Response Letter

We would like to thank the three reviewers for providing their feedback on our paper. We have
carefully examined the comments of the reviewers, and addressed their comments and questions
in the following notes.
Reviewer 1
Overall evaluation: (Accepted with minor corrections)

Comments
1. Add the mathematical model of the
electromagnetic actuation which will
express the influence of design factors on
the performances.
2. A bit detail is required for the FE modeling
to justify the accuracy.
3. Mention the magnetic properties of NdFeB,
which is using as a permanent magnet. In
Table 1, Permanent magnet has thickness of
100 μm. However, the modeling is 2D. So.
what is the use of this dimension?
4. In Fig. 5, what is the number of turns
considered? It is better to show the point of
maximum deflection here.
5. Similarly, it is necessary to mention the
applied current to produce Fig. 6.
6. The statement in the last line of conclusion
is not analyzed or verified in this work. Such
claim in this section is misleading.
7. The manuscript has a lot of typo and several
grammatical problems which need to be
corrected.
8. The formatting of references should be Thank you for your excellent observation. In
consistent and need to be thoroughly revised in the latest version of the paper, we have
this manuscript.
Response
Thank you for your comment. A mathematical
model expressing the magnetic force between
the permanent magnet and micro-coils which
causes the membrane to deflect has been added
in the 2nd paragraph of section II of the revised
manuscript.
The detail of the FE modeling is added to
justify the accuracy in the 1st paragraph of
section III of the latest version of the paper.
Thank you for your kind suggestion. The
magnetic properties of the NdFeB permanent
magnet is mention in the table 1 in the section
II.
The permanent magnet has thickness of 100
μm because the 2D design of the microvalve is
modeled as the cross section of the actual
device.
The number of turn considered in the Fig. 5 is
15 and is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the
section III of the revised manuscript.
To address this comment the applied current to
produce Fig. 6 is mentioned in the 4th
paragraph of the section III.
Thank you for the suggestion. The particular
statement has been discarded from the revised
manuscript.
The typos and the grammatical problems are
corrected in the revised manuscript.
formatted the reference in a consistent order.
 Reviewer 2
Overall evaluation: (Accepted with minor corrections)

Comments Response
1. In the abstract, its not that important to write Thank you for your excellent observation.
element analysis was performed using Now, the modified paper has been written
COMSOL Multiphysics, as from the graph its according to the prescribed structure.
clearly visible and also if required its
recommended to include in Simulation and
Result Analysis paragraph. Abstract always
contains the main theme of the paper with a
short summary of novelty of the work rather
than including how we did this.
2. In the introduction, reference number [1] has To address the comment, the reference number
been used multiple times that doesn't looks [1] is cited just once in the revised manuscript.
good, if its cited just once then it will cover Moreover the reference numbers are given
everything, doesn't required to cite each and sequentially in this version of the paper as per
every lines. Moreover, reference 8 has been recommendation.
cited before reference 7, so recommendation is
to cite sequentially.
3. Scaling in the graph is not perfect and it’s Thank you for the kind suggestion. The graphs
very hard to understand the point/number from in the revised paper has been scaled properly
there. For an example in Fig-6, its very and made more understandable by following
difficult to understand all the points, so my the instructions from this comment.
suggestion is to scale the graph properly like if
its scaled in bigger difference then graph will
look better and everyone can understand easily
from X/Y scale. So it will good if Fig-5,6,7
scale can change to make it more clear/visible.
4. In conclusion, it’s always recommended to Thank you for your excellent suggestion. We
include some future directions of research and have included the future directions and the
also good to define the proper application of scope of improvements in the conclusion of the
this work that will encourage the research revised manuscript.
community to extend this work further.

Reviewer 3
Overall evaluation: (Accepted)

Comments Response
1. Need proof reading for typos Thank you for your observation. The revised
manuscript is proof read for typos and the
grammatical mistakes are also corrected.