the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Feb 2023
3D-printed Ag-AgCl Electrodes for Laboratory Measurements of Self-Potential
Abstract. This paper details the design, development and evaluation of a 3D printed, rechargeable, Ag-AgCl electrode to measure Self-Potential (SP) in laboratory experiments. The challenge was to make a small, cheap, robust and stable electrode that could be used in a wide range of applications. The new electrodes are shown to offer comparable performance with custom-machined laboratory standards, and the inclusion of 3D printing (both Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) and stereolithography (SLA)) makes them more versatile and less expensive than laboratory standards. The devices have been used in both low-pressure experiments using beadpacks, and high-pressure experiments using natural rock samples. Designs are included for both male and female connections to laboratory equipment.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1232 KB)
-
Supplement
(338 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1232 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(338 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2023
The authors developed 3D-printed Ag-AgCl Electrodes for Laboratory Measurements of Self-Potential and made several experiments. But the purpose, importance and innovation of this research are not elaborated. 3D printed method is seemed as an innovation, but not be illustrated in the paper. It just like the authors did one job and wrote it down. The authors have finished the job, but did not find the scientific meaning.
The structure of this paper is also not that appropriate that is more suitable for a patent or trial report. And some words are confused like “Designs are included for both male and female connections to laboratory equipment. ”
Recommendation: rejected
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jun 2023
In this paper, the authors report the construction of 3D-printed Ag-AgCl electrodes for laboratory measurements of self-potential
The only innovation concerns the 3D printing of said electrodes. However, most of the paper consists of a description of the well-known experiments, which must verify the good performance of the new electrodes. It should also be noted that the use of 3D printing is supposed to considerably lighten the manufacturing process, however, we must always intervene on the printed body with tapering tools or lathe. I think that all of the new information included in this paper are not adapted for a scientific publication in the GI but may deserve a publication of a note in a more technical journal.
Minor remarks:
L15 “Nyquist and Corry, 2002” is not given in the references.
Add on the fig.1 description "moulded Polypropylene (PP) tip" designation.
L141 Add the manufacturer info of the 3D printers in the refs.
L178 "over a time" how long?
L180 "show various evidence of degradation" due to?
L193 "ddo" should be "do".
L269-l270 why the differences are so remarkable between synthetic seawater and tap water electrolytes experiences?
L 273 and Figure 8 legend "tapwater" should be "tap water".
L279 ".." should be "."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Tom Rowan, 09 Aug 2023
We are disappointed that the reviewers recommend that the paper should be rejected and do not believe that their comments provide grounds for this decision. The reviewers find no flaws or errors in our work and seem to miss the point of the paper.
RC1 suggests ‘the purpose, importance and innovation of this research are not elaborated’. We disagree. As we point out in the paper, the purpose is to demonstrate a practical method for the manufacture of non-polarizing electrodes that is quicker, cheaper and more versatile than traditional approaches. The importance is that these electrodes are traditionally expensive and slow to construct. Saving on experimental costs and time is important to maximize the value delivered from research income. The innovation comes in the use of 3D printing.
RC1 further states ‘3D printed method is seemed as an innovation, but not be illustrated in the paper. It just like the authors did one job and wrote it down. The authors have finished the job, but did not find the scientific meaning.’ Again, we disagree. We demonstrate the electrodes give high quality SP data and, importantly, provide detailed design sketches, 3D printing files, and practical hints and tips for construction. Interested readers can use these to create their own electrodes and use these in experiments to find – as we have done in other work – the scientific meaning from high quality SP data.
RC1 concludes: ‘The structure of this paper is also not that appropriate that is more suitable for a patent or trial report. And some words are confused like “Designs are included for both male and female connections to laboratory equipment ”.’ We have taken great care to structure the paper in line with other papers in GI, aiming to serve both as a scientific journal paper and a valuable reference tool for the community that will continue to develop these sensors. The sentence quoted to support the claim that ‘some words are confused’ makes use of commonly used terms for connectors.
RC2 claims the ‘only innovation concerns the 3D printing of the (Ag-AgCl electrodes)’. Indeed, that is the innovation and we believe it will be of interest to the GI journal readership. They state ‘Most of the paper consists of a description of the well-known experiments, which must verify the good performance of the new electrodes.’ Some of the paper is indeed devoted to describing these experiments; as we explain in the text, we need to demonstrate that the new electrodes deliver high quality data, comparable to those constructed using traditional methods. They state ‘It should also be noted that the use of 3D printing is supposed to considerably lighten the manufacturing process, however, we must always intervene on the printed body with tapering tools or lathe.’ We agree, but these final finishing steps to the 3D printed bodies is still considerably less time consuming than traditional manufacture and, as we show, the cost of producing our printed electrodes is much lower. The reviewer concludes ‘I think that all of the new information included in this paper are not adapted for a scientific publication in the GI but may deserve a publication of a note in a more technical journal.’ We respectfully disagree with this view, and believe the content is well suited for publication in GI.
The reviewer suggests some minor corrections which are easy to implement.
We have revised the paper to address these minor corrections, and also emphasize that we report design drawings, practical advice for electrode printing and assembly, and include printable 3D design files to facilitate wide uptake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-AC1 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Lev Eppelbaum, 09 Aug 2023
I propose that the MS "3D-printed Ag-AgCl Electrodes for Laboratory Measurements of Self-Potential" by T.S.L. Rowan et al. is interesting and useful for the GI readers and applied geophysicists. I do not understand conclusion of one reviewer "that this MS must be rejected". We have no any reason for it. The MS is now improved and revised. I recommend to publish it.
Prof. Lev Eppelbaum,
Assoc. Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Mar 2023
The authors developed 3D-printed Ag-AgCl Electrodes for Laboratory Measurements of Self-Potential and made several experiments. But the purpose, importance and innovation of this research are not elaborated. 3D printed method is seemed as an innovation, but not be illustrated in the paper. It just like the authors did one job and wrote it down. The authors have finished the job, but did not find the scientific meaning.
The structure of this paper is also not that appropriate that is more suitable for a patent or trial report. And some words are confused like “Designs are included for both male and female connections to laboratory equipment. ”
Recommendation: rejected
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jun 2023
In this paper, the authors report the construction of 3D-printed Ag-AgCl electrodes for laboratory measurements of self-potential
The only innovation concerns the 3D printing of said electrodes. However, most of the paper consists of a description of the well-known experiments, which must verify the good performance of the new electrodes. It should also be noted that the use of 3D printing is supposed to considerably lighten the manufacturing process, however, we must always intervene on the printed body with tapering tools or lathe. I think that all of the new information included in this paper are not adapted for a scientific publication in the GI but may deserve a publication of a note in a more technical journal.
Minor remarks:
L15 “Nyquist and Corry, 2002” is not given in the references.
Add on the fig.1 description "moulded Polypropylene (PP) tip" designation.
L141 Add the manufacturer info of the 3D printers in the refs.
L178 "over a time" how long?
L180 "show various evidence of degradation" due to?
L193 "ddo" should be "do".
L269-l270 why the differences are so remarkable between synthetic seawater and tap water electrolytes experiences?
L 273 and Figure 8 legend "tapwater" should be "tap water".
L279 ".." should be "."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Tom Rowan, 09 Aug 2023
We are disappointed that the reviewers recommend that the paper should be rejected and do not believe that their comments provide grounds for this decision. The reviewers find no flaws or errors in our work and seem to miss the point of the paper.
RC1 suggests ‘the purpose, importance and innovation of this research are not elaborated’. We disagree. As we point out in the paper, the purpose is to demonstrate a practical method for the manufacture of non-polarizing electrodes that is quicker, cheaper and more versatile than traditional approaches. The importance is that these electrodes are traditionally expensive and slow to construct. Saving on experimental costs and time is important to maximize the value delivered from research income. The innovation comes in the use of 3D printing.
RC1 further states ‘3D printed method is seemed as an innovation, but not be illustrated in the paper. It just like the authors did one job and wrote it down. The authors have finished the job, but did not find the scientific meaning.’ Again, we disagree. We demonstrate the electrodes give high quality SP data and, importantly, provide detailed design sketches, 3D printing files, and practical hints and tips for construction. Interested readers can use these to create their own electrodes and use these in experiments to find – as we have done in other work – the scientific meaning from high quality SP data.
RC1 concludes: ‘The structure of this paper is also not that appropriate that is more suitable for a patent or trial report. And some words are confused like “Designs are included for both male and female connections to laboratory equipment ”.’ We have taken great care to structure the paper in line with other papers in GI, aiming to serve both as a scientific journal paper and a valuable reference tool for the community that will continue to develop these sensors. The sentence quoted to support the claim that ‘some words are confused’ makes use of commonly used terms for connectors.
RC2 claims the ‘only innovation concerns the 3D printing of the (Ag-AgCl electrodes)’. Indeed, that is the innovation and we believe it will be of interest to the GI journal readership. They state ‘Most of the paper consists of a description of the well-known experiments, which must verify the good performance of the new electrodes.’ Some of the paper is indeed devoted to describing these experiments; as we explain in the text, we need to demonstrate that the new electrodes deliver high quality data, comparable to those constructed using traditional methods. They state ‘It should also be noted that the use of 3D printing is supposed to considerably lighten the manufacturing process, however, we must always intervene on the printed body with tapering tools or lathe.’ We agree, but these final finishing steps to the 3D printed bodies is still considerably less time consuming than traditional manufacture and, as we show, the cost of producing our printed electrodes is much lower. The reviewer concludes ‘I think that all of the new information included in this paper are not adapted for a scientific publication in the GI but may deserve a publication of a note in a more technical journal.’ We respectfully disagree with this view, and believe the content is well suited for publication in GI.
The reviewer suggests some minor corrections which are easy to implement.
We have revised the paper to address these minor corrections, and also emphasize that we report design drawings, practical advice for electrode printing and assembly, and include printable 3D design files to facilitate wide uptake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-AC1 -
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-130', Lev Eppelbaum, 09 Aug 2023
I propose that the MS "3D-printed Ag-AgCl Electrodes for Laboratory Measurements of Self-Potential" by T.S.L. Rowan et al. is interesting and useful for the GI readers and applied geophysicists. I do not understand conclusion of one reviewer "that this MS must be rejected". We have no any reason for it. The MS is now improved and revised. I recommend to publish it.
Prof. Lev Eppelbaum,
Assoc. Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-130-EC1
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 273 | 111 | 28 | 412 | 30 | 15 | 15 |
- HTML: 273
- PDF: 111
- XML: 28
- Total: 412
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 106 | 26 |
| Germany | 2 | 85 | 20 |
| China | 3 | 38 | 9 |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 26 | 6 |
| France | 5 | 22 | 5 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 106
Thomas S. L. Rowan
Vilelmini A. Karantoni
Adrian P. Butler
Matthew D. Jackson
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1232 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(338 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper