Improving Wear Resistance of Highly Porous Titanium by Surface Engineering Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Improving Wear Resistance of Highly Porous Titanium by Surface Engineering Methods” was reviewed. The work carried out in the manuscript is interesting. However, in my opinion, several aspects should be modified or detailed more in-depth prior to publication, thus minor modifications are advised. Here is a list of main comments:  

-The title accurately describes the content of the paper and is clear and concise.

Abstract:

Overall, the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the paper's research focus and main findings. The language used is precise and technical, which is appropriate for an academic paper. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:

- The abstract hints at results, such as the reduction in wear intensity due to surface treatment methods, but it doesn't provide any quantitative data or specifics. Adding a sentence summarizing the key findings or implications of the study would

- Please demonstrate the novelty and importance of this paper in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.-

The introduction, methodology result, and discussion are presented well.

Conclusion

 

-What are the main limitations of this study, and how could they be addressed in future research? 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comments and recommendations on the submitted manuscript. We really followed them, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The answers to your comments are as follows:

 

1. The abstract hints at results, such as the reduction in wear intensity due to surface treatment methods, but it doesn't provide any quantitative data or specifics. Adding a sentence summarizing the key findings or implications of the study would.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. The abstract has been improved according to your recommendations.

1. Please demonstrate the novelty and importance of this paper in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We have added novelty and possible prospects for the use of both highly porous titanium and methods of its surface engineering.

1. What are the main limitations of this study, and how could they be addressed in future research?

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We also added a discussion of limitations and future research in the "discussion" section (last paragraph).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for coatings-2611190

The submitted manuscript entitled "Surface Engineering Methods for Improving the Wear Resistance of Highly Porous Titanium" investigates the wear resistance of highly porous titanium when paired with bronze under boundary lubrication conditions. The study focuses on the effect of subsurface pores on wear resistance and explores surface engineering methods such as deformation (ball burnishing), diffusion (gas nitriding), and a combination of both (deformation-diffusion treatment) to enhance the wear resistance. The authors claim that these surface treatments alter the wear mechanism from adhesive and fatigue wear to abrasive wear, resulting in reduced wear intensity. I believe that, the paper addresses an important topic related to improving the wear resistance of highly porous titanium. The introduction provides a clear background and rationale for the study, and the objectives are well-defined. The methodology is adequately described, and the results are presented in a concise manner. However, there are a few major issues that require further clarification and improvements.

Major issues:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • The paper would benefit from a clear and structured organization. It is recommended to follow a conventional structure comprising sections such as Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. This will improve the readability and flow of the paper.

2. Section 1: Introduction:

   • The introduction should provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature regarding the wear behavior of highly porous titanium. This will help readers understand the significance of the study and its novelty in the field. Additionally, it would be helpful to include some background information on the properties and applications of highly porous titanium.

3. Section 2: Materials and methods:

   • The authors briefly mention the experimental methodology, but it lacks sufficient detail. It is essential to provide information on the sample preparation, test conditions, and characterization techniques employed. This will allow other researchers to replicate the experiments and validate the results.

4. Sections 3 and 4: Results and Discussion:

   • The results are presented concisely, but some crucial details are missing. It would be beneficial to include statistical analyses, such as standard deviations or confidence intervals, to ascertain the reliability of the results.
   • The discussion section (sec 4) is fine but it should provide a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the results. The authors should explain the observed changes in wear mechanism in relation to the surface treatments and their impact on wear resistance. Comparisons with previous studies or theoretical models would strengthen the discussion.

5. Conclusion:

   • The conclusion should provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, and potential implications. It would be helpful to discuss the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

According to the comments above, the paper has the potential to contribute to the field of wear resistance of highly porous titanium. Addressing the above-mentioned points will improve the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

 

1. Language and Writing Style: The paper would benefit from improved language and writing style. Some sentences are unclear or overly complex, making it difficult to follow the authors' arguments. It is recommended to ensure clarity, simplicity, and coherence in the language throughout the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comments and recommendations on the submitted manuscript. We really followed them, which allowed us to improve the quality of our manuscript. The answers to your comments are as follows:

1. Clarity and Organization:

• The paper would benefit from a clear and structured organization. It is recommended to follow a conventional structure comprising sections such as Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. This will improve the readability and flow of the paper.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. All the listed sections are included in manuscript.

2. Section 1: Introduction:
   • The introduction should provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature regarding the wear behavior of highly porous titanium. This will help readers understand the significance of the study and its novelty in the field. Additionally, it would be helpful to include some background information on the properties and applications of highly porous titanium.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We tried to expand the literature review according to your recommendations

3. Section 2: Materials and methods:
   • The authors briefly mention the experimental methodology, but it lacks sufficient detail. It is essential to provide information on the sample preparation, test conditions, and characterization techniques employed. This will allow other researchers to replicate the experiments and validate the results.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We added schematic illustrations of the preparation of samples for research, as well as the scheme of tribological tests, and tried to describe in more detail the methodological aspects of both the surface treatment of highly porous titanium and the research methodology.

4. Sections 3 and 4: Results and Discussion:
   • The results are presented concisely, but some crucial details are missing. It would be beneficial to include statistical analyses, such as standard deviations or confidence intervals, to ascertain the reliability of the results.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We added the standard deviations for the obtained results presented in Figures 3, 7 and 8.

• The discussion section (sec 4) is fine but it should provide a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the results. The authors should explain the observed changes in wear mechanism in relation to the surface treatments and their impact on wear resistance. Comparisons with previous studies or theoretical models would strengthen the discussion.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We have tried to expand the "Discussion" section in more detail and depth according to your recommendations.

5. Conclusion:

• The conclusion should provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, and potential implications. It would be helpful to discuss the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. Regarding the discussion about the limitations of the study and suggested directions for future research, we have added this to the "discussion" section (last paragraph).

 

 

 

6. Language and Writing Style: The paper would benefit from improved language and writing style. Some sentences are unclear or overly complex, making it difficult to follow the authors' arguments. It is recommended to ensure clarity, simplicity, and coherence in the language throughout the paper.

Answer. Thank you for your comments. We tried to improve the language of the article and made some grammatical corrections

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No more comments.