e.g. some sentences has no verb in it, like line 180-182)
• please check the word UO2, the 2 should be in subscript
• replace figures with sharp ones, almost every figure and picture is too fuzzy (e.g. Figure 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
• check your whole article and remove every word written in cyrillic alphabet, make sure you only use english words and letters. Cyrillic words can also be found in several figures as well (e.g. FIgure 3)
• please check your figures and the presented arrows. In some cases, the arrows are not enough visible, because of the background is matching with the color of the arrow. If possible, use red arrows, for example.
• Figure 5 B, the words and letters in the white textboxes are not readable
• the description of figure 6 is missing
• Line 163, "presented in the table ...", number is missing.
• Table 1., the profiles are taken using Screenshots from the program which uses cyrillic alphabet. The information there is not understandable for an english-speaking reader. Furthermore, the Y-axis of the diagrams is different (if MKM means micrometer), please use identical Y-axis scaling to ensure comparability of the profiles. 
• Table 1, can you explain what we can see in the 2nd and 3rd diagram each row? under Dp filter: 24% and p=33%.
• Please make sure you use decimal point instead of decimal comma in your while article
• Can you explain why the Ra average surface roughness was used for evaluation? Average value is very confusing. For wear analysis, the surface roughness is not the best option. Preferably wear depth or wear volume.
• Figure 7, "new" and "old" means before and after operation, respectively? If yes, Figure 7 is confusing, because HV is higher at after operation cases, but the following chapter evaluates that HV was decreased during operation of this punch components. Please check this informaiton.
• Line 215, ball-on-disc measurement were carried out at room temperature, but the coating is operating in extreme high temperatures. Can you explain why did you decide to run the measurements in room temperature? What kind of relevant data is available for a system operates at +1000°C produces at maximum 25°C? 
• Figure 8, what does x and y axis present? A proper diagram axis has description, sign and unit, for example: sliding distance, L [m] in this case, X-axis.
• Figure 8, please ensure that the description of different line colors is in english, not cyrillic letters.
• Figure 9. What should the reader see here? Please use red circles, arrows to guide the reader? And refer to these marks in the text as well to connect the figure and the sentences as well.
• Table 3: can you explain the used order: before operation Side B, before operation Side A, after operation Side B, after operation Side A. Why B is before A? Why not before operation A, after operation A to ensure good coomparability? The reader should jump between columns if she/he want to compare these values.
• Table 3, Cu row Punch after operation (Side A) +-, 2 decimal points is there.
• Chapter 3.3, X-ray Phase analysis: in some cases, the authors use Xrd, some cases XRD. Please be consistent.
• Figure 10: too fuzzy, the figure description is in cyrillic alphabet. Please use identical Y-axis scaling.
• Line 257-259, translate to english
• Figure 11: not enough sharp, letters are not visible in the figures. Please add acceleration voltage information to the figures in visible form.
• Figure 12-15, not enough sharp figures. Use only english alphabet, define axis accordingly (see my previous comment about it) and be more specific with the figure description (e.g. figure 13 and 14 has the same figure description). It is not clear, what is the difference between these images.
• Table 4, in Stat. and last column, use english alphabet

I recommend to rethink the methodology chapter and introduce every method you are using. The authors present cross-section SEM images but there is no information about how a cross-section was taken and prepared for SEM investigation.

The authors gives a short information that the friction coefficient was measured with ball-disk test, however the details of the test is missing. The ball-on-disc system can be oscillation and rotation as well. Missing information: ball and disc specimen geometry, dimensions, material, hardness, surface roughness; movement pattern (frequency and stroke is oscillation, radius and revolution speed for rotation), load, running temperature, time duration, lubrication. Furthermore, the evaluation is also missing: how many independent measurements were carried out, how were they statistically evaluated? For these information, the reasons are also important, so explain why you used that parameter or specimen, etc.

Furthermore, the structure of this article is not clear. The authors usually jumps between topics in the results chapter. Once they present information about molds and punches, and suddenly, ball-on-disc tribology and again, molds and punches. Please rethink your whole article and structurize it to ensure good experience for the reader while reading it.

Get rid of all of the cyrillic letters from the article, including diagrams as well.

It is very difficult to evaluate the scientific results of the article, because of the grammatic errors, cyrillic letters, unclear methodology descriptions and not good visualisation of results. The authors have to correct these mistakes before we can discuss the scientific results.

A MAJOR-MAJOR revision is requested.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors use cyrillic letters in lots of cases. Please get rid all of your cyrillic letters and formulate your article pure English. This inclues every figure as well.

There are some cases, where the verb is missing from the sentence, example: Line 180: "During the stfy, several parameters such as Rq - mean square deviation of the profile, Rv - depth of the largest depression of the profile, but the main parameter was Ra for great informativeness." There is no verb in the first part of the sentence.

The article was difficult to read because of these english mistakes.

Author Response

1. please revise the article with a native-speaking person. In lots of sentences, English grammar errors were identified (e.g. some sentences has no verb in it, like line 180-182).

Response: Thank you for pointing out this problem. The manuscript has been fully proofread and edited by a professional editor, a native English speaker, to correct all grammatical errors, improve style, and ensure clarity.

2. please check the word UO2, the 2 should be in subscript

A: Corrected. Throughout the text "UO2" has been replaced with the correct spelling "UO₂"

3. replace figures with sharp ones, almost every figure and picture is too fuzzy (e.g. Figure 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16).

Response: All of these figures have been replaced with high-resolution images to ensure that all details are clear and legible.

4. check your whole article and remove every word written in cyrillic alphabet, make sure you only use english words and letters. Cyrillic words can also be found in several figures as well (e.g. FIgure 3).

A: We apologize for this omission. All Cyrillic has been completely removed from the text, tables and figures. All inscriptions, including axes in diagrams and labels in figures, have been changed to English.

5. please check your figures and the presented arrows. In some cases, the arrows are not enough visible, because of the background is matching with the color of the arrow. If possible, use red arrows, for example.

A: We have revised all the drawings. The visibility of the arrows has been improved by using contrasting colors (particularly red, as you suggested) and increasing their thickness.

6. Figure 5 B, the words and letters in the white textboxes are not readable

A: Figure 5 has been updated. The text in the textboxes has been made clear and easy to read.

7. the description of figure 6 is missing

A: We have added a more detailed description to Figure 6 to clarify that the figure shows the areas (A, B, C) on the punch surface where the measurements were taken.

8. Line 163, "presented in the table ...", number is missing.

Answer: Number has been added

9. Table 1., the profiles are taken using Screenshots from the program which uses cyrillic alphabet. The information there is not understandable for an english-speaking reader. Furthermore, the Y-axis of the diagrams is different (if MKM means micrometer), please use identical Y-axis scaling to ensure comparability of the profiles.

A: The images of the profiles have been cropped to prevent misleading the readers and only the roughness profile itself has been left.

10. Table 1, can you explain what we can see in the 2nd and 3rd diagram each row? under Dp filter: 24% and p=33%.

A: In Table 1, the purpose was to show the surface roughness of the punch and die before and after operation to demonstrate the change in surface morphology after operation/wear. Therefore, the basic numerical values of roughness parameters (Ra, Rz, Rq, Rv) and surface profilograms were shown. Therefore, the images of the profiles have been cropped to prevent misleading the readers, leaving only the roughness profile itself.

11. Please make sure you use decimal point instead of decimal comma in your while article

A: We have checked the entire manuscript and replaced all decimal commas with decimal points in accordance with international scientific standards.

12. Can you explain why the Ra average surface roughness was used for evaluation? Average value is very confusing. For wear analysis, the surface roughness is not the best option. Preferably wear depth or wear volume.

A: We agree that wear depth or wear volume are more direct metrics. In the revised article, we clarified that the Ra parameter was used for an initial comparative assessment of overall surface degradation, which is standard practice for quality control. To provide a more complete picture of wear, we also included in the analysis and discussion the parameters Rz (maximum profile height) and Rv (depth of largest depression), which were presented in Table 1 and better characterize the depth of damage

13. Figure 7, "new" and "old" mean before and after operation, respectively? If yes, Figure 7 is confusing, because HV is higher at after operation cases, but the following chapter evaluates that HV was decreased during operation of these punch components. Please check this informaiton.

A: We have corrected this error and completely replaced Figure 7 in the manuscript. The new version of the figure now correctly illustrates the decrease in microhardness of the punch components after operation, which is fully consistent with the description in the text.

14. Line 215, ball-on-disc measurements were carried out at room temperature, but the coating is operating in extreme high temperatures. Can you explain why did you decide to run the measurements in room temperature? What kind of relevant data is available for a system operating at +1000°C produces at maximum 25°C?

Answer: This is a very important point. In the revised manuscript we have added justification. The purpose of this test was not to reproduce operating conditions, but to provide a standardized comparative analysis of the tribological properties (coefficient of friction) of the punch surface before and after long-term industrial operation. Wear and degradation had already occurred under real conditions. The test at room temperature allowed us to quantify the extent of this degradation under controlled and reproducible conditions.

15. Figure 8, what does x and y axis present? A proper diagram axis has description, sign and unit, for example: sliding distance, L [m] in this case, X-axis.

A: Figure 8 has been updated. We have added full signatures to the axes (X-axis: "Scratch length, m"; Y-axis: "Coefficient of friction").

16. Figure 8, please ensure that the description of different line colors is in english, not cyrillic letters.

Answer: The legend has been translated into English.

17. Figure 9. What should the reader see here? Please use red circles, arrows to guide the reader? And refer to these marks in the text as well to connect the figure and the sentences as well.

A: Thank you for your valuable comment on Figure 9. We reviewed it and fully agree with your assessment that it was not informative enough and did not convey the key message to the reader. Therefore, we decided to remove Figure 9 completely from the manuscript, as well as all references to it in the text. We believe that this improved the overall clarity and focus of the paper.

18. Table 3: can you explain the used order: before operation Side B, before operation Side A, after operation Side B, after operation Side A. Why B is before A? Why not before operation A, after operation A to ensure good coomparability? The reader should jump between columns if she/he wants to compare these values.

A: Your comment is correct. The order of columns in Table 3 was inconvenient for comparison. We have changed the table structure to the one you suggested: "Side A (before)", "Side A (after)", "Side B (before)", "Side B (after)", which greatly simplifies data analysis.

19. Table 3, Cu row Punch after operation (Side A) +-, 2 decimal points are there.

Response: Corrected

20. Chapter 3.3, X-ray Phase analysis: in some cases, the authors use Xrd, some cases XRD. Please be consistent.

A: We have checked the entire text and corrected this inconsistency. The entire manuscript now uses a single standardized variant, XRD.

 

21. Figure 10: too fuzzy, the figure description is in cyrillic alphabet. Please use identical Y-axis scaling.

Response: As per your recommendation, we have replaced Figure 10 with a high-resolution version and translated all captions into English

22. Line 257-259, translate to english

A: Thank you for your comment. The text on lines 257-259 has been translated to English.

23. Figure 11: not sharp enough, letters are not visible in the figures. Please add acceleration voltage information to the figures in visible form.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments on Figure 11. We have replaced it with a high resolution version where all the lettering is now clearly visible

24. Figure 12-15, not enough sharp figures. Use only english alphabet, define axis accordingly (see my previous comment about it) and be more specific with the figure description (e.g. figure 13 and 14 has the same figure description). It is not clear, what is the difference between these images.

A: Thank you for your detailed comments on Figures 12-15. We have addressed all your comments by replacing these four figures with high-resolution versions, translating all text and axis definitions into English. In addition, we have rewritten the figure descriptions to make them more specific

25. Table 4, in Stat. and last column, use english alphabet.

Response: thank you for your comment. We have corrected Table 4: all text in the indicated columns ("Stat." and last column) is now in English.

26. I recommend to rethink the methodology chapter and introduce every method you are using. The authors present cross-section SEM images but there is no information about how a cross-section was taken and prepared for SEM investigation.

A: Each of the methodology sections has been presented and a description of sample preparation for SEM has been added.

27. The authors gives a short information that the friction coefficient was measured with ball-disk test, however the details of the test is missing. The ball-on-disc system can be oscillation and rotation as well. Missing information: ball and disc specimen geometry, dimensions, material, hardness, surface roughness; movement pattern (frequency and stroke is oscillation, radius and revolution speed for rotation), load, running temperature, time duration, lubrication. Furthermore, the evaluation is also missing: how many independent measurements were carried out, how were they statistically evaluated? For this information, the reasons are also important, so explain why you used that parameter or specimen, etc.

Answer: Thank you for your detailed and very useful comments on the description of tribological tests. We have completely revised the Materials and Methods section to clarify that the tests were performed on a rotary ball-disk machine using polished punch specimens (Ra < 0.05 µm) and a standard 100Cr6 steel ball with a diameter of 6 mm. The updated text now includes all parameters (load 2 N, velocity 3 cm/s, distance 50 m, dry friction at room temperature)

28. Furthermore, the structure of this article is not clear. The authors usually jumps between topics in the results chapter. Once they present information about molds and punches, and suddenly, ball-on-disc tribology and again, molds and punches. Please rethink your whole article and structurize it to ensure a good experience for the reader while reading it.

A: Thank you for your constructive comment and we agree that the structure of the Results section needed improvement. In response to your comment, we have completely redesigned this section to ensure logical consistency: all studies are now clearly separated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the wear process of stamping tools used in the forming of uranium dioxide nuclear fuel pellets and analyzes the influence of operating conditions on the microstructure, geometry, and physicomechanical property changes of the die and punch surfaces. The evaluation is conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and other techniques. The main failure mechanisms of the coatings are revealed to be abrasive and adhesive wear, microcrack formation, and localized degradation. Practical recommendations are provided for extending tool life by optimizing stamping parameters and applying wear-resistant coatings. However, there are still several shortcomings in the article, and revision is recommended before resubmission. The following issues need to be addressed:

1. In the first paragraph of the introduction, it is stated that most current research focuses on the thermal and structural properties of fuel pellets, yet it is later claimed that the importance of accurate pellet geometry fills a gap in current research. Since geometry is also part of structural characteristics, this appears contradictory.
2. After reference 13, the section discussing the role of pellet geometry should include additional literature references to enhance the article’s reliability.
3. In the Materials and Methods section, although the experimental procedures are described, some key parameters are insufficiently detailed. All relevant parameters should be clearly specified.
4. Figure 5(a) lacks labels and a scale bar; it is recommended to add explanations for each figure. Figure 6 does not have a caption. All figures in the paper should be relabeled with attention to clarity.
5. The discussion of Figure 5 is relatively brief. It is suggested to expand the analysis on the microstructural changes of the punch cross-section.
6. The energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) graph in Figure 16 does not indicate which cross-sectional point it corresponds to, and the EDS image is incomplete and unclear. Reprocessing is recommended.
7. Although the abstract mentions that practical recommendations for tool life extension are provided through optimized stamping parameters, the main text does not specify the optimized parameters. A summary of these parameters should be included.
8. There are inconsistencies in language usage throughout the article. It is recommended to standardize the language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

average

Author Response

This paper investigates the wear process of stamping tools used in the forming of uranium dioxide nuclear fuel pellets and analyzes the influence of operating conditions on the microstructure, geometry, and physicomechanical property changes of the die and punch surfaces. The evaluation is conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and other techniques. The main failure mechanisms of the coatings are revealed to be abrasive and adhesive wear, microcrack formation, and localized degradation. Practical recommendations are provided for extending tool life by optimizing stamping parameters and applying wear-resistant coatings. However, there are still several shortcomings in the article, and revision is recommended before resubmission. The following issues need to be addressed:

1. In the first paragraph of the introduction, it is stated that most current research focuses on the thermal and structural properties of fuel pellets, yet it is later claimed that the importance of accurate pellet geometry fills a gap in current research. Since geometry is also part of structural characteristics, this appears contradictory.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this inaccuracy. We recognize that the wording may have caused confusion. By "structural characteristics" in the first case we meant microstructural properties of the material (e.g., grain size, porosity, phase composition). In the second case, we were referring to macroscopic geometry (exact dimensions, shape of chamfers and face recesses).

2. After reference 13, the section discussing the role of pellet geometry should include additional literature references to enhance the article's reliability.

Response: We have strengthened this section by adding references to authoritative sources that corroborate the information on the specific geometry of fuel pellets.

3. In the Materials and Methods section, although the experimental procedures are described, some key parameters are insufficiently detailed. All relevant parameters should be clearly specified.

Response: more detailed information on the study parameters has been provided.

4. Figure 5(a) lacks labels and a scale bar; it is recommended to add explan explanations for each figure. Figure 6 does not have a caption. All figures in the paper should be relabeled with attention to clarity.

Response: All the shortcomings mentioned have been corrected.

5. The discussion of Figure 5 is relatively brief. It is suggested to expand the analysis on the microstructural changes of the punch cross-section.

Response: Figure 5 has been moved to the section on microscopic analysis

6. The energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) graph in Figure 16 does not indicate which cross-sectional point it corresponds to, and the EDS image is incomplete and unclear. Reprocessing is recommended.

Answer: we have completely reprocessed this fragment. The image has been replaced with a higher quality image, and the caption now clearly states that the spectrum presented is representative of the analyzed areas

7. Although the abstract mentions that practical recommendations for tool life extension are provided through optimized stamping parameters, the main text does not specify the optimized parameters. A summary of these parameters should be included.

Response: This work is aimed at a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms of wear of press tools used in the molding of uranium dioxide tablets, rather than at establishing specific optimized pressing regimes. The main objective of the study was to characterize in detail the degradation processes, such as abrasion and adhesion wear, micro-crack formation and protective coating failure, using various analytical techniques. Determining the exact "optimized parameters" such as pressure, velocity, and temperature would require a separate, large-scale experimental study. The present paper is therefore a diagnostic work, the results of which provide the necessary scientific basis for future process optimization and tool life extension.

8. There are inconsistencies in language usage throughout the article. It is recommended to standardize the language.

Answer: The manuscript has been fully proofread and edited. All language inconsistencies and stylistic errors have been eliminated. The text of the article has been standardized to a uniform scientific style.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

Thank you for considering so deeply my recommendations. The quality of the article has improved significantly.

Some stylistic and format errors were identified:

• Line 155, it should be kV (kilovolts) instead of kW (kilowatts)
• Chapter 2: Materials and methods, M should be big letter
• Profile images in Table 1 and 2, please add axis scaling
• Figure 6: the 3rd and 4th bar has the same name. My assumption is that HV should be higher before use. The name of 1st and 2nd bar should be changed.
• Table 3: The last 2 column has the same name: Punch after operation (Side A). Furthermore the data in the 3rd big column are confusing, the same numbers are written next to each other. And its 1st row, which should be an explanation row (like in the case of the others, % and derivation), it is here numbers. Please check this table carefully.
• Too large free space between lines 382 and 402
• There is a chapter after the references, its content is about literature research.

Please correct these mistakes and resubmit after minor revision.

Author Response

1. Comment: Line 155, it should be kV (kilovolts) instead of kW (kilowatts

• Response: Thank you for pointing out this typo. We have corrected the unit for the accelerating voltage of the scanning electron microscope from "kW" to "kV.

2. Comment: Chapter 2: Materials and methods, M should be big letter

• Response: We agree. The formatting has been corrected.

3. Comment: Profile images in Table 1 and 2, please add axis scaling

• Response: axis scaling added

4. Comment: Figure 6: the 3rd and 4th bar has the same name. My assumption is that HV should be higher before use. The name of 1st and 2nd bar should be changed.

• Response: Thank you for identifying this significant error in Figure 6. The data labels were indeed inadvertently swapped. This has been corrected in the revised figure.

5. Comment: Table 3: The last 2 column has the same name: Punch after operation (Side A). Furthermore the data in the 3rd big column are confusing, the same numbers are written next to each other. And its 1st row, which should be an explanation row (like in the case of the others, % and derivation), it is here numbers. Please check this table carefully.

• Response: We sincerely apologize for the confusing presentation of Table 3. The table contained several formatting errors, which made it unintelligible. We have corrected the table

6. Comment: There is a large empty space in the manuscript between lines 382 and 402.

• Response: Thank you for noticing this formatting issue. The excessive white space between figures has been removed.

7. Comment: There is a chapter after the references, its content is about literature research.

• Response: You are correct. The placement of the literature review was at wrong place. We deleted it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the wear process of pressing tools used in the forming of uranium dioxide (UO₂) nuclear fuel pellets, analyzing the influence of operating conditions on the microstructure, geometry, and physical-mechanical properties of the tool and press working surfaces. The evaluation was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and other methods. The study reveals that the primary failure mechanisms of the coating include abrasive and adhesive wear, microcrack formation, and localized degradation, while also providing practical recommendations for extending tool life through optimized pressing parameters and the application of wear-resistant coatings. However, several shortcomings remain, and the manuscript is recommended for revision and resubmission. The specific issues requiring modification are as follows:

1. In Section 2.2, the wear distance is stated as 50 m—please verify this value to ensure accurate reference data.
2. The experimental procedures in Section 2.2 lack sufficient detail. For example, although ten hardness measurements were taken, the method used to determine the final hardness value is not described and should be clarified. Additionally, the voltage and current parameters used for the XRF testing should be specified.
3. XRD is mentioned in Section 3.3, but no corresponding experimental procedure is provided. Since XRD and XRF are distinct techniques, they should not be treated interchangeably without proper explanation.
4. There is redundancy in some figures and tables. The authors are advised to thoroughly review all graphical content, remove duplicate or unnecessary images, and ensure that each figure and table presents independent and essential information to enhance the overall rigor and readability of the manuscript.
5. The scale bar units in some images are inconsistent. For instance, "MKM" is used to denote micrometers—a non-standard symbol. It is recommended to uniformly adopt the internationally recognized symbol "μm" for all image scale bars to comply with journal formatting standards.

6.The current conclusion section primarily offers qualitative summaries of experimental observations and lacks quantitative synthesis of key performance parameters or process conditions—such as the extent of wear rate reduction. It is recommended to include specific optimized parameter ranges or measurable performance improvement metrics. Furthermore, the conclusion would benefit from a more comprehensive discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

average

Author Response

 

• Reviewer's Comment: "In Section 2.2, the wear distance is stated as 50 m—please verify this value to ensure accurate reference data."
• Response: Thank you for your diligence. We confirm that the specified sliding distance of S = 50 m for the "ball-on-disc" tribological tests is correct. All detailed in Section 2.2

• Reviewer's Comment: "The experimental procedures in Section 2.2 lack sufficient detail. For example, although ten hardness measurements were taken, the method used to determine the final hardness value is not described and should be clarified. Additionally, the voltage and current parameters used for the XRF testing should be specified."
• Response: We clarified these points.

• Reviewer's Comment: "XRD is mentioned in Section 3.3, but no corresponding experimental procedure is provided. Since XRD and XRF are distinct techniques, they should not be treated interchangeably without proper explanation."
• Response: We agree that distinguishing between XRD and XRF is crucial. The experimental procedure for X-ray Diffraction (XRD) was included in

• Reviewer's Comment: "There is redundancy in some figures and tables. The authors are advised to thoroughly review all graphical content, remove duplicate or unnecessary images, and ensure that each figure and table presents independent and essential information..."
• Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We deleted 12 and 13 pictures

• Reviewer's Comment: "The scale bar units in some images are inconsistent. For instance, "MKM" is used to denote micrometers—a non-standard symbol. It is recommended to uniformly adopt the internationally recognized symbol "μm"..."
• Response: We appreciate you identifying this inconsistency. The use of "MKM" (a transliteration of the Russian abbreviation "мкм") is indeed incorrect for an English-language publication. We will revise all figures to use the internationally recognized symbol "μm" for micrometers, ensuring compliance with journal formatting standards.

• Reviewer's Comment: "The current conclusion section primarily offers qualitative summaries... and lacks quantitative synthesis... It is recommended to include specific optimized parameter ranges or measurable performance improvement metrics."
• Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. We acknowledge the need for a stronger, more quantitative summary. While our study's primary goal was to analyze and characterize wear rather than optimize the process, we have included key quantitative metrics in the conclusion. For example, we reported that microhardness dropped by