Kansei Drives Sustainable Material Innovation—An Approach to Enhance the Added Value of Biomass Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your paper on a Kansei-driven sustainable material method offers a significant contribution to the field of materials research by integrating psychological and physiological evaluations to enhance the added value of materials. The following comments aim to provide some feedback on various aspects of your study:

Abstract

1. Clarity and Conciseness: The abstract effectively outlines the scope and findings of your research. However, it could benefit from more concise language to enhance readability. Consider summarizing complex ideas into simpler terms for a broader audience.
2. Key Findings: The key findings regarding the correlations between physical qualities and psychological evaluations, as well as physiological responses, are well-presented. Emphasizing the practical implications of these findings early in the abstract could further engage readers.

Introduction and Problem Statement

1. Literature Gap: Your identification of gaps in current sensory evaluation research is clear and well-articulated. Highlighting specific studies that have attempted to address similar issues would strengthen the context and relevance of your research.
2. Research Model: The introduction of a new research model that integrates impression and preference is innovative. Providing a brief explanation of how this model differs from or improves upon existing models would enhance understanding.

Methodology

1. Measurement Techniques: The use of semantic differential, pairwise comparison methods, and wearable physiological devices is commendable. Clarifying the rationale behind choosing these specific techniques could provide additional justification for your approach.
2. Experimental Design: Detailing the steps taken to ensure the reliability and validity of your measurements, including any control measures or calibration of devices, would be beneficial for readers looking to replicate or build upon your study.

Results and Discussion

1. Correlation Analysis: Your findings on the correlations between physical qualities and psychological evaluations are compelling. Including visual representations, such as graphs or tables, could help illustrate these relationships more clearly.
2. Physiological Data: The discussion on how surface roughness and other physical qualities affect physiological responses is insightful. Expanding on how these findings compare with existing literature on physiological responses to material qualities could provide a deeper context.

Conclusion

1. Implications and Applications: Your conclusion effectively summarizes the study's findings and their implications for material design. Emphasizing practical applications or potential case studies where these findings can be applied would add value.
2. Future Research: Acknowledging the need for further research to validate your findings is important. Suggesting specific areas for future studies, such as exploring other types of sustainable materials or different user demographics, would provide clear directions for ongoing research.
   

   References
   
   Please make sure to add a reference next to each figure

Overall Contribution

Your research presents a novel approach to enhancing the value of sustainable materials through Kansei-driven methods. The integration of psychological and physiological measures offers a comprehensive evaluation framework that can significantly impact material design and user experience. With further validation and expansion, your model holds great potential for broader application in various industries.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the field. I look forward to seeing how your findings influence future research and development in material sciences.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

With some attention to these areas, the quality of the English language in your paper can be elevated, making your research more impactful and accessible.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a relevant and highly concerning topic on the use of Kansei engineering to improve materials. The manuscript contains a documented and well explained introduction. This study contains various elements of interest and may be considered for publication after revision:

- I strongly recommend specifying the selection criteria of the 20 participants, why the chosen subjects are suitable, why the age range 19-25 years? why this small number of only 20 people? And why are these criteria relevant for this study? Why not participants from different backgrounds? I recommend detailed information regarding these points in section 2.

- in section 2.4 it is indicated that "A total of 40 participants were involved in the experiment" (line 256). These 40 participants are different from the 20 students mentioned in section 2.3. Participants? Please specify this, as well as the age and selection criteria of the 40 participants in the text.

- in section 2.6 the use of subjective questionnaires is mentioned. Please indicate what they consisted of and on what criteria/method you developed the content of the questionnaire.

- For this study, only experimental samples made from tea waste materials were used, why not also samples from normal commercial wood in order to compare the results? Please justify the choice and possibly mention if a future study could be possible.

- It is recommended to justify the choice for the sample size: “80 mm in length, 80 mm in width, and 3 mm in thickness”. Reference should also be made to the testing standard used.

-In Table 1 and Figure 7, please improve the quality and I recommend adding a scale to the photos. In figure 7 the photos could be enlarged for better visibility.

- Please correct the values in all tables with the corresponding ones (e.g. in line 372 - Table 2. Factor analysis results: “.955” )

- It is recommended to detail the meaning of abbreviations in the table. In Table 3 please define the terms df, Sig. and in all other places where they appear. Also indicate the meaning of “N” in table 4.

- In table 4, there is a different value (“.539”) from the one indicated in the text above: “the sensory factor (Pearson coefficient of 0.561)” in line 416-417. Please correct.

- In Table 8, please delete rows in lines 478 and 479, if not needed.

- In the conclusion section, please indicate how the added value of biomass materials can be enhanced using Kansei engineering, based on the results obtained in this present research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the changes that the authors have made to the manuscript and the careful consideration of the comments from the first round of peer review. I propose the acceptance of the manuscript after a minor revision:

-With regard to the new format of "Tables 4, 5, 6, 8, 9", I consider that their description should be changed to "Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9", as indicated in the instructions for authors when using the template for the journal Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you again for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: sustainability-3068507). 

Comments : -With regard to the new format of "Tables 4, 5, 6, 8, 9", I consider that their description should be changed to "Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9", as indicated in the instructions for authors when using the template for the journal Sustainability.

Response : We have made modifications based on your opinions, changed the Table into Figure and marked the modified parts in red fonts.