Development of a New Lightweight Multi-Channel Micro-Pipette Device
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper proposes a lightweight, multifunctional, and quantitative twelve-channel pipetting device that is capable of achieving simultaneous quantitative liquid absorption for twelve channels and sequential interval liquid discharge for each channel. The work is interesting and useful for accurately distributing and transferring liquid samples in medical research. The paper is conscientiously designed and well-written. The reviewer suggests accepting the manuscript after minor revision according to the following comments.
1. The authors may add some discussions on the possibility of adding an automated mounting module of pipette heads in future work for further improvement in the automation level of the system.
2. Does the size of the rotating rod matter in the sequential discharge of the sample solution from the 12 pipetting channels? If the size of rod is too large (larger than 30 degrees), it may squeeze two pipetting channels at the same time.
3. The authors may make some comparisons between the experimental results of the proposed system and the results of the related work in other references to further validate the effectiveness of the system.
4. There are still some typos in the manuscript such as the “TThe” in the starting of the Section 2.3.3. The authors need to polish the manuscript carefully.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English writing of the paper is good. However,there are still some typos in the manuscript such as the “TThe” in the starting of the Section 2.3.3. The authors need to polish the manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Thank you for dedicating time to review our manuscript and offering valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and patience are indispensable to our research. We have carefully reviewed your suggestions and deeply appreciate your guidance. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this manuscript, Zhao, et al, proposed a pipetting device based on compressing elastic tubes by sliding plate that is operated by a set of electromagnets. The idea is interesting, and the system can be further improved to meet the industrial standards. However, the manuscript lacks comprehensive characterization that required to judge the functionality and reliability of the device. The following points need to be taken into consideration before publishing the manuscript:
§ The authors stated that Ultrasonic pipetting offer high precision, but they did not comment on any issue associated with this technique and why their approach can overcome these issues.
§ The working principle of the pipetting system should be explained in more detail. I also suggest modifying Figure 1 to include schematic drawing of the two positions (pipette head below or above the liquid surface) and how the suction plate is re-positioned.
§ What is the feedback mechanism that triggers the electromagnets to be energized or de-energized?
§ Figure 2 is not described in the text.
§ Figure 3a does not clearly show the components of the device and their corresponding function. It should be improved.
§ Page 4 (lines 130-142): will the tube channels completely/partially closed when they compressed by the suction plate, or the compression is controlled?
§ The grooves look deep which may prevent the complete compression of the elastic tubes.
§ Proper listing the materials used should be provided including the sources.
§ Author did not provide any analysis related to the elastic properties of the used suction tubes and how this elasticity influences the performance of the pipetting process.
§ There is one important feature of a pipette is missing which is how to modulate/change the volume of the pipetted liquid? What is the accuracy? and what is the minimum volume as well?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript needs to be checked for grammar and spelling
Author Response
Thank you for dedicating time to review our manuscript and offering valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and patience are indispensable to our research. We have carefully reviewed your suggestions and deeply appreciate your guidance. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Report on paper "Development of a new lightweight multi-channel micro-pipette device" submitted by Zhao et al., for publication in Machines (machines-2998247).
The authors designed a lightweight, multifunctional, and quantitative pipetting device enabling simultaneous quantitative liquid absorption for twelve channels and sequential interval liquid discharge for each channel. While the paper is interesting and globally well organized, the authors must perform some substantial modifications by addressing the following comments:
- The important specifications of the proposed device should be stated in the abstract and conclusion.
- In the introduction, the authors must clearly highlight the originality of their device with respect to the state of the art.
- The authors could compare the performances of their device with respect to the literature to strengthen the highlight of their research work.
- In section3, the limitations of the designed device should be discussed from a critical point of view.
- The quality of all figures must be enhanced.
- The precision on the repeatability can be reduced (1 or 2 digits after the decimal point are sufficient)
- The tables should be remade in a more professional way.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors should carefully check the English writing in the whole paper.
Author Response
Thank you for dedicating time to review our manuscript and offering valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and patience are indispensable to our research. We have carefully reviewed your suggestions and deeply appreciate your guidance. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have addressed all the reviewers comments and the manuscript is now become publishable.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have addressed my comments sufficiently to recommend publication of the paper in its current form.
