Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Sustainable Powder-Based Additive Manufacturing Technology

Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 15081; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015081

by Hossein Eskandari Sabzi^* and Pedro E. J. Rivera-Díaz-del-Castillo^*

Reviewer 1:

Osman Ulkir

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Mahmoud Z. Ibrahim

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 15081; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015081

Submission received: 8 August 2023 / Revised: 12 October 2023 / Accepted: 17 October 2023 / Published: 20 October 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Additive Manufacturing and Sustainable Material Design)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My general evaluation for the article titled “Sustainable powder-based additive manufacturing technology” is as follows. It is believed that the following corrections will be beneficial for the strengthening of the article.

1. The abstract section should be rearranged. There are editing and typos. It contains general information rather than the content of the study. In addition, the numerical results obtained as a result of the study should be given.

2. The literature section remained weak. If there are more current literature studies, these should be examined in detail and added to the literature section. It is a suggestion for the literature part of the article to be more comprehensive. It may be useful to include relevant articles in 2020-2023 in references.

3. Up-to-date references can be added including the following related papers.

a. doi.org/10.3390/su15010504

b. doi.org/10.3390/polym15061466

c. doi.org/10.1208/s12249-022-02461-z

4. Section 2.2. and 2.3 should be visually supported.

5. Section 5 should be explained in more detail. How does the estimation process take place in sustainability? This process should be explained.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

All the relevant responses are in the response to reviewer's comments file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses various aspects of sustainability that can be applied to design alloys for powder-based AM techniques. However, the novelty of the research is not clear. There are lack of prospects on future research of sustainable AM additive manufacturing technology. Moreover, there are some errors in the references.

Specific comments are as follows:

1. There are some reported literatures on sustainability for AM technique. So the research is not new. For instance,

1) H. Hegab, N. Khanna, N. Monib and A. Salem. Design for sustainable additive manufacturing: A review. Sust. Mater. Technol. 2023, e00576;

2) I. Ribeiro, F. Matos, C. Jacinto, H. Salman, G. Cardeal, H. Carvalho, R. Godina, and P. Peças. Framework for life cycle sustainability 372 assessment of additive manufacturing. Sustainability 2020, 12, 929.

3) S. Kokare, J. P. Oliveira, and R. Godina. Life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing processes: A review. J. Manuf. Sys. 2023, 419 68, 536–559.

2. In abstract, establish the relationship between processing, microstructure, properties, sustainability, and performance. What’s the difference of properties and performance? Moreover, this sentence should revised to “establish the relationship among processing, microstructure, properties, sustainability, and performance.”

3. Fig. 2 was first mentioned in as following reference rather than the reference 13 cited in the manuscript.

Rebitzer G., et al., Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework,goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications, Environment international, 2004, 30(5), 701-720.

4. Powder-based additive manufacturing includes DED, SLM and SEBM techniques, however these methods is not mentioned in the research. Different AM processes have various characteristics.

5. The text in Figure 4 should be oriented for ease of reading.

6. Figure 7 shows a flow diagram of the essential PMPP components. However, this is not unique for the metal additive manufacturing process.

7. There are lack of prospects on future research in conclusions.

8. There are formatting errors in the reference. For instance, 27. G. Deppe, T. Reiher, and R. Koch. Exploring the cost and lifetime benefits of a topology optimized aerospace part applying 413 additive manufacturing. International Conference Production Engineering and Management 2015 2015, .

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

All the relevant responses are in the response to reviewer's comments file (attached).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the introduction, the authors mentioned points about the "less feedstock", "less scrap" and "more energy-intensive". It is more beneficial to input some numbers and percentages.

Flipped text in Figure 4 is difficult to read.

Section 2.1: the authors talked about the primary and secondary energy. However, it is important to consider the energy consumed in producing the metal powder as it is significant.

Author Response

All the relevant responses are in the response to reviewer's comments file (attached).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript titled "Sustainable powder-based additive manufacturing technology" by Hossein Eskandari Sabzi and Pedro E.J. Rivera-Díaz-del-Castillo presents a comprehensive overview of the integration of sustainability principles into powder-based additive manufacturing (AM) processes. The authors discuss various aspects of sustainability, including environmental impacts, economic factors, and social considerations. They also introduce a novel concept of a sustainable materials science paradigm that connects processing, microstructure, properties, sustainability, and performance. The manuscript highlights the importance of considering sustainability throughout the entire lifecycle of AM products.

1. Abstract:

• Line 3: "global sustain- 3" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

• Line 6: "design alloys" - It should be "designing alloys."

2. Abstract:

• Line 8: "the relationship between processing" - Consider adding "of" after "relationship between."

3. Abstract:

• Line 9: "Additive manufacturing; Alloy design; Sustainability; Life cycle assessment; Recycling" - Place a semicolon after "Sustainability."

4. Introduction:

• Line 12: "production method displaying envi- 12" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

5. Introduction:

• Line 16: "crucial for part 16" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

6. Introduction:

• Line 18: "emissions related to long transit routes" - Specify the type of emissions, such as "CO2 emissions."

7. Introduction:

• Line 21: "The three main sustainability aspects" - Replace "The" with "These."

8. Introduction:

• Line 24: "social life cycle assessment (SLCA) concepts [7]." - It should be "social life cycle assessment (SLCA) concepts [25]."

9. Introduction:

• Line 26: "Version August 8, 2023 submitted to Journal Not Specified" - This information seems unnecessary. Consider removing it.

10. Introduction:

• Line 26: "Version August 8, 2023 submitted to Journal Not Specified" - Repetition. Remove this line.

11. Introduction:

• Line 26: "https://www.mdpi.com/journal/notspecified" - This link seems out of place. Consider removing it.

12. Section 1:

• Line 33: "environmental consider- 34" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

13. Section 2:

• Line 40: "and the environmental impacts of the 41" - Specify the type of environmental impacts.

14. Section 2:

• Line 45: "environmental impacts of products, processes" - Specify the type of impacts.

15. Section 2:

• Line 50: "The four fundamental phases of a LCA" - Consider changing "a LCA" to "an LCA."

16. Section 2:

• Line 51: "(i) goal and scope definition," - Consider using numbers (1), (2), etc., instead of Roman numerals.

17. Section 2:

• Line 54: "the tasks in the goal 53" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

18. Section 2:

• Line 61: "intensity of the product system’s use 62" - Specify the type of intensity.

19. Section 2:

• Line 64: "environmental impacts that are represented" - Specify what type of environmental impacts.

20. Section 2:

• Line 67: "application of the product’s ecovector" - Specify what ecovector represents.

21. Section 2:

• Line 72: "last stage of LCA research (interpretation)" - Consider changing "research" to "analysis."

22. Section 2:

• Line 75: "all of these evaluation stages are indis- 76" - There seems to be a word break issue. Consider fixing the formatting.

23. Section 2:

• Line 83: "utilised in the AM process or returned" - Replace "utilised" with "used."

24. Section 3:

• Line 103: "This does not imply that AM 120" - Consider rephrasing to clarify the intended meaning.

25. Section 4:

• Line 141: "problems brought on by the inhalation of ultrafine particles." - Specify what type of health problems.

26. The abstract lacks clarity and conciseness. Re-write the abstract to provide a clearer and more concise overview of the paper's scope, objectives, and main findings.

27. In the introduction, there is a lack of clear differentiation between traditional manufacturing and additive manufacturing. Clearly explain the fundamental differences between traditional manufacturing processes and additive manufacturing in terms of materials, waste generation, and design flexibility.

28. Inconsistent referencing style in the introduction. Mistake: [1], [2], [3,4]. Maintain consistent referencing style throughout the introduction section, such as [1–3] or [1, 2, 3].

29. Poor transition between sections 1 and 2. Add a transitional sentence at the end of section 1 to smoothly lead into the discussion on life cycle assessment in section 2.

30. In section 2, there is a lack of clarity in explaining life cycle assessment (LCA). Provide a more detailed and clear explanation of the life cycle assessment process, including its phases and objectives.

31. The diagram in Figure 1 is referenced without an explanation of its components. Include a brief caption or description of the components depicted in Figure 1 for better understanding.

32. Section 2.1 needs to address the environmental, economic, and social aspects of energy consumption. Expand on the environmental, economic, and social implications of high energy consumption in additive manufacturing processes.

33. Section 2.2 lacks a clear connection between waste management and sustainability. Clarify how efficient waste management contributes to the overall sustainability of additive manufacturing processes.

34. The discussion on air pollution in section 2.3 should elaborate on the health and environmental impacts of different pollutants. Provide more detailed information on the health and environmental effects of specific pollutants released during additive manufacturing processes.

35. The transition between sections 2 and 3 is abrupt. Introduce the concept of life cycle costing (LCC) as a continuation of the sustainability discussion from the previous sections.

36. In section 3, the explanation of life cycle costing (LCC) could be more comprehensive. Expand on the principles and components of life cycle costing, including its relevance to decision-making and economic sustainability.

37. The connection between LCC and additive manufacturing needs to be more explicit. Highlight how life cycle costing is applied specifically to additive manufacturing processes and alloys.

38. Section 4 should provide more context for the introduction of social life cycle assessment (SLCA). Begin section 4 with a clear introduction to social life cycle assessment, its purpose, and its connection to sustainability.

39. The discussion on stakeholder categories in section 4 lacks depth. Elaborate on each stakeholder category and provide specific examples of social impacts associated with each one.

40. The transition between sections 4 and 5 is abrupt. Provide a smooth transition between social life cycle assessment and the discussion on predicting sustainability.

41. Section 5 could benefit from a more detailed explanation of predictive models and methodologies. Provide more context and examples of predictive models and methodologies that can be used to assess sustainability in additive manufacturing.

42. The section on sustainable materials science paradigm (section 6) lacks clarity. Clarify the core concept of the sustainable materials science paradigm and provide a more structured explanation of how it relates to the additive manufacturing process.

43. Section 6 introduces the concept of a product sustainability index (PSI) without sufficient background. Begin the section with an explanation of the concept of a product sustainability index and its relevance to assessing overall sustainability.

44. The discussion on PSI could be more detailed and include examples. Provide specific examples of how the product sustainability index (PSI) can be calculated and used in the context of additive manufacturing.

45. The explanation of global warming potential (GWP) in relation to PSI is lacking. Elaborate on how global warming potential (GWP) is integrated into the concept of PSI for assessing the environmental impact of additive manufacturing alloys.

46. The conclusion is too brief and does not adequately summarize the key points. Expand the conclusion to succinctly summarize the main findings, the importance of sustainability in additive manufacturing, and potential avenues for future research.

47. The references should follow a consistent and proper citation format. Mistake: References have varying formats. Ensure all references are formatted correctly and follow a consistent citation style throughout the paper.

48. The paper lacks subheadings, making it difficult to navigate. Divide the paper into well-structured sections with appropriate subheadings to enhance readability and navigation.

49. The use of figures and diagrams should be more strategic to enhance understanding. Consider adding more relevant figures and diagrams to illustrate complex concepts and relationships discussed in the paper.