Mapping the Accouterment Effects of Plasma Nitriding on AISI 316L in Biomedical Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Good job.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Good job.

 

Response 1: Thanks, sir, for your valuable reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper is interesting, but I would like the Authors to pay attention to some of my doubts:

1. the use of the unit description "mils per year (mpy)" is not known what it means; mils is more like nautical miles than milligrams, which are commonly referred to as mg; the use of own abbreviations should be limited to the necessary minimum;

2. I appreciate basing the experiment on Taguchi design, but can it be used for scientific considerations? in my opinion, this plan allows for a supportive, abbreviated selection of activities, rather than a scientific analysis of it. Each analysis presented in a scientific paper should be validated; Is it possible to validate, analyze the error, the results based on three points? what changes can we describe with 3 points? we can only describe the trend, it cannot be presented on 3 points of change analysis; simply posing the question: what kind of function can be written in 3 points and how to calculate the error? the answer to this question makes it impossible to conduct a three-point analysis; I propose to reduce the analysis carried out on three points to trends only; I suggest resigning from Fig. 1, the results contained therein are sufficient in the form of a table - the graph shows changes in the function, which may be misleading; after these changes the paper will be able to be published;

3. I understand the authors' desire to enrich the paper with numerous studies; these results can stay on paper; results not related to the purpose of the paper can also be deleted without loss of paper;

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper investigates the effect of plasma nitriding on the corrosion resistance of AISI 316L stainless steel. The purpose of the study is interesting and the content is fascinating. It can be published with major revisions. The specific modifications are as follows.

1. Is the open circuit potential test time of 10 minutes sufficient. Under this time, can the electrode surface reach a stable state.

2. The composition of PBS, saline water, and ringer's solution needs to be shown.

3、Table6~table 8, the unit of Icorr is μA/cm2, but the order of magnitude of the values in the table is E-8~E-10, please verify the order of magnitude of current density.

4, Table6~Table8 have errors in the values, such as: .186 .158, the authors need to check carefully.

5、The βa(V/dec) and βc(V/dec), some of them are in mV, some in V.

6、Please. Authors are requested to revise and improve the manuscript carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have made a great scientific contribution in this review and I think that its impact may be highly considerable in future. Indeed, the manuscript has a sufficient scientific merit and my opinion is that this is a well-structured, clear and interesting review that deserves to be published. However, I do have some revisions that could improve this paper as follows:

 

1) Authors may explain deficiencies or shortcomings of other studies to make a bridge to introducing the novelty of their work.

2) The novelty of this work must be more demonstrated.

3) In this paper, Taguchi technique is used. Authors are encouraged to discuss the possibility to use Machine learning models by considering the following works: [(a) Machine learning models for predicting the compressive strength of concrete containing nano silica”, Computers and Concrete, 30(1), 33-42.; (b) “Predicting elemental stiffness matrix of FG nanoplates using Gaussian Process Regression based surrogate model in framework of layerwise model”, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 143, 779-795.].

 

4) Some equations should be referenced.

5) Fig. 9 should be more discussed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Authors have made a great scientific contribution in this review and I think that its impact may be highly considerable in future. Indeed, the manuscript has a sufficient scientific merit and my opinion is that this is a well-structured, clear and interesting review that deserves to be published. However, I do have some revisions that could improve this paper as follows:

 

Response:Thanks for appreciating for this research article

 

Point 1: Authors may explain deficiencies or shortcomings of other studies to make a bridge to introducing the novelty of their work.

 

Response 1: Thanks sir, for vauable suggetions,as per suggetions I have added dicussion regarding novelity of work and deficiencies of other studies.

 

 Point 2: The novelty of this work must be more demonstrated.

 

Response 2: Thanks for your suggetions.suggeted changes have been added to manuscipt.

 

Point 3: In this paper, Taguchi technique is used. Authors are encouraged to discuss the possibility to use Machine learning models by considering the following works: [(a) Machine learning models for predicting the compressive strength of concrete containing nano silica”, Computers and Concrete, 30(1), 33-42.; (b) “Predicting elemental stiffness matrix of FG nanoplates using Gaussian Process Regression based surrogate model in framework of layerwise model”, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 143, 779-795.].

 

Response 3: Thanks for your suggetions.I have used Taguchi techinues in this study, I have discussed possible use of Machine learning models in this study.As my study is focused more Taguchi techniues I will try to use Machine learnings model in my future study as suggested in above refrence paper.

 

Point 4: Some equations should be referenced..

 

Response 4: Thanks for your valuable suggetions, I have used refrence no[17,18,19] for equations no.1. For equations no.2 is refrenced by [21,22].

 

Point 5: Fig. 9 should be more discussed.

 

Response 5: Thanks for your suggetions.suggeted changes have been added to manuscipt below the figure 9.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors of this paper study the accouterment effects of plasma nitriding on AISI2 316L in biomedical applications. The Taguchi technique was also used to optimum conditions process parameters like nitriding time (hrs). I appreciate the efforts made by the authors.  However, there are some major problems in this article. 

   Please provide the experimental data(OM, SEM, EDS and XRD) of surface of plasma nitriding AISI 316L after immersion test.

   Please further illuminate corrosion mechanism of plasma nitriding AISI 316L in immersion test by analysing the experimental data(OM, SEM, EDS and X-ray) of surface of plasma nitriding AISI 316L after immersion test.

  The author of this article aimed to critique the corrosion resistance of plasma-nitrided films AISI 316L stainless steel about their wield in biomedical applications. However, current data is not sure the best nitriding time in this work. Please further replenish the results of the longer time plasma nitriding.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

 

 

Authors have made a great scientific contribution in this review and I think that its impact may be highly considerable in future. Indeed, the manuscript has a sufficient scientific merit and my opinion is that this is a well-structured, clear and interesting review that deserves to be published. However, I do have some revisions that could improve this paper as follows:

 

Response: Thanks for appreciating this research article

 

Point 1:                 Language and grammar must be improved.

 

Response: Thanks for the suggetions; as per the point raised by you, I have corrected the manuscipt and updated it.

 

Point 2:Introduction: Many scholars have studied the accoutrement effects of plasma nitriding on steel in biomedical applications. Please summarize the highlights of this work.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions; as per the suggestions, I have added some literature papers related to the topic and updated the manuscipt.

 

Point 3: Experimentation: Please provide the results of the immersion test of AISI 316L steel as a control group.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions; as per the suggestions, I have added Immersion test input parameters as control Group in Table.3 and updated the manuscript.

 

Point 4 : Experimentation: Please provide the experimental data(OM, SEM, EDS and XRD) of the surface of plasma nitriding AISI 316L after immersion test.

Response: Thanks for the suggestions; as per the suggestions, I have added the experimental data(OM, SEM, EDS and XRD) of the surface of plasma nitriding AISI 316L after the immersion test.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point 5 : Experimentation: The author of this article aimed to critique the corrosion resistance of plasma-nitrided films AISI 316L stainless steel about their wield in biomedical applications. However, current data is not sure of the best nitriding time in this work. Please further replenish the results of the longer-time plasma nitriding.

 

Response 5: Thanks, sir, for the valuable suggestions; as per the literature, many researchers has worked on 4hr,8 hr 12 hr Nitriding time for novelty purpose and to check more effect of nitriding time. In the current research paper, I have used more nitriding time like 8hr,12hr, and 36hr nitriding time, as per suggestions made by you, I will implement more time for upcoming research .

 

Point 6: Experimentation: The author of this article aimed to critique the corrosion resistance of plasma-nitrided films AISI 316L stainless steel about their wield in biomedical applications. Therefore, the microhardness of plasma-nitrided AISI 316L is redundant.

 

Response 6: Thanks for the suggestions; per suggestions given by one reviewer, I have added to the manuscript, so it is my appeal to you please accept it

 

Point 7: Figure 4: Please provide error bar.

 

Response 7: Thanks for your suggestions. A comment is resolved; I have added an error bar for the figure.

 

Point 8: Table 10: Please provide related EDS figures.

Response 8: As suggested, I have added extreme case EDS figures related to experimentation.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Table6~Table8 have errors in the values, such as: .186 .158, the authors need to check carefully.

 

The problems raised in the last review were not taken seriously. In the table, some decimals don't have a 0 in front of them. For example,.186,.158 should be written as 0.186 and 0.158.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

                                                             

 

Point 1: Table6~Table8 have errors in the values, such as: .186 .158, the authors need to check carefully. some decimals don't have a 0 in front of them. For example,.186,.158 should be written as 0.186 and 0.158.

 

 

Response 1: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, I have used all units in Table6~Table8 for anodic tafel slop, and cathodic tafel slopes are V/dec which I have corrected and updated in the manuscript. As per suggestions, I have modified decimal places and revised the manuscript.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The modified version is acceptable.

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

The current work pertains to a very interesting topic, namely, a study regarding the effects of Plasma Nitriding on AISI 316L in biomedical applications is presented. Although the topic is very interesting and with practical value, there are a number of weaknesses that have to be pointed out.

More specifically:

·         -an improvement in grammar and syntax is absolutely necessary, along with the correction of some typos.

·        -authors refer: "...the smooth surface finish (Ra b0.1 m).". What does b0.1 mean? Are the units "m" correct?

·       -the statistical analysis (i.e., ANOVA) has been conducted superficially. Namely, authors state: "...if their p-value is less than 0.05.". Nevertheless, in Table 6 all the p values are greater than 0.05. What does it mean? That all the parameters are not statistically significant? Moreover, additionally to the S/N ratio Main Effects Plot and the Main Effects Plot for the corrosion rate has to be presented, along with the respective Interactions plot. Otherwise, no safe conclusions can be deduced.

·        -in Conclusions the microhardness is mentioned, while in the Results section there are no respective data.

·         -the Conclusions are not properly written.

·         -authors state: "The optimum condition for corrosion rate is observed parameters, plasma nitriding (hrs)=36 hrs, Simulated body fluids = saline water, and immersion time(days)= 9 days.". What optimum conditions means? The body fluids are not an optimization parameter that can change, since there is not a choice to apply different body fluids in case of a biomedical use. The same applies to the immersion time in case of a biomedical application as well.

 

Considering the aforementioned, in my humble opinion, the current paper cannot be accepted as it has some serious weaknesses and flaws.

Reviewer 2 Report

The advisability of using keywords should be considered: SEM; EDS; XRD.

l. 65-70 jump from [9] to [12], and [10,11] are in line 113 - see at template.

l. 241-270 jump from [25] to [30]

where are references [26], [28], [29], [31], [37] ?

Why was the research conducted on only 3 points. Concluding (see Fig. 1) on the basis of 3 points is difficult, perhaps even impossible. Three points is definitely not enough to determine the nature of the changes, let alone any error analysis. I believe that the research should be supplemented with at least two more measurement points.

It is not known why the authors adopted equation (2) describing the corrosion rate. Although this equation is included in the cited works [21] and [22], there is also no explanation in the cited works where this equation comes from. It is known from the standard (EN ISO 3651-1, Determination of resistance to intergranular corrosion of stainless steels. Part 1: Austenitic and ferritic-austenitic (duplex) stainless steels. Corrosion test in nitric acid medium by measurement of loss in mass (Huey test ) a similar equation but with a different component in the numerator Please explain the meaning of equation (2).

How will the authors explain the change in the corrosion resistance of the nitrided layer in such a non-aggressive medium as NaCl?

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The following adjustments need to be made:

1. It is necessary to reduce the abstract to 200 words.

2. Line 31 - 44 Aluminum and titanium are active metals, on the surface of which an oxide film forms when air oxygen interacts. Stainless steel also has active metals in its composition, which interact with oxygen to form a dense oxide film, which passivates the surface.

3. Line 75 - 84 In order to work, you must specify the methods of analysis that you used.

4. Paragraph 2 It is necessary to indicate the methods and equipment that will be used to characterize the coating, as well as describe the experimental procedure itself.

5. Line 117 Salt solutions cannot be called SBF. It's not the same thing.

6. Line 128 - 132 A solution simulating body fluid consists of a whole set of components. For example, it is given in this article: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/20/7374. The corrosion test in sea water and NaCl solution 3.5% is not related to body fluids in any way and is a test for corrosion resistance. Among other things, this type of steel with chromium and nickel cannot be used as an implant material, since the released chromium and nickel ions will interact with body tissues and cause a cytotoxic reaction, thereby poisoning the body.

7. Corrosion tests must be carried out by electrochemical methods. It is also necessary to indicate the possible reactions occurring in the process of corrosion.

8. It is also necessary to analyze saline solutions in order to determine the concentration of toxic metals in their composition and compare the result with the FDA requirements for implantable materials.

 

In this form, the article cannot be published, as it requires serious revisions.