Searching for biological feedstock material: 3D printing of wood particles from house borer and drywood termite frass

Rudy Plarre; Andrea Zocca; Andrea Spitzer; Sigrid Benemann; Anna A. Gorbushina; Yuexuan Li; Anja Waske; Alexander Funk; Janka Wilbig; Jens Günster

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246511

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 9, 2020
9 Oct 2020 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: responsetoreviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246511.r001
22 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor PONE-D-20-31824 Searching for biological feedstock material: 3D printing of wood particles from house borer and drywood termite frass PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Guenster, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Your manuscript is accepted subject to minor changes as sought by the reviewers. Please submit a revised version accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper presents a novel approach use what is typically a waste from the wood industry and use Frass for 3D printing using binder jetting. The paper presents novel sustainability perspective and opens up avenues for impacting the bio product industry. The paper can be accepted for publication, however the authors needs to address some of the following comments: The experimental methodology for 3D printing needs be further detailed in the methodology section. Typically, the CAD models, print process parameters used for BJ need to be presented in the methods section. Currently, many are written in the results section. Also, please include which instruments you used to measure tap and flow properties of the powder within the methods section. As it stands there is intermixing of results and methods section and it goes back and forth within the results section. I understand that authors have used an iterative process of using smaller particles and larger particles to print two different geometry but putting the CAD models of these within the methods section will impart a flow that allows for the readers to know what the results section might have. Also if in the results section, if authors could write the dimensional tolerance that they got from the printed parts. For eg. Fig. 5 and Fig 6 compares CAD and printed geometry. If the authors can just write how close was the printed pat when comparing it to Fig 5 and similarly for Fig 7 and Fig 8c within the text itself. Any measurement results will enable readers to understand with this novel process how well can you print your parts. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246511.r002
Revision 1
17 Jan 2021 Author Response We would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive comments and have seriously worked over the manuscript. Actions undertaken in response to the points raised by the reviewers have been listed one be one in the following. Point by point response: Point raised by the reviewer: The experimental methodology for 3D printing needs be further detailed in the methodology section. Typically, the CAD models, print process parameters used for BJ need to be presented in the methods section. Currently, many are written in the results section. Action undertaken by the authors: We have moved all CAD drawings of parts printed and their introduction to the Materials and Methods section. Point raised by the reviewer: Also, please include which instruments you used to measure tap and flow properties of the powder within the methods section. Action undertaken by the authors: We have added the following passage: “The tapped density was determined according to ISO 787-11 with a STAV 2003 type equipment from J. Engelsmann AG, Germany” Point raised by the reviewer: As it stands there is intermixing of results and methods section and it goes back and forth within the results section. I understand that authors have used an iterative process of using smaller particles and larger particles to print two different geometry but putting the CAD models of these within the methods section will impart a flow that allows for the readers to know what the results section might have. Action undertaken by the authors: Results and methods have been separated more consequently. In particular, the introduction of CAD models and printing parameters, as well as the introduction of µCT data have been moved from the results to the methods section. Point raised by the reviewer: Also if in the results section, if authors could write the dimensional tolerance that they got from the printed parts. For eg. Fig. 5 and Fig 6 compares CAD and printed geometry. If the authors can just write how close was the printed pat when comparing it to Fig 5 and similarly for Fig 7 and Fig 8c within the text itself. Any measurement results will enable readers to understand with this novel process how well can you print your parts. Action undertaken by the authors: Estimates of the dimensional tolerances of printed parts have been added in the results section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246511.r003
21 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor Searching for biological feedstock material: 3D printing of wood particles from house borer and drywood termite frass PONE-D-20-31824R1 Dear Dr. Guenster, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246511.r004
Formally Accepted
27 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor PONE-D-20-31824R1 Searching for biological feedstock material: 3D printing of wood particles from house borer and drywood termite frass Dear Dr. Günster: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246511.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .