Electropolishing Parametric Optimization of Surface Quality for the Fabrication of a Titanium Microchannel Using the Taguchi Method
and Gunawan Setia Prihandana 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is about electropolishing parametric optimization of surface quality for fabrication of titanium microchannel using Taguchi method. However, some issues must to be addressed:
- Introduction section is very poor and must to be developed state-of-the-art by improving the reference section with newest publications related to the subject.
- The authors must to demonstrate the importance of the Taguchi method used for optimization of surface quality. The subject is very poor from scientific point of view.
- Line 177: this is not relaton no.1, but for this level is not acceptable such equation ...
- The conclusion section is very puerile and is lack of scientific meanings.
- English is very poor and needs considerably improvements by spelling and especially by grammar...
I do not recommend this article for publication.
Author Response
The comments given are well taken, and we are thankful as it has improved the content and quality of the paper. The reply to the comments is furnished below and it is included in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the paper and the findings are presented well. The language is easy to understand and follow. Although, I feel that the study and its conclusions could be more rigorous: since the findings are new and standalone enough, they can be published after some minor (but necessary) revisions.
- All figure captions could be more detailed.
- Are references for Figure 1 missing, or the microfluidic channel shown here is the one used produced by the authors for this study?
- In introduction, kindly include more applications of such a microfluidic device. And broader potential applications of this technique.
- Include future applications/studies with number 3 in mind.
- In section 2, Eq. 1 is mentioned for the smaller-the-better approach and then for higher-the-better approach. Equations (plural) are mentioned but only one equation is provided. Kindly elaborate.
- Caption to Figure 2 is missing.
- How were the pictures in figure 3 obtained? Why is this information not included in the Experimental section.
- Please include detailed calculation methods for figure 4 and 5 in the text (perhaps in the Experimental/Methods) section.
- The second paragraph of section 3.2 could use more references and literature backing.
- Equation 1 has been assigned to more than one equation. Kindly correct.
- Using a scale to weigh machined dust was mentioned. Was it used in any analysis?
- What parameters were used to prepare the part used in the fouling experiment?
- How many times and on how many samples the fouling experiment done? Same question for machining experiment and surface roughness measurements. Please state clearly the number of times an experiment was performed and include error bars, if applicable, in the plots.
- Please make sure all experimental methods are described and are consistent with all the results presented.
Author Response
The comments given are well taken, and we are thankful as it has improved the content and quality of the paper. The reply to the comments is attached, and it is included in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review “Electropolishing parametric optimization of surface quality for fabrication of titanium microchannel using Taguchi method”
The current study investigates the possibility of electropolishing as a postprocessing method for titanium parts machined by EDM. Using an orthogonal L9 Taguchi array, the authors define optimal electropolishing parameters to increase the surface quality in terms of surface roughness. Although the scientific topic is very interesting, a couple of things needs to be improved before publication.
The introduction needs to be improved. The authors should include a paragraph with recent references that analyses the surface texture and integrity of titanium alloys machined by EDM (Ti-6AL-4V ELI or titanium grade 2 or relevant). So the reader should understand the potential of EP as a post-processing method for EDM parts.
Additionally, the last paragraph of the introduction should include information about ‘’how and why the authors should fill the gap’’.
The authors should provide a materials and methods section. In this section, they should provide information about the materials that they used (chemical composition, mechanical properties) and the machines that they used (surface roughness profilometers, EP machines).
As the surface roughness is the main outcome of this paper, the authors should provide more information about the measuring method in terms of equipment, cutting-off length, and filters that they used during the measurement. Also, why do the authors choose the Ra as the only surface roughness parameter? Maybe they should also include the Rt parameter or relevant.
The presenting style of the tables should be unified. Sometimes the authors use a 3 line table ( as table 1), and some time they use another presenting style. Please unify the style according to the template of the journal.
In my humble opinion, the “control factors” in table 3 should be numerical values instead of factors in terms etc. A1, B1.
The conclusions are poor for this paper. Please revise accordingly.
In conclusion the paper needs major revision.
Author Response
The comments given by the reviewers are well taken, and the authors are thankful as it has improved the content and quality of the paper.
Please see the attachment for the reply to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am very happy that the authors understood the need of improvements. They do it very well, the article si practically new with corresponding state-of-the-art, with good conclusion section and "another" English language.
The article is suitable for publication as it is.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy with the efforts the authors have put in response of the comments. I think the manuscript is an great shape now. It can be accepted as is. I just have one minor comment -
1. I asked the authors to show the calculations for numbers obtained in figure 4 and 5. And I am happy that the authors addressed that. However, I feel that showing just one equation (with numbers and symbols) is enough in each case. Thus, authors can retain line 266 and 267, but get rid of 268 through 283 and similarly retain line 295 and 296, but get rid of 297 through 313, if it makes sense to them too. After getting rid of repeated equations, they can mention that "similarly, A2 through C3 (with a bar on top) were calculated using the values in Table 7" and "similarly, A2 through C3 are also summation of the respective S/N ratios in Table 7".
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript titled" Electropolishing parametric optimization of surface quality for the fabrication of a titanium microchannel using the Taguchi method" tries to define the influence of the electropolishing parameters on the surfaces of CP titanium machined by EDM. Although the present version is improved, there are still a lot of things to be solved.
In the present version, the authors have defined that they used a titanium grade 2 alloy. So they have to choose relevant bibliographic research on the surfaces machined by EDM on the specific alloy. Studies have shown that different titanium grades have different influences on the EDM parameters.
Reference 15 is entirely irrelevant to the present study.
Change reference 31 to a more relevant on the surface topography or roughness of titanium.
The digital microscope does not have magnification between 500-500X. Would you please check the magnification?
What were the machining conditions during WEDM? Do the authors see by microscope any changes on the surface morphology before and after the EP?
Additionally, the authors claim that arithmetic average (Ra) is the most commonly utilized measurement for surface roughness. With all due respect to their work, this is not the only relevant surface texture parameter. It is necessary to add parameters such as (Rz).
In the figure's three captions, the authors claim that they show the topography of the sidewall. Topography is a dimension that could be measured. Would you please change it to surface texture and improve the quality of the figure?
The calculations on the 9th and 10th pages are inappropriate for a scientific journal. One formula is enough to understand the mechanism that was used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has significantly improved according to reviewers' comments and suggestions; thus, in my opinion, it can be accepted for publication.
