Design, Simulation and Performance Research of New Biomaterial Mg30Zn30Sn30Sr5Bi5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have presented a very interesting manuscript on a new magnesium-based alloy. Unfortunately, however, the authors have not succeeded in adequately presenting the study, which is good in itself, to the reader. The "red thread" is missing: The introduction is far too short, there is no material/methods section. Many statements are made without appropriate scientific support by references. In the middle, after the simulation results are presented, it is explained how the alloy was actually fabricated. There is also a brief listing of the measuring equipment used. However, I miss a scientific structure of the good work: Introduction; Materials/Methods; Results; Discussion; Conclusion (pls see also MDPI Instruction for Authors MS Word/LaTeX Template). The manuscript cannot be published in its present form - a major revision is necessary.
Introduction
Many papers have been published on biocompatible metallic implants. The introduction should take into account and acknowledge the efforts of other researchers. Therefore, I would recommend that the introduction, which is extremely short at 15 lines, be expanded accordingly.
Line 32 – which existing Mg-based biomaterial you are talking about? Reference is missing
Line 34 - Reference to stress shielding is missing
2. Scheme Design (it seems to me that should be part of the Introduction) because existing research results must be presented in Introduction – so why you don’t use f.g. 1.1 Scheme design?
Line 45-46: “… First of all, for the be based on composition, high-entropy alloys are defined as alloys containing at least 5 principle elements. …” the reference is missing, statements must have references
Simulations conditions
Line 109, 122 (Figure 1, Figure 2) increase the quality of the presented images; the [°] is missing “.. Temperature [°C] …”
Line 129 (Figure 3) [°C/s], please remove the blue headings
Figure 4 need to be overworked, it is not explained what the different colors mean, if using 2 y-axis, please colorize the right one in blue/green etc (as well as the related graph, as "Origin pro" actually does); cooling rate do you mean [°C/s]? the [°] is missing
all in all, the writing to “2.1 existing research results” is a good introduction - so why is it not presented as such? At the end of 2.2 I would copy/paste lines 34-41 and you have a Introduction + aim of the study
3.1 Performance simulation
Line 89-100: “… simulation calculation of related properties was carried out by using the CALPHAD Technology, which has been well developed at present. …” References are missing
Sounds for me also like something that should be part of introduction or at least of Mat& Meth
Lines 103-107 - Which software (Manufacturer) was used for the simulation?
Line 108 – move complete section to Results section
Line 110: Figure caption – figure captions: the reader should understand your images without having a look into your text – that’s why a lot more information are necessary (which software was used to get this result, which settings were made etc)
Line 153: What does the abbreviation VHFM mean – please explain each abbreviation (if it´s not from SI)
Line 184: Figure 7 – described perfectly, why didn't you do that with all the other figures?
Line 190: XRD and SEM – which machine was used for XRD and SEM, what are the settings? (missing because there is no Mat& Meth section)
Line 238-241: Why you don’t present this graph, when discussing the results?
Line 372: as non-chinese native speaker/reader the reference is useless – please translate or replace with an international one
Author Response
Line 32 – which existing Mg-based biomaterial you are talking about? Reference is missing
AZ31B , AZ91D, AM60B, AM50A, Pure Mg, is 45GPa. Mg-3Al-4Zn-0.2Ca 44.1GPa。
Mg-4Al-4Zn-0.2Ca 45GPa
Cancellous bone: 3.0~14.8GPa，os hamatum integumentale: 18.6~7.0GPa，dentin: 15GPa
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article deals with the development and fabrication of Mg30Zn30Sn30Sr5Bi5 as a new biomaterial. The manuscript is not well organized and I think it needs a fundamental revision. Thanks to the authors for their patent in this regard, the scientific quality of this work is not proper for publication. Moreover, the manuscript content is not consistent with the journal "Coating".
In my opinion, this manuscript includes several scientific and technical mistakes.
1) at first, I think the manuscript does not fall within the journal's Aims and Scope
2)There are several idiomatic expressions and grammatical inaccuracies that must be improved in the text. It would be impractical for me to list them all here, but I insist that virtually all paragraphs must be improved.
3) The quality of expressing the Experimentations is poor. Just see the briefness of section 4-2. The authors did not follow the first principles of paper organization.
4) the high entropy alloys generally include a dominant solid-solution phase and sometimes some intermetallics formed in the microstructure. I think the prepared alloy does not follow the features of high entropy alloy.
5) the authors just presented one SEM figure for evaluation of microstructure. I think a comprehensive SEM study is needed for the characterization of a newly developed alloy
Author Response
1) at first, I think the manuscript does not fall within the journal's Aims and Scope
In the paper, I just only present the first part of overall research. At present, experiments and tests are underway to change the material properties by laser surface treatment. According to the overall study, the manuscript fall within the journal’s Aims and Scope. The Coatings is a starting point for me.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the paper "Development and Performance Research of New Biomaterial Mg30Zn30Sn30Sr5Bi5" and found the paper can be accepted after major revision.
-More physical explanation of results is required.
-The elastic modulus of 17.98 GPa is strange and wide of value.
-The analysis description does not fit well with the figures.
-The Abstract should be improved.
-The quality of the figures should be improved.
-Finally, the language of the paper needs to be polished.
-Based on the topic the title is so short and needs to be clarify the problem statement clearly.
-The Figures quality are too weak please improve the quality and put some arrays on the important part
-The language of the paper needs major polish.
The following reference are introduce to compare for the preparation of sample and coating.
-Karamian, E., Motamedi, M. R. K., Khandan, A., Soltani, P., & Maghsoudi, S. (2014). An in vitro evaluation of novel NHA/zircon plasma coating on 316L stainless steel dental implant. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 24(2), 150-156.
-Qin, W., Kolooshani, A., Kolahdooz, A., Saber-Samandari, S., Khazaei, S., Khandan, A., ... & Toghraie, D. (2021). Coating the magnesium implants with reinforced nanocomposite nanoparticles for use in orthopedic applications. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 621, 126581.
-Khandan, A., Abdellahi, M., Barenji, R. V., Ozada, N., & Karamian, E. (2015). Introducing natural hydroxyapatite-diopside (NHA-Di) nano-bioceramic coating. Ceramics International, 41(9), 12355-12363.
Author Response
I have reviewed the paper "Development and Performance Research of New Biomaterial Mg30Zn30Sn30Sr5Bi5" and found the paper can be accepted after major revision.
I revise and polish the language of the full paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the paper according to my comments. However, after further review, a minor revision is needed before it can be published. Enclosed you will find my comments:
Line 50: “… Zheng of School of Materials Science and Engineering, Peking University [16], etc.. …”
Should the sentence really end with etc, or is there something missing?
Line 60: “…Mg-4Al-4Zn-0.2Ca is 45GPa, et al.) …” the name before the et al. is missing.
Line 62 the name before the et al. is missing
Line 83 the bracket is missing and it sounds like the sentence has not been finished yet, because of the etc. at the end
Line 130 ff please improve the quality of the formulas (are blurred)
Figure 2 + 3 great, much better now ;)
Line 223 Name of the XRD is still missing e.g.: Bruker D8 Advance (equipped with Cu-Ka lamp ...)
Line 311-315 belongs in Mat & Meth
Discussion is missing
Reviewer 2 Report
-
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well revised and can be accepted in this form.
