Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 15th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 22nd, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 1st, 2022 and was reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on September 8th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 9th, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Sep 9, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

The manuscript is acceptable in the current version.

Version 0.2

· Sep 7, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Some minor revisions are still needed.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Some technical issues need to be addressed whilst you revise your manuscript:

## 1. Tracked Changes Manuscript Source File
We note you've manually tracked your changes.

- At the next revision, please provide a manuscript with computer-generated tracked changes.

The reviewers and Academic Editor will want to see all of the changes documented and will normally request it if some changes appear to be missing. Please use the Compare Function in Microsoft Word to track all changes made to the manuscript since the last submission going forward.

## 2. Figure Accessibility
At the next revision, please adjust the red/green colors used on your Figure 8 to make it accessible to those with color blindness or add labels so the figure isn't dependent on color to differentiate between the elements.

Please review our [**color blindness guidelines for figures**](https://peerj.com/about/author-instructions/#figure-style). Note: Please do **not** replace the red/green colors with patterns in your figure.

- At the next revision, please provide a replacement figure measuring minimum 900 pixels and maximum 3000 pixels on all sides, saved as PNG, EPS or vector PDF file format without excess white space around the images.#]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

well noted

Experimental design

well noted

Validity of the findings

well noted

Additional comments

well noted

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The authors have revised the manuscript. It can be accepted.

Experimental design

Good

Validity of the findings

Good

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

I don't think the authors have well addressed the reviewers' comments. Some suggestions are not taken but the reasons are not convictive. For example, they argue that the method in Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2020, 7, 2001081 is different from their method. Of course the two methods are generally different, but the pushing process related to Figure 8 in the recommended literature could be discussed by comparing with their pushing process.

Experimental design

fair

Validity of the findings

fair

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 22, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please revise the manuscript according the reviewers' comments.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

In this manuscript, the authors used a cosmetic brush to transfer particulates to the liquid drops on a highly non-wetting substrate. Through reasonable theoretical calculation, this manuscript proves that the van der Waals force between the cosmetic brush and the particles is lower than the surface tension between the particles and the droplets, thus, the particles separate from the cosmetic brush and agglomerate on the surface of the droplets. The marble has wide-ranging functionalities in terms of wetting properties, electric charge, aggregate size, and color. I think this manuscript can be accepted after the following questions were addressed.
Different brushing particle sizes will have different effects on the adhesion of particles, so artificial brushing will certainly produce uneven results. Can the uniformity of particles be guaranteed by brushing with a cosmetic brush? Is the brushing process controlled by a machine or operated by manual work? If a machine was used, please introduce it in detail.

Experimental design

In this manuscript, the authors used a cosmetic brush to transfer particulates to the liquid drops on a highly non-wetting substrate. Through reasonable theoretical calculation, this manuscript proves that the van der Waals force between the cosmetic brush and the particles is lower than the surface tension between the particles and the droplets, thus, the particles separate from the cosmetic brush and agglomerate on the surface of the droplets. The marble has wide-ranging functionalities in terms of wetting properties, electric charge, aggregate size, and color. I think this manuscript can be accepted after the following questions were addressed.
Different brushing particle sizes will have different effects on the adhesion of particles, so artificial brushing will certainly produce uneven results. Can the uniformity of particles be guaranteed by brushing with a cosmetic brush? Is the brushing process controlled by a machine or operated by manual work? If a machine was used, please introduce it in detail.

Validity of the findings

In this manuscript, the authors used a cosmetic brush to transfer particulates to the liquid drops on a highly non-wetting substrate. Through reasonable theoretical calculation, this manuscript proves that the van der Waals force between the cosmetic brush and the particles is lower than the surface tension between the particles and the droplets, thus, the particles separate from the cosmetic brush and agglomerate on the surface of the droplets. The marble has wide-ranging functionalities in terms of wetting properties, electric charge, aggregate size, and color. I think this manuscript can be accepted after the following questions were addressed.
Different brushing particle sizes will have different effects on the adhesion of particles, so artificial brushing will certainly produce uneven results. Can the uniformity of particles be guaranteed by brushing with a cosmetic brush? Is the brushing process controlled by a machine or operated by manual work? If a machine was used, please introduce it in detail.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is entitled “Brushed creation of liquid marbles”. In this work, the authors report the preparation of talc and graphite liquid marbles (LMs) and talc-graphite Janus liquid marbles This research is follow on work of several publications of this type in the last few years.

Experimental design

Your theory and experimental section needs more detail.

Validity of the findings

Generally speaking, the paper is generally well-written and the experimental work is mostly sound. I feel that this manuscript is suitable for publication.

Additional comments

The authors are encouraged to give some comments on the application and future development of the liquid marbles in the Introduction section. Some related references can be referred. Such as, Yan Zhao et al., Advanced Functional Material, 2015, 25, 437; Junfei Tian et al. Chemical Communication, 2011, 46, 4734; Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2012, 1, 80.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

This paper describes a new method for liquid marble preparation, which is based on a simpe brushing process. The study is comprehensive while the following comments need to be addressed.
1. There are many unprecise expressions. eg. " the surface tension forces arising from particle interaction with water engendered transfer"
2. When discussing the brush pushing process related to Fig. 3 or 7, a similar manipulation reported previously could be a useful reference. See Advanced Materials Interfaces, 2020, 7, 2001081
3. The figures in this paper are not well produced.
4. Figure 5 does not sufficiently match the discussion in the text. Sequenced images should also include the evolution of droplets instead of just showing the brush images.

Experimental design

good

Validity of the findings

good

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.