Effects of In-Process Temperatures and Blending Polymers on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Blends
, Johan Potgieter 1, Hammad Mohsin 3, Karnika De Silva 4 and Marie-Joo Le Guen 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript entitled “Effects of in-process temperatures and blending polymers on acrylonitrile butadiene styrene blends” submitted by Muhammad Harris, Johan Potgieter, Hammad Mohsin, Karnika De Silva and Marie-Joo Le Guen, can be accepted for publication in Inventions Journal, after a serious major revision.
Here is a list of my specific comments:
- Page 1, Abstract: This section is quite too general. Include here the most important results to highlight the importance of this study.
- Page 1, 1. Introduction: (a) This section should be reorganized. The most important aspects related to this topic should be clearly presented, in order to describe the state of art in this field. (b) Add more references. Only 3 references is not enough. (c) At the end of Introduction, the main objectives of this study should be clearly and detailed presented.
- Page 2, 2. Materials and Methods: In this section, pay attention on technical details and provide a properly description of the materials and experimental methodology used in this study. Delete general observations. Also, move the obtained results in the next section.
- Page 6, 3. Results: This section should be re-written. The results should be clearly presented.
- Page 7, 4. Discussion: This section should be reorganized. All the experimental results should be clearly and detailed discussed in this section, in accordance with the main objectives of this study.
- Page 10, 5. Conclusions: This section should be reorganized. Delete (1), (2),…and provide a clear presentation of the most important results and findings included in this study.
- Page 11, References: The number of references is too low and must be increased.
Author Response
We appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer. It helped us a great deal to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to concentrate all given suggestions in the modified version.
Here is a list of my specific comments and the modification made in the document.
- Page 1, Abstract: This section is quite too general. Include here the most important results to highlight the importance of this study.
The results are now added in the abstract.
- Page 1, 1. Introduction: (a) This section should be reorganized. The most important aspects related to this topic should be clearly presented, in order to describe the state of art in this field. (b) Add more references. Only 3 references is not enough. (c) At the end of Introduction, the main objectives of this study should be clearly and detailed presented.
- a) The introduction is reorganized.
- b) The references are now increased to 35 instead of 17.
- c) the objective is now added at the end of the introduction.
- Page 2, 2. Materials and Methods: In this section, pay attention on technical details and provide a properly description of the materials and experimental methodology used in this study. Delete general observations. Also, move the obtained results in the next section.
- a) The section is modified in light of suggestions.
- b) The suggested section is also moved to results.
- Page 6, 3. Results: This section should be re-written. The results should be clearly presented.
The results section is now explained in more detail with a new heading of melt blending.
- Page 10, 5. Conclusions: This section should be reorganized. Delete (1), (2), and provide a clear presentation of the most important results and findings included in this study.
The conclusions are now modified in light of the given suggestions.
- Page 11, References: The number of references is too low and must be increased.
The references are now increased to 35 instead of 17.
Reviewer 2 Report
This work studies the effects of processing temperatures during additive manufacturing technique for ABS, PP, HDPE blends. Statistical modelling was also employed for three parameters of the process. This work is within the scope of the journal.
Language is overall non-scientific, with major grammar errors and gaps in claims.
The references in the study need to be highly enriched. This is a popular subject with many references in literature. These specific materials have been thoroughly studied in literature. Authors should conduct a more thorough literature review to highlight the contribution to the field of their work and should consider among others the following works:
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12122924, https://doi.org/10.3139/217.3858, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.030
Specifically, the following comments need to be considered, prior to the publication of this work:
Abstract (line 23): authors are kindly requested to rephrase “surface temperature” to “build surface temperature”
Introduction has serious lack of references. There are many claims and references in previous studies that are not referred at all. (Authors should carefully refer to literature in lines 33-34, 36-41, 44-45, 47-50, 63-66, 67-75)
Line 58: change “belnd” to “blend”
In this research it is claimed that FTIR and TGA analysis are utilized to explain the mechanical behavior of polymer blends, this should be further explained, and such claim should be carefully proved through references in literature.
Materials (lines 88 and 90 and 92) please refer MFI at which temperatures.
Blending:
Authors are kindly requested to enrich lines 97-104 as not enough specifications are given for the used machines and procedure. Line 103 refers feed rate and speed, please explain further.
Lines 108-120 presenting results with references, should be moved to results section.
Design of Experiment:
Line 123: Authors are kindly requested to provide more information about ANOVA analysis
Line 125: replace “…3) polymer…” to “…3) blends…”
Line 126: Please further explain confidence level of 95%
Figure 1: Please provide a picture of the setup utilized for 3D printing process, since another 3D printer is presented than the exact one used?
Figure 2: In dimensions are referred average deviations accepted for tensile specimen? Or the average deviation of actual 3D printed specimens during current study? Please explain
Line 150: please change “is drawn” to “were designed”.
Line 150: Please refer to Solidworks for manufacturer and version used.
Line 150-151: change “stl” to “.stl” format, please provide necessary exporting specifications (angle and tolerance resolution)
Table 3: please explain the reason for selecting the 3D printing parameters
Table 3: please provide more information regarding raster width (which 3d printing parameter is tried to be presented?) and multiplier
Line 157: change “…is performed at a extension…” to “…is performed at an extension…”
Please provide information and a clearer processing description regarding melt blending (single screw extrusion? Which machine and parameter were used? And then how the blends were pelletized to be 3D printed from a pellet form? What kind of form pellets? Dimensions?). Authors are kindly requested to rephrase and enrich this section
Results: This section is very brief. Please consider the authors guideline “…This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn…”
Tensile test results should be presented in a more analytic way. Typical stress-strain graphs should be provided, along with the elastic modulus for each case studied.
Table 4: Please add units of measurement in the Tensile Strength
Discussion:
Figure 4: please add axes titles and rephrase caption so as to provide more information
This section is recommended to be rewritten, some information in this section is better to move to results and in discussion section provide an analysis in depth.
TGA and FTIR graphs should be moved to the results section.
Tensile tests results should be discussed, what was the effect of blending on the materials. Pure materials should have been tested also, to evaluate the effect of blending on the materials. This should be discussed in the work.
MEP and other graphs should be discussed, what was found through this analysis is missing.
Conclusion:
Should be enriched with a further analysis of the potential provided through current study and with a future prospect of further analysis.
Author Response
We appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer. The detailed work from the reviewer helped us a great deal to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to concentrate on all given suggestions in the modified version.
Abstract
(line 23): authors are kindly requested to rephrase “surface temperature” to “build surface temperature”
It is rephrased as suggested in the whole document.
Introduction
Introduction has serious lack of references. There are many claims and references in previous studies that are not referred at all. (Authors should carefully refer to literature in lines 33-34, 36-41, 44-45, 47-50, 63-66, 67-75)
The references are now increased to 35 instead of 17.
Line 58: change “belnd” to “blend”
It is corrected as suggested. Furthermore, the whole document is proofread to avoid any mistakes.
Materials (lines 88 and 90 and 92) please refer MFI at which temperatures.
The temperature is now added.
Blending:
Authors are kindly requested to enrich lines 97-104 as not enough specifications are given for the used machines and procedure.
The suggested changes are made now.
Lines 108-120 presenting results with references, should be moved to results section.
It is moved to results now.
Design of Experiment:
Line 123: Authors are kindly requested to provide more information about ANOVA analysis
The ANOVA analysis is now explained in DOE.
Line 125: replace “…3) polymer…” to “…3) blends…”
The suggested changes are made now.
Line 126: Please further explain confidence level of 95%
The confidence level of 95% is now explained.
Figure 1: Please provide a picture of the setup utilized for 3D printing process, since another 3D printer is presented than the exact one used?
An exact 3d printer is used as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2: In dimensions are referred average deviations accepted for tensile specimen? Or the average deviation of actual 3D printed specimens during current study? Please explain
The dimensions in Figure 2 are the average of all printed samples.
Line 150: please change “is drawn” to “were designed”.
The suggested changes are made now.
Line 150: Please refer to Solidworks for manufacturer and version used.
The suggested changes are made now.
Line 150-151: change “stl” to “.stl” format, please provide necessary exporting specifications (angle and tolerance resolution)
The suggested changes are made now.
Table 3: please explain the reason for selecting the 3D printing parameters
The reasons are now added.
Table 3: please provide more information regarding raster width (which 3d printing parameter is tried to be presented?) and multiplier
Raster width and Multiplier are now explained.
Line 157: change “…is performed at a extension…” to “…is performed at an extension…”
The suggested changes are made now.
Please provide information and a clearer processing description regarding melt blending (single screw extrusion? Which machine and parameter were used? And then how the blends were pelletized to be 3D printed from a pellet form? What kind of form pellets? Dimensions?).
The details regarding pellets are now added.
Results: This section is very brief. Please consider the authors guideline “…This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn…”
The section is now added with a new section.
Table 4: Please add units of measurement in the Tensile Strength
The suggested changes are made now.
Discussion:
Figure 4: please add axes titles and rephrase caption so as to provide more information
This the standard graph generated by MINITAB. Th x-axis is provided at the top of each graph and the Y-axiis is also provided at left hand side. Happy to modify it as per further suggestions.
This section is recommended to be rewritten, some information in this section is better to move to results and in discussion section provide an analysis in depth. The literature has reported the FTIR, DSC and TGA analysis in TGA and FTIR graphs should be moved to the results section.
We highly appreciate the recommendations from the reviewer. Here we are trying to communicate the logical reasons (chemical and thermal) that result in the variations in molecular structure. The molecular structure causes the tensile strength to vary. That is why we request you to please allow us to keep this section in the discussion.
Conclusion:
Should be enriched with a further analysis of the potential provided through current study and with a future prospect of further analysis.
Now it is rephrased.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered all the questions to my satisfaction. Comments and questions were properly addressed and the final manuscript clearly has been improved. It means that revised manuscript meets the criteria and in my opinion can be published as original paper in Inventions Journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
Ok
