Permeability Model of Liquid Microcapsule Based on Multiple Linear Regression Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript which are very useful for the improvement of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. All the changes are color-marked in the revised manuscript. The following are the detailed corrections and revisions point by point:
1) I didn't see the Graphical Abstract figure. Did the authors make it?
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. I’m so sorry to forget to submit the Graphical Abstract figure. Figure 4 can be as the Graphical Abstract figure because it exhibits the comparison of the predictive capacity of model A, model B and model C in the paper.
2) Abstract should convince "why" is this work carried out, "why now", and "so what".
Answer: Thank the reviewers for the comment. The whole abstract is rewritten as seen in revised manuscript.
3) Every abstract should only contain relevant information that summarizes the work; terms like “additionally"... are useless. Also adds quantitative information to the summary if relevant. I recommend authors use the following reference to adjust their abstract (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2007.07.009).
Answer: Thank the reviewers for the comment. The whole abstract is rewritten as seen in revised manuscript.
4) In the last paragraph of the introduction the author’s state: "Multiple linear regression (MLR) method is an effective tool for quick predictions.” and use two references; one from 2006 and another from 1997. Statistical studies of bacteria and blood pressure were carried out on them. I would like to make two suggestions: 1) look for more recent references (last 5 years) on the subject of statistics and 2) studies carried out in similar works (in microcapsules).
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, we have modified the references. Thanks again!
5) Still, according to the last paragraph, I understand that here the authors tried to highlight the objective of the work, but the novelty is not expressed. In which aspect this work is original and better than others?
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, the whole conclusion is rewritten as seen in revised manuscript.
6) Explain the novelty with some possible applications of the present research work.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. The diffusion process of microcapsule in plating coating is divided into two steps: (i) the core material of microcapsules diffuse into the matrix through the shell material; (ii) the released core material from microcapsules diffuses to the coating surface. This paper focus on the first step, which is the theoretical basis for controllable release research.
7) In section 2.2, please insert the working conditions of scanning electron microscopy.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. The working conditions of scanning electron microscopy is added in revised manuscript.
8) Do the authors have SEM images at higher magnifications? It would be of great importance if these images could be incorporated into the manuscript, even in supplementary material. In addition to the discussion about them.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. SEM images at higher magnifications will be not clear because the cross-section of shell membranes are roughness. On the other hand, we can obtain a larger range of cross-sectional information and more accurate cross-section fractal dimensions Df.
9) The authors present a proposal for statistical analysis by linear regression. However, when observing some results, for example, the Df data, the mean values and their respective deviations are not shown. How many images were analyzed for each film? I would like to ask: how many samples of each film were used in this study? Put this information in the Materials and Experiments section. It is necessary to make the experiments by triplicate (at least) and include the error bars in the plots. Authors must show how to perform error propagation when using more samples of the same thickness.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We considered the errors in the experiment process, the each permeability test of shell membranes was repeated at least three times to ensure reproducibility. The mass loss in Figure3 is the average of three tests results. The detail is seen in Part 2.3 in the revised manuscript.
10) Did the authors make any microscopy measurements to visualize the samples?
Answer: The aim of this paper is to study the permeability model of liquid microcapsule. So the cross-section photographs of shell membranes were characterized by scanning electron microscopy.
11) (b) is absent in figure 2..
Answer: (b) is added in figure 2.
12) Less than 50% of the references are recent (2018-2023), which is inadmissible. Please replace the old references with newer ones.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We have replaced the old references and the references in the past five years is over 50% in the revised manuscript.
13) Authors should check if the references are in accordance with the journal's norms.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. We have modified the format of references according to the journal's norms.
14) There are some writing style and grammatical errors. Some sentences in the manuscript are incorrectly written with ambiguous meanings. I recommend that these errors should be corrected by a native English speaker, or a reviewer software.
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, we have corrected the language using the professional service and hope this revised manuscript will be convincing. The certificate will be sent with the revised manuscript together.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have made some suggestiions in the manuscript that the author(s) can take on. In addition, figure captions and figure representations should be written according to the journal rules. Moreover, references used should be written according to the journal rules exactly
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. 'Fig.' are changed to 'Figure' in the revised manuscript. We also correct the others according to the reviewer’s suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Subject: Multiple linear regression method to constitute permeability model of liquid microcapsule used for electrolytic co-deposition
Manuscript ID: coatings-2501908
The authors should put a tremendous effort to do the required comments. My comments are listed as follows:
- The title is too long and should be changed.
- The whole abstract was not properly structured, and more results should be added.
- The introduction is too short, very poor, and must be much improved and a recent researches should be added.
- Results and discussion, need to be improved.
- There are several studies reporting similar data, but the authors offer no comparison with these results.
- Meaningful conclusions are very poor and must be reconstructed & simplified in 6-7 main important points with supporting results.
- The references are too short and more recent references are required.
- The English grammar need careful attention and correction.
Extensive editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on our manuscript which are very useful for the improvement of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. All the changes are color-marked in the revised manuscript. The following are the detailed corrections and revisions point by point:
- The title is too long and should be changed.
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, we have simplified the title of the article and hope this revised title will be OK.
- The whole abstract was not properly structured, and more results should be added.
Answer: Thank the reviewers for the comment. The whole abstract is rewritten as seen in revised manuscript.
- The introduction is too short, very poor, and must be much improved and a recent researches should be added.
Answer: Your comment is greatly appreciated. According to the reviewers’ suggestion, we revised the introduction and added recent researches.
- Results and discussion, need to be improved.
Answer: Thanks for reviewers’ comment. Results and discussion is improved, details highlighted in red in revised manuscript. Beside, we agree to change the submission type to "Communication" according to editor’s suggestion.
- There are several studies reporting similar data, but the authors offer no comparison with these results.
Answer: Thanks for reviewers’ comment. The authors re-search the relevant literatures and do not find several reports with similar data to this paper. Our previous research mainly focused on the qualitative expression of microcapsule release, as seen in Reference [8-11]. Quantitative research on microcapsule permeation is the basis for controllable release research.
- Meaningful conclusions are very poor and must be reconstructed & simplified in 6-7 main important points with supporting results.
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, the whole conclusion is rewritten as seen in revised manuscript.
- The references are too short and more recent references are required.
Answer: According to reviewer’s suggestion, we have modified the format of references and more recent references are added.
- The English grammar need careful attention and correction.
Answer: According to the reviewers’ comment, we have corrected the language using the professional service and hope this revised manuscript will be convincing. The certificate will be sent with the revised manuscript together.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did extensive review work and accepted the suggestions offered. The manuscript can be accepted in its present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments. Therefore, the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.
