Design and Characterization of a Fully Automated Free-Standing Liquid Crystal Film Holder

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Burkle et al. presents the design and implementation of a specialized instrumentation for the automated formation of free-standing liquid crystal films. The paper is well-written and provides a comprehensive, step-by-step description of the components and protocols required to replicate the setup.

I have no technical or editorial objections and recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Point-by-point response:

We report in blue the comments by the reviewer, in black our responses, in italic text excerpts from the manuscript. strikethrough text indicates parts we removed from the manuscript, whereas underlined text indicates newly added parts. References to line numbers in our reply lead to the numbers in the amended manuscript, and explicitly not to the previous version.

 

Reviewer 1:

The manuscript by Burkle et al. presents the design and implementation of a specialized instrumentation for the automated formation of free-standing liquid crystal films. The paper is well-written and provides a comprehensive, step-by-step description of the components and protocols required to replicate the setup.

I have no technical or editorial objections and recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

We thank Reviewer 1 for the kind words.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see attached report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English in this paper is generally very good. Please see specific language corrections noted in the referee report.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes the design, construction, and detailed characterization of an automated sample holder for self-supporting liquid crystal (LC) films (FSLCs), which was specifically validated using 4-octyl-4'-cyanobiphenyl (8CB). The device's main contribution is its ability to operate remotely, controlling temperature, volume dispensing, and scanning or wiping speed. This feature is critical for experiments in restricted-access facilities, such as synchrotrons and free electron lasers (FELs).

Using optical autocorrelation (second harmonic generation, or SHG) and X-ray diffraction, the authors demonstrate experimentally that, above temperature, the wiping speed is the dominant factor determining film thickness and annealing dynamics. Higher speeds produce thinner, more uniform films and minimize the time required for an ordered smectic configuration to form.

The document is well-written. The introduction is compelling, the methodology is clearly described, and the results and discussion are detailed and well-founded. Therefore, it is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication. 

1. The abstract lacks specific quantitative data. To give an immediate idea of the device's performance, the authors should mention the range of thicknesses achieved and the typical stabilization times observed.
2. The text mentions "Table 1" on line 137, which contains training success rates. However, this table is not clearly visible in the extracted text, and its formatting may have been lost. It is imperative to verify that the table is present and legible because reliability is key to automation.
3. Review the entire document to ensure that the spacing between quantities and units is consistent.

 

Author Response

Point-by-point response:

We report in blue the comments by the reviewer, in black our responses, in italic text excerpts from the manuscript. strikethrough text indicates parts we removed from the manuscript, whereas underlined text indicates newly added parts. References to line numbers in our reply lead to the numbers in the amended manuscript, and explicitly not to the previous version.

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript describes the design, construction, and detailed characterization of an automated sample holder for self-supporting liquid crystal (LC) films (FSLCs), which was specifically validated using 4-octyl-4'-cyanobiphenyl (8CB). The device's main contribution is its ability to operate remotely, controlling temperature, volume dispensing, and scanning or wiping speed. This feature is critical for experiments in restricted-access facilities, such as synchrotrons and free electron lasers (FELs).

Using optical autocorrelation (second harmonic generation, or SHG) and X-ray diffraction, the authors demonstrate experimentally that, above temperature, the wiping speed is the dominant factor determining film thickness and annealing dynamics. Higher speeds produce thinner, more uniform films and minimize the time required for an ordered smectic configuration to form.

The document is well-written. The introduction is compelling, the methodology is clearly described, and the results and discussion are detailed and well-founded. Therefore, it is recommended that the manuscript be accepted for publication. 

We thank Reviewer 3 for the kind words and the constructive nature of the comments provided. Our detailed responses are found below:

1. The abstract lacks specific quantitative data. To give an immediate idea of the device's performance, the authors should mention the range of thicknesses achieved and the typical stabilization times observed.

We greatly value this suggestion by Reviewer 3 and agree. A range of thicknesses achieved at high wiping speed is added in line 19: “Faster wiping speeds consistently produce thinner and more uniform FSLC films on the order of 2.92 ± 0.79 µm, due to reduced LC mass deposition.” Stabilization times are now included in line 20: “Time-resolved optical and X-ray scattering measurements confirm the presence of an annealing phase following film formation, which can endure between 1 s and 10 min time scales, during which thickness and alignment fluctuations relax until a stable smectic configuration is reached.” (The word “developed” in line 23 has been cut, to stay within the 200-word limit.)

2. The text mentions "Table 1" on line 137, which contains training success rates. However, this table is not clearly visible in the extracted text, and its formatting may have been lost. It is imperative to verify that the table is present and legible because reliability is key to automation.

We thank Reviewer 3 for making us aware of this major oversight. Table 1 has been lost in the last translation to the journal template and can now be found in line 118 re-added to the manuscript. We apologize.

3. Review the entire document to ensure that the spacing between quantities and units is consistent.

We agree with Reviewer 3 on this point. All quantities and units throughout the manuscript are now consistently separated by a nonbreaking space (cntrl + shift + space), which will make them visually more consistent.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English in this paper is generally very good. Please see specific language corrections noted in the referee report.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the suggested changes. I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication as is. 

Author Response

The authors thank the Reviewer for their assessment and for recommending the manuscript for publication in its current form.