Application of the Self-Made Flexible Three-in-One Microsen-Sor to the Laboratory Oven for Immediate Micro-Monitoring of the Roll-to-Roll Process of Polarizing Films
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Objective of the developed sensing system is very relevant and value addition for monitoring the R2R process. But the investigation looks like an open-ended project and the required focus is missing. Though the fabrication and calibration parts are of better quality, the discussion and analysis parts are very diluted and broader. The following are my observations to revise the manuscript:
Abstract should present some of the key sensor parameters obtained in the current investigation. Moreover, there is a huge gap between the abstract and the main content.
Introduction would be better if it is critical about the reported sensors especially range and figure of merits. Authors try to give all the three types of sensors without mentioning specific gap to be addressed in each case. Of course, the overall objective is good.
In the methodology section, subsections 2.1 to 2.3 seems to be very regular content and instead this section should provide the complete sequence of sensor fabrication process. In that sense subsection 2.4 is good. But the details given for Fig. 1 is weak. This section should be comprehensive by providing details of all the materials, structure parameters, and processes involved. Just saying adaption of MEMS process looks vague.
What was the basis for setting humidity between 20% and 98% and temperature between 2065°C and 65°C? Again why microflow sensor was calibrated with a range between 0 cc/min and 3000 cc/min in steps of 300 cc/min.
How did authors handle the current variations for the digital processing?
What is the % of error of the three sensors?
While designing the system, how signal conversion was handled? Is the on-chip ADC present in Arduino Uno enough to have the required resolution for all the processing of data?
A comparison table highlighting the developed three sensors with the reported sensors would be a very good option to show the significance of the present work.
Again conclusion is very generic and no significant figures are provided to support the claims made in the abstracts and introduction, especially higher operation temperature claim made in the Abstract.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
1) Of the 20 references, 3 are to own articles, which implies self-citation;
2) It is required to describe the lithography process used, indicating the type of material used;
3) It is necessary to explain the meaning of the value of σ, which is shown in Fig. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
4) The conditions for the roll production of polarizing films (in particular, the solvent used for application) are not given, which is why the choice of the temperature range for calibrating the temperature sensor is not entirely clear and justified;
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily and the revised format may be considered for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deals with the tailored MEMS sensor for temperature, humidity, and flow rate in single structure. The fabricated sensor was equipped in R2R drying module to measure the temperature and humidity in real-time. It is timely and significant object for the R2R printing for the understanding of drying and curing mechanism.
But most of the results of this paper was already published other journals by the authors in [19]. Even validation graphs were the same.
1) Page 4, 154 line, Fritzing is just drawing tool for wiring of Arduino with electrical components. Does it provide electrical simulation?
2) Page 9, Figures 9 and 10, x-axis is number of records, which means there is no dynamic information. At least the x-axis should show the time slot to validate dynamic characteristics. For the verification of the fabricated MEMS sensor, the measured data from the sensor should be reasonable and logical.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review:
The article "Application of The Self-made Flexible Three-in-one Micro-sensor to The Laboratory Oven for Immediate Micro-monitoring of The Roll-to-roll Process of Polarizing Films" is based on the immediate micro-monitoring of the roll-to-roll (R2R) process of polarizing films. This work is ok but can be considered for potential publications after the following major changes:
1. Kindly rephrase the title it's not clear what the authors really want to convey.
2. The paragraphs show no link, like in the introduction first paragraph is on R2R suddenly the second jump to thermoelectric, with no link. It is possible to give some reference to R2R with thermoelectric and find the gap in the literature and then move forward, so the reader can remain interested.
3. In the last paragraph of the introduction section, it is twice mentioned in the same line that the sensor was a capacitive type, which shows the work needs to get revised.
4. How does a temperature sensor differ from resistive temperature sensors and capacitive temperature sensors, as mentioned in the article, that they are different sensing mechanisms? Explain briefly in the sensing principle of the micro temperature sensors section.
5. Kindly rephrase “In the flow field, the heater produces the fluid that the temperature field varies with the 109 forced thermal convection”. Almost all the sentences are confusing.
6. Mention in “Process development of flexible three-in-one micro-sensors” section that from where the chemicals were purchased along with their industrial CAS No.
7. Figure font should match the article font and also change symbols of graph lines, so in case the article is printed in black and white, it will still be easy for researchers to understand.
8. The slope between temperature and resistance is linear but usually in literature its quasi-linear, briefly define the reason.
9. There is no monitoring data on Flow in the last section, also before the conclusion there should be a paragraph providing a summary of the results section which is missing too.
10. Please add some recent ref. as only 2 articles from the current year have been cited. Therefore, I recommend adding more recent references and more multifunctional flexible sensor-related references, like: https://doi.org/10.1111/cote.12574, https://doi.org/10.1111/cote.12581 and so on.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, Application of the Self-made Flexible Three-in-one Microsensor to the Laboratory Oven for Immediate Micro-monitoring of the Roll-to-roll Process of Polarizing Films“, the authors demonstrate a custom-made flexible microsensor that could monitor the internal conditions of a laboratory oven during the polarizing film process. The present sensor provides better control over the temperature, humidity, and heat homogeneity of the processing unit to improve its efficiency. Overall, this manuscript is suitable for publication in “Coatings”, after a minor revision.
1. The abstract of the manuscript should be rewritten concisely with the highlights of designed work based on the recent developments in the microsensors.
2. The figure citation should be removed from the conclusion of manuscript and the important results of the present work should be summarized by rewriting the conclusion part.
3. ‘Reference’ part of the manuscript misses the citation of a few recent literature. They should be included in the revised manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The main purpose of this paper was to carry out the immediate micro-monitoring of the roll-to-roll (R2R) process of polarizing films. A self-made flexible three-in-one (temperature, humidity, and flow) microsensor is developed and set up in a laboratory oven for immediate micro-monitoring of the R2R process of the polarizing film. A monitoring module was connected to the back end of the self-made flexible three-in-one microsensor to receive the analog signals of the sensor, convert them into digital signals, send them out in the form of wireless signals, and store the data on the server-side.
The Introduction reflected current research on the topic of the article. It mentioned the research gap was found from the literature review similar or related to the work.
The research design is appropriate. The methods and results are adequately described. The results are clearly presented.
The conclusions are supported by the results, but the results are merely described and are limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more detailed discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.
Image quality needs to be improved in Figures 3,4,5,7,9 and 10.
The font is different in lines 135-139.
Please check the paper for English editing and typos! Hyphenation, syllabication of words! (Eg. microm- 124 achining)
Plagiarisms were found in Abstract and Section 3.4 without citations. Please check this issue!
In general, the article makes a good impression, is devoted to an interesting and topical problem of the immediate micro-monitoring of the roll-to-roll (R2R) process of polarizing films.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Changes in response are mentioned, but I can not see them in the papers. I will recommend re-editing the article properly. How do all chemicals have the same CAS number? Almost all the requested details are still missing in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Most of my comments were taken into account. The article looks better. However, before publication, there are still some areas in the article that need to be improved.
Please check the paper for English editing and typos! Hyphenation, syllabication of words! (row 144: micro-machining)
The conclusions are supported by the results, but the results are merely described and are limited to comparing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include a more detailed discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
I am sorry to say that, as I mentioned previously, I still can not see the changes in the article, e.g., the CAS no. is not available. The paper should present clear details for readers, and figures should also be in good contrast (dark orange and dark pink make it difficult to understand Fig. 1). In Figure 4. there are 15 readings but the label shows the temperature for 10 readings. In section 4.1.2. monitoring data on humidity: The graph variations are not even bothered to explain.
I will recommend rejecting the article.
Reviewer 4 Report
All my comments were taken into account and necessary corrections were made. The article looks much better.
