Fused Filament Fabrication Three-Dimensional Printing: Assessing the Influence of Geometric Complexity and Process Parameters on Energy and the Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

By further considering the following aspects, this manuscript can become more comprehensive and valuable, offering readers more useful information and guidance.

1.      The article only considers selected levels of geometric complexity, and more diverse geometries may yield different outcomes. It is worth considering expanding the research scope to encompass a broader range of geometric shapes.

2.       The article provides process parameter optimization suggestions applicable to a specific 3D printer model (UltiMaker), but different printer models and materials may yield different results. A brief explanation of potential variations in results due to different printer models and materials could be included.

3.      Further planning for future expansion of the research scope, including more diverse geometries and different printer models and materials, could lead to more comprehensive results, which could be mentioned in the conclusions.

4.      In the guidelines for education users, reinforcing the introduction to sustainability and the circular economy can promote students' environmental awareness and encourage eco-friendly 3D printing practices.

5.      This paper presents valuable research on the energy consumption and environmental impacts of 3D printing, providing useful guidelines for education users. However, in the future, expanding the research scope could offer more universally applicable conclusions and guidelines.

6.      In addition to considering impact indicators such as carbon footprint and human toxicity, exploring other environmental impacts like resource consumption, water footprint, and land use could provide a more comprehensive environmental assessment.

7.      Considering different application scenarios: While the paper provides guidelines for education users, expanding the consideration of environmental impacts in various application scenarios, such as manufacturing or medical fields, could offer more specific and practical recommendations for different industries.

8.      The paper mentions that data availability is stated as "not applicable," however, ensuring data availability and reproducibility are crucial for scientific research credibility. If possible, providing data sources and detailed experimental methods for other researchers to replicate the study and verify results could be helpful. Alternatively, explaining the reason for not providing data, if applicable, would be useful.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments and for the revision of the manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is devoted to investigation of 3D printing. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing has been recently adopted in various industries and production processes. In this study the energy consumption and environmental impacts of multiple parts having different complexity levels, based on various process parameters through FDM printing has been evaluated. This paper focuses on three material filaments: polylactic acid (PLA), tough PLA, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). The influence of geometric complexity, layer height, density, infill pattern, speed, and temperature on energy and environment will be analyzed through a life cycle assessment approach. Moreover, this study provides a set of guidelines to 3DP users in education for energy efficient and sustainable use of 3D printers. Analysis of results have revealed that layer height is the most influential parameter on energy and environment while temperature is found to be the least. Furthermore, PLA is found to be the most environmentally friendly material followed by ABS, and T-PLA in terms of climate change, human toxicity, and cumulative energy demand impact categories. However, for the ozone depletion category, ABS contributes the most to environmental damage compared to T-PLA. Results suggest that PLA can be used for visual and prototype models. Whereas ABS and T-PLA serve as good candidates for complex end-use applications, and functional parts. The presented guidelines will assist 3DP users in adequate and optimal use of 3DP technology in order to achieve resources efficiency, energy savings, and environmental sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the revision of the manuscript. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The objective of this study is to assess the energy consumption and environmental impacts of different components with varying complexity levels, using fused filament fabrication and considering various process parameters. Specifically, the research focuses on three material filaments: polylactic acid (PLA), tough PLA, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Through a life cycle assessment approach, the study examines how geometric complexity, layer height, infill density, infill pattern, speed, and temperature influence energy usage and environmental factors. Furthermore, the study offers a set of guidelines for educators using 3D printers, promoting energy efficiency and sustainable practices.

The subject of this study is interesting and falls into the scope of the journal. The novelties and contributions are satisfactory and the manuscript has potentials. It can be considered for publication after addressing following points:

1. It is recommended to use FFF (fused filament fabrication) instead of FDM (fused deposition modeling) throughout the manuscript. FDM is the commercial term of the FFF process.

2. Lines 10-12, please eliminate this sentence from the Abstract “Recent statistics claim that the market of 3D printing in the education sector is expected to reach USD 720 million by 2026.”

3. Please provide some important numerical findings in the abstract.

4. Line 10, STEM acronym has been presented without defining its full name.

5. Please provide the trade name or manufacturer code of the materials in section 2.1.

6. Line 245, please provide a space between value and unit. Please consider this issue throughout the manuscript. Each unit should have a space with corresponding value.

7. Table 4, please modify the unit of raw material production as “kg”.

8. Line 363, please modify the caption of Table 6.

9. Please provide the title of y-axis in Figure 7-d.

10. Please modify Figure 8. The bars overlapped each other. This issue is also valid for Figure 11.

11. Tables 5-9 provide too many data. All of them have been presented in Figure 7. Hence, these tables should be eliminated or transferred to supplementary information.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments and for the revision of the manuscript. Please see the attachment. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 Accept.

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting our manuscript for publication. We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions which helped improving the manuscript.