Innovative Manufacturing Process of Functionalized PA2200 for Reduced Adhesion Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research proposed laser ablation with partial molding to fabricate micro patterned surfaces to improve its performance in terms of wettability and adhesion. The work is interesting and the results are clearly presented. However, there are still several questions to be addressed.

Line 95, the author mentioned Partial molding. What is it? What type of molding machine are you using? The author should specify it.

Line 74, the authors presented several techniques to modify surface properties. However, mechanical or machining methods should be pointed out and reviewed. Mechanical methods can produce complex geometries and high surface accuracy. For example,

Scheiding, Y. Y. Allen, A. Gebhardt, L. Li, S. Risse, R. Eberhardt, and A. Tünnermann, "Freeform manufacturing of a microoptical lens array on a steep curved substrate by use of a voice coil fast tool servo,"Optics express 19, 23938-23951 (2011).

Li, D., Wang, B., Qiao, Z., & Jiang, X. (2019). Ultraprecision machining of microlens arrays with integrated on-machine surface metrology. Optics express, 27(1), 212-224.

Denkena, B., Grove, T., & Schmidt, C. (2018). Machining of Micro Dimples for Friction Reduction in Cylinder Liners. Procedia CIRP, 78, 318-322.

Line 172, the interpretation and analysis of the results in Figure 3 should be presented.

Line 191, in Figure 5 and Figure 3, the contact angle between Ti template and the imprinted polymer is different and should be explained.

Line 230, what is the aim of this section?

The authors should examine the whole manuscript again to check the grammar and errors.

Author Response

Line 95, the author mentioned Partial molding. What is it? What type of molding machine are you using? The author should specify it.

 Authors apologize for the mismatch with the definition in the paper. The term has been changed over the whole manuscript into “stamping” and the process itself has been explained and highlighted in green in the manuscript.

Line 74, the authors presented several techniques to modify surface properties. However, mechanical or machining methods should be pointed out and reviewed. Mechanical methods can produce complex geometries and high surface accuracy. For example,

Scheiding, Y. Y. Allen, A. Gebhardt, L. Li, S. Risse, R. Eberhardt, and A. Tünnermann, "Freeform manufacturing of a microoptical lens array on a steep curved substrate by use of a voice coil fast tool servo,"Optics express 19, 23938-23951 (2011).

Li, D., Wang, B., Qiao, Z., & Jiang, X. (2019). Ultraprecision machining of microlens arrays with integrated on-machine surface metrology. Optics express, 27(1), 212-224.

Denkena, B., Grove, T., & Schmidt, C. (2018). Machining of Micro Dimples for Friction Reduction in Cylinder Liners. Procedia CIRP, 78, 318-322.

Authors better arranged the introduction specifying the contribution of mechanical changes and added also further references as well as the references suggested by the reviewer.

Line 172, the interpretation and analysis of the results in Figure 3 should be presented.

 Authors added detailed discussion of the results presented in Figure 3 as highlighted in the manuscript.

Line 191, in Figure 5 and Figure 3, the contact angle between Ti template and the imprinted polymer is different and should be explained.

 Authors added the description of the mechanism leading to different contact angle results between Ti and PA2200 as highlighted in the text of the paper.

Line 230, what is the aim of this section?

 Authors apologize for the typos.

The authors should examine the whole manuscript again to check the grammar and errors.

Authors checked carefully the English along the paper and corrected the encountered errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes interesting research on the surface modification of PA22000 nylon in order to create surfaces with reduced bacteria adhesion. The research presented here is sound and interesting, however the manuscript suffers from the presentation stand point.

I suggest that the authors improve the manuscript before it can be accepted for publication.

1. The Introduction is not well structured. For example, while it starts by stating the “lotus effect”, the effect itself is described on the next page, together with the basic science. In addition, it does not present the problem the authors intend to deal with, or known solutions.
2. The Materials and Methods section does not adequately describe the materials and the methods used in the current research. For example, what kind of laser was used? What is LG21? How was contact angle measured? What kind of SEM was used? The authors should provide all necessary information.
3. It is stated that “It is worth noting that the SEM analysis on surface modifications of Ti highlighted the mark of the laser scanning direction…” it is not clear what is meant here. Please, clarify.
4. The results presented in Figure 3, on the contact angle on the modified TI surfaces are not discussed in the text. How is the effectiveness of the surface modifications verified from Figure 3?
5. The Discussion section is completely missing and instead there is the template instructions…

Author Response

1. The Introduction is not well structured. For example, while it starts by stating the “lotus effect”, the effect itself is described on the next page, together with the basic science. In addition, it does not present the problem the authors intend to deal with, or known solutions.

Authors changed and re arranged the overall introduction according to the reviewer suggestion. All the changes have been highlighted in green on the manuscript.

1. The Materials and Methods section does not adequately describe the materials and the methods used in the current research. For example, what kind of laser was used? What is LG21? How was contact angle measured? What kind of SEM was used? The authors should provide all necessary information.

Authors added all the missing information in the materials and methods section highlighting them in green.

1. It is stated that “It is worth noting that the SEM analysis on surface modifications of Ti highlighted the mark of the laser scanning direction…” it is not clear what is meant here. Please, clarify.

The sentence has been modified in order to make it clearer and further details have been added in support.

1. The results presented in Figure 3, on the contact angle on the modified TI surfaces are not discussed in the text. How is the effectiveness of the surface modifications verified from Figure 3?

Authors added a detailed discussion on the results shown in Figure 3 as suggested by the reviewer.

1. The Discussion section is completely missing and instead there is the template instructions…

Authors apologize for the typos.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am fine with the correction. Good work.