Optimization of Execution Microscopic Extrusion Parameter Characterizations for Color Polycarbonate Grading: General Trend and Box–Behnken Designs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled "Optimization of Execution Microscopic Extrusion Parameter Characterizations for Color Polycarbonate Grading: General Trends Designs and Box Behnken" submitted to Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417). As a PhD researcher and peer reviewer, I thoroughly enjoyed evaluating this work.

 

I commend the authors for their efforts in conducting this research and preparing the manuscript. The study addresses an important topic and provides valuable insights into optimising the execution of microscopic extrusion parameters for colour polycarbonate grading. The authors' comprehensive analysis and use of the Box Behnken design are particularly noteworthy.

 

After careful consideration, I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication in Applied Sciences, with the condition of significant revisions. In a separate file, I have provided detailed comments and suggestions that should be addressed to enhance the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

 

Based on the feedback, I want to express my appreciation for the authors' dedication to improving the manuscript. With the necessary revisions, this work can potentially significantly contribute to the field of engineering sciences.

 

Once again, I congratulate the authors on their valuable research. I wish them continued success in their future endeavours and look forward to their contributions to the scientific community through future papers.

 

Warm regards,

The reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Your input has greatly enriched our work and will undoubtedly contribute to its improvement. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our paper and for your constructive comments

Here are the responses to your comments:

1- Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

I used the references suggested by the third reviewer, integrated them smoothly within the text and ensured that they are accurate and complete. Also, we have embedded references in the introduction to support arguments and enhance credibility. We used a mix of authoritative and current primary and secondary sources, such as academic journals and books, ensuring all references are accurate and relevant while avoiding outdated or unreliable sources

2. Are the methods adequately described?

To guarantee thoroughness in describing my methods in the published article, we meticulously outlined each step in the introduction. We expanded on topics like statistical and experimental design, materials and equipment, supplemented with additional graphs. Charts or tables to enhance clarity and facilitate comprehension. Furthermore, we reorganized the processes involved and dedicated a specific section to enhance the methodology, elucidating the suitability of designs such as BBD and GT for our research. Through this meticulous approach, we ensured that the chosen method is robust and aptly addresses our research objectives.

3. Are the results clearly presented?

To enhance our article's results, we ensured thorough data analysis using appropriate methods, presenting clear and compelling visuals and data for easier comprehension. We contextualized our findings within existing literature, improved the introduction with additional recent references, and discussing their significance and implications. We have constructively rearranged topics, sections and figures, added details that are more experimental. We have also introduced new sections on methods, including experimental and statistical designs, along with detailed explanations of the equipment used. Additionally, we have improved the resolution of all figures. Finally, we clearly have simulated all findings with the results and interpreted them with a refined conclusion and introduction to strengthen the overall validity of the results.

4-Are the conclusions supported by the results?

The conclusion has been improved and supported by comprehensive data analysis using appropriate methods and compelling visuals, contextualized within the existing introduction.

We have rearranged figures, along with the addition of detailed experimental methods and high-resolution figures, to enhance the clarity and credibility of the findings. More graphs in the methods section have been added, with explanations of the instruments used, to align the results with the conclusions. We have improved the figures’ resolution and refined the introduction and conclusion further to strengthen the overall validity of the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study focuses on optimizing process conditions and enhancing color selection in polymer compounding. Specifically, it investigates three processing variables: feed rate, temperature, and screw speed. Using both general trends and Box Behnken response surface methodology, the researchers adjusted the processing settings across three distinct phases independently. The regression model revealed the collective and individual effects of these parameters on color images. Notably, the best optimization resulted in minimal color variance for tristimulus color values. Additionally, a SEM-image analysis study was conducted to gain insights into pigment characterization. This assessment informs future design and manufacturing considerations, addressing color fluctuation properties and waste reduction across various chemical grades, ultimately contributing to environmentally friendly practices. Overall, the work is interesting. I would recommend the manuscript for publication after some revisions.

1. The resolution of figures should be improved.

2. In the figures, the units of the axis should be added.

3. An experimental section that includes the information of the raw materials and the equipment is suggested.

4. How the authors obtain the experimental data should be explained in details. The primary mechanical properties of the resins should be provided, which are highly related to the rheological behaviors during processing.

5. Can the model be applied for universal polymer composite systems? The limitations, if there are, should be discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typos in the main text. The authors should carefully check them and make appropriate revisions. 

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Your input has greatly enriched our work and will undoubtedly contribute to its improvement. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our paper and for your constructive comments

Here are the responses to your comments

a. Are the methods adequately described?

To guarantee thoroughness in describing my methods in the published article, we meticulously outlined each step in the introduction. We expanded on topics like statistical and experimental design, materials and equipment, supplemented with additional graphs. Furthermore, we reorganized the processes involved and dedicated a specific section to enhance the methodology, elucidating the suitability of designs such as BBD and GT for our research. Through this meticulous approach, we ensured that the chosen method is robust and aptly addresses our research objectives.

 

b. re the results clearly presented?

To enhance our article's results, we have employed appropriate visuals such as graphs and tables, accompanied by concise descriptions. We have introduced a new section for methods, detailing experimental and statistical design, and included additional high-resolution graphs to improve clarity. We have presented data in an organized manner, highlighting its significance in relation to the conclusion and abstract. We have emphasized the use of graphs and tables to visually represent data and interpret the findings' significance within the broader field.

C. Are the conclusions supported by the results?

To strengthen conclusions, we have tied them to specific findings in the results, emphasizing relevance. We have reflected on achieving objectives and highlight notable achievements. We have summarized the main results, underlining significance, and supported conclusions with additional data references. We have introduced a new section on experimental and statistical methods in the introduction, grounding conclusions in evidence from the results.

Below, you'll find further responses to your additional comments.

1. The resolution of figures should be improved.

We have improved the resolution/sharpness and image quality for all figures.  We have spent deliberate efforts with advanced image processing techniques to refine figure resolution, resulting in clearer visuals. We have emphasized the use of high-resolution images or graphics to ensure clarity and intricate detail across all visual materials. We have optimized the figures through employing advanced image processing techniques, including sharpness, contrast adjustment, or noise reduction to enhance visual clarity further.

2.In the figures, the units of the axis should be added.

We have edited the figures and included are all missing units on all axes to provide clear context and facilitate interpretation. This addition ensures that readers can accurately understand the scale and significance of the data being presented, thereby enhancing the overall clarity and communicative effectiveness of the figures.

3.An experimental section that includes the information of the raw materials and the equipment is suggested.

Due to a non-disclosure agreement with SB IP, commercial material names cannot be disclosed. However, some data on chemical and physical properties can be shared. Moreover, the complete equipment list includes all utilized equipment, specifying brand names, models, and any modifications made.

4.How the authors obtain the experimental data should be explained in details. The primary mechanical properties of the resins should be provided, which are highly related to the rheological behaviors during processing.

We have meticulously gathered experimental data at the SB factory in Canada, encompassing sample preparation, data collection and analysis. While commercial material names cannot be revealed due to a non-disclosure agreement, their chemical and physical properties are accessible. The experimental setup outlines equipment configuration and arrangement during the experiment, including all special settings or conditions, and featured photographs and diagrams are provided for visual clarification. Additionally, we have provide a description of the experimental and design methods employed

The inclusion of primary mechanical properties like MFI has been provided for it is crucial as they heavily impact rheological behaviors during processing, ensuring a comprehensive grasp of material performance under diverse conditions.

The complete equipment list, inclusive of all utilized equipment with brand names, models, and any modifications, has already been furnished. However, additional details about names can be provided upon request, but cannot be published.

5.Can the model be applied for universal polymer composite systems? The limitations, if there are, should be discussed.

The application of artificial intelligence, particularly through models, holds significant promise for the development and optimization of polymer composite systems. These systems are inherently complex, necessitating a deep understanding of material properties, processing techniques, and performance requirements. AI algorithms can aid in designing new composites by predicting material properties based on chemical composition and structure, optimizing manufacturing processes to enhance efficiency and quality, and predicting mechanical, thermal, and chemical properties under varying conditions. Additionally, AI-driven quality control systems can monitor production 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)        Quality of figures could be enhanced. Figure 1 and 4. 
2)        Please improve the introduction section and interpret the results for example using the references below.  Furthermore, The characterization techniques used in the study are comparable to the suggested references. Please use them in your interpretations.
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408436.2023.2274900
* Boublia, A., Lebouachera, S.E.I., Haddaoui, N. et al. State-of-the-art review on recent advances in polymer engineering: modeling and optimization through response surface methodology approach. Polym. Bull. 80, 5999–6031 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-022-04398-6

* Belkahla, Y., Mazouzi, A., Lebouachera, S.E.I. et al. Rotary friction welded C45 to 16NiCr6 steel rods: statistical optimization coupled to mechanical and microstructure approaches. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 116, 2285–2298 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07597-z

* Khadraoui, S., Hachemi, M., Allal, A. et al. Numerical and experimental investigation of hydraulic fracture using the synthesized PMMA. Polym. Bull. 78, 3803–3820 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-020-03300-6

*Mazouzi, A., Rezzoug, A., Cheniti, B. et al. Impact of wear parameters on NiCr-WC10Co4Cr and WC10Co4Cr HVOF sprayed composite coatings using response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 114, 525–539 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06877-y

*Lebouachera, S.E.I., Ghriga, M.A., Salha, G.B. et al. Optimization of zero-shear viscosity for HPAM-Polystyrene microspheres formulations through experimental design approach. J Polym Res 28, 135 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10965-021-02473-6

*Ghriga, M. A., Hasanzadeh, M., Gareche, M., Lebouachera, S. E. I., Drouiche, N., & Grassl, B. (2019). Thermal gelation of partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide/polyethylenimine mixtures using design of experiments approach. Materials Today Communications, 21, 100686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.100686 

* Lebouachera, S. E. I., Chemini, R., Khodja, M., Grassl, B., Ghriga, M. A., Tassalit, D., & Drouiche, N. (2019). Experimental design methodology as a tool to optimize the adsorption of new surfactant on the Algerian rock reservoir: cEOR applications. The European Physical Journal Plus, 134(9), 436.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12821-9

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. Your input has greatly enriched our work and will undoubtedly contribute to its improvement. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our paper and for your constructive comments.

Here are the responses to your comments

1-Quality of figures could be enhanced. Figure 1 and 4.

We have improved all figures quality by incorporating high-resolution images and opting for TIFF/PNG formats throughout all figures in the article. We have refined axis labeling and ensured clear legends are provided. We have maintained uniform font styles and sizes to enhance readability. We have utilized effective color schemes to improve visual clarity. We have thoroughly reviewed all figures to ensure that they are clear and easy to read.

2-Please, improve the introduction section and interpret the results for example using the references below.  Furthermore, The characterization techniques used in the study are comparable to the suggested references. Please use them in your interpretations background and include all relevant references

"We've enhanced our paper by incorporating (highlighted) six credible references out of the seven suggested, along with providing interpretations.” based upon high-quality peer-reviewed journals and authoritative sources, integrating references smoothly to support our claims without disrupting the flow. We have discussed how these studies support the findings, providing deeper analysis and context. Additionally, we have ensured that these references are directly related to the research area, strengthening our arguments and findings

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled "Optimization of Execution Microscopic Extrusion Parameter Characterizations for Color Polycarbonate Grading: General Trends Designs and Box Behnken" that you have submitted for publication in the Applied Sciences journal.

As a researcher and peer reviewer, I found the research presented in this manuscript to be thorough and well-executed. The authors have done an excellent job in optimizing the extrusion parameters for color polycarbonate, using appropriate experimental designs and analysis techniques.

I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication in its present form, with patches installed as outlined in the separate comments file. The authors have clearly put in a lot of effort to produce a high-quality piece of work, and I believe it will make a valuable contribution to the field.

Please find the detailed review comments in the attached file. I wish the authors continued success and look forward to seeing more of their work in the future.

Warm regards,

Peer Review

Comments for author File: Comments.docx