Investigation on Mechanical and Thermal Properties of 3D-Printed Polyamide 6, Graphene Oxide and Glass-Fibre-Reinforced Composites under Dry, Wet and High Temperature Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘Investigation on Mechanical and Thermal Properties of 3D Printed Polyamide 6 Graphene Oxide and Glass Fibre- reinforced Composites under dry, wet and high temperature conditions’ is in line with the Journal of Composites Science. This article is based on original research. The topic is up-to-date and vital. The manuscript is well composed; nevertheless, it requires some changes before publication, such as the following.

·       Title: correct usage of small / capital letters

·       Introduction: consider shortened a little bit this part.

·       Chapter 2.1: Is ‘polymaker’ the specific name?

·       Chapter 2.2.2: How were the samples prepared? What kind of device has been used?

·       Chapter 2.3: references 8, 25, 27 are to the other articles in this part, rather expected reference to regulation. Explain the connection.  

·       Figures: please enlarge the figures that include charts or histograms.

·       Figure 8. If possible, add the scale.

·       Chapter 3.5: The results are not discussed with the literature in this chapter.

·       Please also look at the journal template and add other required elements such as COI.

Correct usage of small / capital letters in title and in some points in the article.

Author Response

Response to feedback by reviewer #1

1. Introduction: consider shortened a little bit this part.

Response: The investigation presents a case for both 3D printing and PA6 composite materials with nanofillers and fibres. As such, both of these topics were addressed in the Introduction to give comprehensive overview of the research. In addition, reviewer #2 added comment “The literature review is very comprehensive it is reasonably well written and of interest of the journal”. Therefore, the Introduction was not revised”.

2. Chapter 2.1: Is ‘polymaker’ the specific name?

Response: Yes, polymaker is the name of the industrial supplier. Quotation was included to communicate this.

3. Chapter 2.2.2: How were the samples prepared? What kind of device has been used?

Response: Zeiss Evo LS10 device was used, and the samples were prepared by using a Stanley knife to cut across the filament to reveal the morphology. Care was taken to ensure the size of the sample was measured according to the sample holder and gloves were used for sample preparation to avoid contamination of samples. This has been included.

4. Chapter 2.3: references 8, 25, 27 are to the other articles in this part, rather expected reference to regulation. Explain the connection.  

 

Response: The references were included to site similar research that used the same standard. This has been stated.  

 

5. Figures: please enlarge the figures that include charts or histograms.

Response: All figures, including charts and histograms have been improved and appropriate scales and units have been included for clarity.

6. Figure 8. If possible, add the scale.

Response: A scale will not represent the dimensions accurately as the snapshots have been taken from different zoom magnifications. In addition, the failed samples have since been altered for further analysis therefore, the final dimensions can no longer be determined. However, the initial width and diameter of samples have been included in the manuscript and this will be taken into account in the future.

7. Chapter 3.5: The results are not discussed with the literature in this chapter.

Response: Results have been compared with literature and it is consistent with similar studies.

8. Please also look at the journal template and add other required elements such as COI.

 

Response: Authors contribution, funding and COI have been included. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents interesting results, which is of interest, the effect of graphene oxide and glass fibre reinforcement on 3D printed PA6 is explored for improvement of interfacial bond and interlaminar strength in ambient, wet and high temperature conditions susceptible to electric car battery box requirements. The literature review is very comprehensive it is reasonably well written and of interest of the journal. However it needs minor corrections before publication, as follows:

1-      Rephrase the keywords, you have put too many and long keywords;

2-      Figure 1: show the mass loss values for each phase, to clarify more, add the mass losses.

3-      Figure 4 add the unit in the abscissa axis (Strain %);

4-      Figure 5 and 6, add the unit in the ordinate axis (Stress MPa);

1-      Improve figure 7, the values are not readable (avoid screenshot);

5-      You did not indicate the quantity of mass used for the test of Thermogravimetric.

6-      The authors do not mention the number of samples in this study, specify the number of samples;

The paper presents interesting results, which is of interest, the effect of graphene oxide and glass fibre reinforcement on 3D printed PA6 is explored for improvement of interfacial bond and interlaminar strength in ambient, wet and high temperature conditions susceptible to electric car battery box requirements. The literature review is very comprehensive it is reasonably well written and of interest of the journal. However it needs minor corrections before publication, as follows:

1-      Rephrase the keywords, you have put too many and long keywords;

2-      Figure 1: show the mass loss values for each phase, to clarify more, add the mass losses.

3-      Figure 4 add the unit in the abscissa axis (Strain %);

4-      Figure 5 and 6, add the unit in the ordinate axis (Stress MPa);

1-      Improve figure 7, the values are not readable (avoid screenshot);

5-      You did not indicate the quantity of mass used for the test of Thermogravimetric.

6-      The authors do not mention the number of samples in this study, specify the number of samples;

Author Response

Response to feedback by reviewer #2

1. Rephrase the keywords, you have put too many and long keywords;

Response: The keywords have been rephrased and shortened.

2. Figure 1: show the mass loss values for each phase, to clarify more, add the mass losses.

Response: Weight changes have been included

3. Figure 4 add the unit in the abscissa axis (Strain %);

Response: Appropriate units have been included and images have been updated.

4. Figure 5 and 6, add the unit in the ordinate axis (Stress MPa);

Response: Appropriate units have been included and images have been updated.

5. Improve figure 7, the values are not readable (avoid screenshot);

Response: All figures, including charts and histograms have been improved.

6. You did not indicate the quantity of mass used for the test of Thermogravimetric.

Response: Mass of TGA sample was stated in section 2.2.1.

7. The authors do not mention the number of samples in this study, specify the number of samples.

Response: Quantities of tensile/compression samples were stated in section 2.3 but total number of samples have been included.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript hs been significantly improved, however some minor issues still required corrections:

·       Lack of authors affiliations.

·       'polymaker’ as the specific nameshould be written in capital letters.

·       Chapter 2.3: references 8, 25, 27 are incorrect. They should be to proper standard not to 'similar articles'. 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

 

1. Lack of authors affiliations.

Response: Author’s affiliation has been included in the first page of the manuscript.

2. 'polymaker’ as the specific name should be written in capital letters.

Response: 'POLYMAKER CA' has been written in capital letters.

3. Chapter 2.3: references 8, 25, 27 are incorrect. They should be to proper standard not to 'similar articles'. 

Response: References 8, 25 and 27 have been taken away from the paragraph.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the clarification on these points, I saw the corrections you indicated on the new version of the paper. For me, the authors' corrections are written in a clear, logical and convincing way. And I find no error on these points.

Thank you for the clarification on these points, I saw the corrections you indicated on the new version of the paper. For me, the authors' corrections are written in a clear, logical and convincing way. And I find no error on these points.

Author Response

Response: Thanks for positive feedback, the manuscript has been proof-read, and changes were made to improve grammar. These changes were tracked and can be reviewed.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors implemented necessry changes.