A Charge-Based Mechanistic Study into the Effects of Process Parameters on Fiber Accumulating Geometry for a Melt Electrohydrodynamic Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents how the process parameters (substrate temperature and voltage) in melt electrospinning affect fiber accumulating geometry of the depositions. The authors presented different possible forms of deposition geometries with varying the substrate temperature and the applied voltage, and explained the mechanism nicely in their discussion. Their experimental results support their explanations well. Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides a good insight for understanding the interactions between the jets and the deposited fibers as well as geometric formation of charged fiber jets in melt electrospinning. I only have a couple of minor comments as follows: - It is not clear how the authors prevented the air flow (from the heat gun to the deposition region) from affecting the spun fiber jets. - Line 120, Figure 3d could not be found in the manuscript. - Including scale bars in all figures would be much beneficial for the readers. - Doesn't the temperature of the polymer melt play a role in the deposition geometry?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment 1
Row 29
hydrodynamics and additive manufacturing[1], has

=>

hydrodynamics and additive manufacturing [1], has

Comment 2
Row 30
produce polymeric scaffold with tunable microarchitecture and morphology[2–5]. Moreover, the

=>

produce polymeric scaffold with tunable microarchitecture and morphology [2–5]. Moreover, the

Comment 3
Row 32
what is the MEW means?

Comment 4
Row 35
scaffold will lose its fidelity in the layering direction[10]. While when pore size or the interfiber

=>

scaffold will lose its fidelity in the layering direction [10]. While when pore size or the interfiber

Comment 5
Row 35
its prescribed path, thus losing printing fidelity in lateral direction[11]. This deterioration is attributed

=>

its prescribed path, thus losing printing fidelity in lateral direction [11]. This deterioration is attributed

Comment 6
Row 39
factor is the residual charge entrapped within the scaffold[10], whose effects includes the two primary

=>

factor is the residual charge entrapped within the scaffold [10], whose effects includes the two primary

Comment 7
Row 50
substrate conductivity[11]. However, there are still several theoretical problems awaiting answered.

=>

substrate conductivity [11]. However, there are still several theoretical problems awaiting answered.

Comment 8
Row 50
in-flight jet[1,14], the formation of final printing outcomes depends more on the interaction between

=>

in-flight jet [1,14], the formation of final printing outcomes depends more on the interaction between

Comment 9
The authors use Celsius and Fahrenheit units in the text.
The reviewer considers that only the Celsius measurement unit should be used.

Comment 10
Row 79
Delete the gap between table title and the table

Comment 11
First the authors mention figure 1 in the text and then table 1,
while the order presented in the paper is first table 1 and then figure 1.
Move the figure 1 before table 1.

Comment 12
Row 109
substrate conductivity[11]. In contrast, this stationary printing mode study quantitatively measures

=>

substrate conductivity [11]. In contrast, this stationary printing mode study quantitatively measures

Comment 13
Rows 117 - 119
in Figure 2b). When the temperature is 16℃, the height difference between the central cone and outer
ring is insignificant and the bulk geometry assumes a disk (Figure 3a), while as the temperature
increases, the identification of a characteristic cone-and-ring feature becomes apparent (Figure 3c). A

Check if (Figure 3a) and (Figure 3c) is right, because there are not figure 3a and 3c.

Comment 14
Row 120
side view profile comparison is shown in Figure 3d. The evolution of bulk geometry with deposition

Check if Figure 3d is right, because there are not figure 3a and 3c.

Comment 14
Row 133
Delete the space in the page end

Comment 15
Row 122
measured or calculated including its height (Hdep), base diameter (Ddep) and their ratio (Hdep/Ddep). From

Add a figure with height (Hdep) and base diameter (Ddep)

Comment 16
Figure 4
No detailed description of figure 4

Comment 17
Row 146
sparking or termination of the electrospinning [24]. As is shown in Figure 5, as the voltage increases,

There is not referenced [24]

Comment 17
Figure 5
No detailed description of figure 5

Comment 18
Figure 4
Time(min)
Hdep(mm)
Ddep(mm)

=>

Time (min)
Hdep (mm)
Ddep (mm)

Comment 19
Figure 5
Voltage(KV)
Hdep(mm)
Ddep(mm)

=>

Voltage (KV)
Hdep (mm)
Ddep (mm)

Comment 20
Row 212
of probability, the fiber is most likely deposited at the point right below the needle(C in Figure 7a),

=>

of probability, the fiber is most likely deposited at the point right below the needle (C in Figure 7a),

Comment 21
Row 213
less at its surrounding area(orange area in Figure 7a) and least at the outer part(outside the orange

=>

less at its surrounding area (orange area in Figure 7a) and least at the outer part (outside the orange

Comment 22
Row 215
cone peaks around it, and bound by an outermost ring(Figure 7e). Herein, the increment in collector

=>

cone peaks around it, and bound by an outermost ring (Figure 7e). Herein, the increment in collector

Comment 23
Row 237
periphery ring (Figure 6b-c). In Figure 8.a, the jet has just returned to the central cone from the outer

=>

periphery ring (Figure 6b-c). In Figure 8.a, the jet has just returned to the central cone from the outer

Comment 24
Row 244
cyclically at both the cone and ring. Again, it should be noted that cone-and-ring model only depicts

=>

cyclically at both the cone and ring. Again, it should be noted that cone-and-ring model only depicts

Comment 25
Row 252
reside on the cone for a longer period(Figure 6c), and the jet deposition switches less frequently

=>

reside on the cone for a longer period (Figure 6c), and the jet deposition switches less frequently

Comment 26
Figure 8
(a), (b), (c) and (d) description

Comment 27
Row 257
process parameters on its geometry are apparent [19]. Change of any parameter that helps

There is not referenced [19]

Comment 28
Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI journals.
There is not one paper published at Journal Processes.
It is remarkable that the authors choose
not to mention any bibliographic reference
from Processes or any MDPI journals.
In those journals anyone can find many papers,
which are related to the topic that the authors concerns.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment 1
Row 69 - 70
It is not good to start the section with a figure.
Move text (rows 71 - 80) above the figure 1.

Comment 2
rows 385 - 387
Applications, B.; Partheniadis, I.; Nikolakakis, I.; Laidmäe, I. A Mini‐Review: Needleless Electrospinning
of Nanofibers for Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Applications. Processes 2020, 8, 1–20,
doi:10.3390/pr8060673.

=> change to

Partheniadis, I.; Nikolakakis, I.; Laidmäe, I. A Mini‐Review: Needleless Electrospinning
of Nanofibers for Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Applications. Processes 2020, 8, 1–20,
doi:10.3390/pr8060673.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx