An Experimental Study Based on Surface Microtexture of Medical Devices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presents an interesting issue, although there are a few issues that need to be clarified:

1)The introduction does not fully introduce the topic, in my opinion the authors present the issue very generally, I do not assume a specific goal of the work, nor what they have achieved

2) Going further: conclusions - confirm this because the achieved goal was not emphasized. Here, authors should brag about what new or innovative things they have achieved!

3) Figure two is unclear to me and the description is insufficient

4) Chapter 3, together with the drawing, is not very clear as to what the model presented in the drawing is supposed to introduce

5) Chapter 3.2.2 differs from 3.2.3, especially the drawings

6) igure 8. Schematic diagram of experimental data collection points.   - is not clear

7) The work should be presented more clearly - chaos is introduced by drawings and their descriptions, because the differences are not visible - especially 14, 15, 18, 19

After corrections, you can reconsider

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on an unusual approach to etch substrates and generate micro-scale structures on surfaces. The novelty of this work is not clearly stated while theoretical and experimental results focus rather on a systematic investigation of the influence of assembly parameters

I therefore recommend the author to rewrite their paper to adress the following issues: 

1- The introduction attempts to demonstrate why structured interfaces are significant in the context of biomedical applications. It however lacks detail on the dimensions/scale of the considered structures (nano ?, micro ?, meso?) and does not clearly convince about the relevance of the Electrolytic Jet Machining approach in this context. In addition, there is no discussion of the advantage/drawback of this approach  as compared with (many) existing electrochemical approaches (e.g. electrosynthesis : Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 20 (4), 2761-2770, electropolymerization:https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.33210 , electrodeposition: Surface and Coatings Technology 418, 127232, ... etc)

 

2- There are 20 figures in the manuscript, most of them reporting secondary results. The author need to rewrite their manuscript and combine/select <5-6 figures maximum while the rest can be transfered to SI.

3- What is the nature of the anode used ? What influence will it have if it is replaced by other anode materials ? 

4- Presented data only display single pits but the introduction clearly mentions the ability to pattern the surface. Why authors are not showing patterned surfaces using their approach ? 

5- Results are discussed in terms of machining efficiency and effect on the micron-scale structures. How do these result connect with the applications/motivations stated in the introduction ? 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Presented paper focus on the experimental study of surface microtexture obtained by EJM method. Results seem interesting. However, there are some comments.

1.     I’m not sure that this paper is appropriable for Coatings, since presented study is focused more on surface treatment and not coatings formation.

2.     Please add information about a novelty of the study.

3.     Equation 1 (lines 104-108). Please pay attention to the units. If K is measured in g/A·min and Q is measured in A·s, it is necessary to add 60 for transition of min to sec.

4.     Line 117 and others. cm3 should be cm³ like at line 120. Same for line 236.

5.     Table 1. In what units is Processing time? Please explain, why 425 V was chosen. This value is far from others.

6.     Please clarify what metal/alloy was used? 304 SS?

7.     Fig. 9. Please provide standard deviation. Same for Fig. 13, 17.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised work has increased in value - it is more clarified and readable. In its current form, it may arouse interest and can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have brought satisfactory improvements to their article

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors carefully responded to all comments. I suppose that work can be accepted.