The Effect of MoS2 and MWCNTs Nanomicro Lubrication on the Process of 7050 Aluminum Alloy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript deals with the milling of the aeronautical 7050 aluminum alloy in presence of nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication (NMQL). The NMQL is a novel approach in manufacturing that has been adopted for reducing the environmental impact of these types of process. Different formulations have been obtained by combining soybean oil, MoS2 and MWCNT in different amounts and results concerning surface roughness of artefacts, temperature behaviour during process and cutting force for the different experimental conditions (i.e., dry milling, only soybean, soybean/MoS2, soybean MWCN and soybean MoS2/MWCNT) have been investigated.
The manuscript included original technical information about the milling of an important alloy used for aeronautical applications, however very limited experimental information have been provided, that can be easily improved before the final manuscript acceptance. In particular, the following data should added to the manuscript in order to complete the provided technical information:
1) The Introduction Section of this manuscript should be completed by adding a few references concerning the use of MW-CNTs for the rheological/thermal modification of lubricating liquids (at least a review on this topic, where it is discussed the advantages of such nano-filler type).
2) The three pictures of the four vials containing the lubricating liquids that have been included in the manuscript (that is, Figure 2a,b and c) are not useful and they must be removed.
3) Which is the morphology of the MoS2 lamellas and MWCNT bundles? How was the average size of these two nanostructures determined? These numerical values are given in Table 3 and in the text but it is not explained how they have been measured. I believe, one TEM and/or SEM micrograph of both types of filler could be very usefully to the readers in order to better understand particle morphology and average size.
4) SEM pictures showing the quality of surface finishing after the milling operation under different experimental conditions should be provided.
5) A photograph of the cutting tool could represent a very useful information for the readers.
6) Histograms should include all optimal values (minima) for each fluid type (soybean oil+MoS2, soybean oil+MWCNTs and soybean oil+MoS2/MWCNTs).
7) The temperature behaviour during process (and similar profiles for cutting force, etc.) could represent a very useful experimental information that should be provided in oder to increase information on the NMQL approach.
8) A scheme of the experimental apparatus surely is more clear and useful than the provided picture (Figure 1a).
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsprocesses-2708268
The Effect of MoS2 and MWCNTs Nanomicro Lubrication on the Process of 7050 Aluminum Alloy
There are several comments to consider for improving the clarity and comprehensiveness of the paper:
1. The introduction mentions the use of "Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) technology" but then later refers to "Nanofluid Minimum Quantity Lubrication (NMQL)." It would be helpful to clarify the specific objectives and how NMQL differs from MQL.
2. Specify the rationale behind choosing MoS2 and MWCNTs nanoparticles. Why were these particular nanoparticles selected, and what advantages do they offer for aerospace aluminum alloy machining?
3. Provide more details about the experimental setup, such as the type of milling machine used, the tool material, and geometry.
4. Mention the specific range of concentrations for MoS2 and MWCNTs nanoparticles used in the nanofluid.
5. Explain the reasons behind selecting the chosen cutting speeds, feed rates, and cutting depths.
6. State whether the experiments were conducted in a controlled environment to ensure consistency in the results.
7. In the discussion, provide a more in-depth analysis of the obtained results. Explain the reasons behind the observed reductions in surface roughness, cutting forces, and cutting temperatures under NMQL and MQL conditions.
8. Compare the performance of soybean oil-infused with MoS2 and MWCNTs nanoparticles to other common cutting fluids or lubrication methods to highlight the advantages more effectively.
9. Expand on the environmental and resource-saving aspects of NMQL. How does it compare to traditional lubrication methods in terms of resource consumption and environmental impact? Are there any potential downsides or challenges to consider?
10. Suggest potential future research areas that could build upon this study's findings, such as exploring the long-term wear and tool life implications of NMQL, or investigating the economic feasibility of adopting this technology in industrial settings.
11. Ensure that all relevant prior research and literature are cited appropriately to support the claims made in the study.
https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111272
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000042
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00370-8
By addressing these comments, you can enhance the quality and clarity of your study and make it more valuable to the scientific community. As a reviewer of this manuscript, I would be pleased to recommend its publication following the incorporation of the aforementioned revisions.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript title “The Effect of MoS2 and MWCNTs Nanomicro Lubrication on 2 the Process of 7050 Aluminum Alloy” is well written. The overall structure of the paper is good.
Authors are requested following points are needed to consider before publishing the manuscript.
· In introduction section literature writing method is commonly used by all ordinary papers. i.e. XYZ et al. conducted / investigated ------etc. and they found / reported. So if possible rewrite the literature section in introduction is systematic manner or any different way.
· In experimental design section, if possible, write and give the reference on what basis the table 4 and table 5 parameters are selected.
· Before starting the actual experimentation, whether the authors are tested the M/c for repeatability?
· for L16 each experiment how many times conducted please mention in detail.
· In reference section, if possible, increase the references and literature.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study employs Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) technology to conduct milling operations on aerospace 7050 aluminum alloy using soybean oil infused with varying concentrations of MoS2 and MWCNTs nanoparticles. The paper requires some corrections. Please rearrange the paper using following comments:
1. The introduction still lacks structure. For instance, page 3 of 15, it was written "Hence, different mass fractions of MOS2 and MWCNTs nano-particles are combined with soybean oil."
Comment: That would have been necessary if the aim of the study is to check comparatively the features of MOS2 and MWCNTs. Please, rearrange or delete it. Discuss the main characteristics of the MOS2 and MWCNTs.
2. There is a need to restructure the introduction section; concept definition, theoretical review, and empirical review could be easily fetched. Note that each paragraph should announce at least an important study concept. Recall that the major components of a standard paragraph under the introduction are (a) The definition of the term/concept/idea is needed to understand the exact contribution of the report to the body of knowledge. (b) The theoretical review tells us about the published aim and significant theory. (c) The empirical review tells us about published results within the scope of the subject matter. Because of this, there is a need to revise the entire introduction. However, ensure that each paragraph reflect the definition of the term/concept/idea, theoretical review, and empirical review of the results most related or useful in the study.
3. Table 3 is about properties of proposed nanoparticles. From where these properties have been taken. Please provide citation to Table 3.
4. There is a need first to present the analysis of results. One common fact in almost all the quality publications within our field is the presentation of the analysis and discussion of results. Meanwhile, the best practice is to build the discussion of results on the results that have been analyzed. This will guide the authors to present the best and most accurate results capable of announcing the title and lead to conclusive facts in the next section of the manuscript. Nevertheless, the authors should note that the analysis of results is quite different from the discussion of results. The results section should aim to narrate the findings without trying to interpret or evaluate and provide a direction to the discussion section of the research paper. Finally, the results are reported and reveal the analysis. The analysis section is where the writer describes what was done with the data found. Comment: The authors must separate the analysis of results from the discussion of results. Introduce two subsections named: Analysis of Results and Discussion of Results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have gone through the manuscript completely and satisfied with the revision. As such, I will recommend this paper for publication in its present form.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have rigorously improved the paper. All the comments are well addressed. However, I recommend the revised paper for publication.
