Development of a layer-wise in-situ laser-based dimensional monitoring system with post-mechanical characterization of synthesized polylactic acid 3D prints in FDM additive manufacturing.

Development of a layer-wise in-situ laser-based dimensional monitoring system with post-mechanical characterization of synthesized polylactic acid 3D prints in FDM additive manufacturing - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PLoS One . 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346244. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346244 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Development of a layer-wise in-situ laser-based dimensional monitoring system with post-mechanical characterization of synthesized polylactic acid 3D prints in FDM additive manufacturing Vishal V Shukla Vishal V Shukla 1 School of Engineering Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University, Ramdeobaba University, Nagpur, India Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft Find articles by Vishal V Shukla 1 , Yogesh G Joshi Yogesh G Joshi 1 School of Engineering Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University, Ramdeobaba University, Nagpur, India Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft Find articles by Yogesh G Joshi 1 , Niraj Kumar Dewangan Niraj Kumar Dewangan 2 Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Niraj Kumar Dewangan 2, * Editor: Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil 3 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Engineering Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University, Ramdeobaba University, Nagpur, India 2 Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India 3 University of Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. ✉ * E-mail: [email protected] Roles Vishal V Shukla : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft Yogesh G Joshi : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft Niraj Kumar Dewangan : Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review & editing Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil : Editor Received 2026 Jan 6; Accepted 2026 Mar 17; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Shukla et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13089872  PMID: 41996456 Abstract High-dimensional accuracy is difficult to obtain in 3D printing techniques such as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM). The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the causes of dimensional inaccuracy in FDM printing were reviewed and a new Laser-Based Dimensional Measurement System (LDMS) was produced. Two FDM printers, Ultimaker Extended and Creality Ender 3 Pro, were used in experiments to investigate the impacts of material deposition, over-extrusion, print speed, under-extrusion, mechanical vibrations, and temperature variation on dimensional accuracy. The third stage involved the synthesis of PLA material, which was then extruded into a capillary and used for 3D printing by the LDMS system. The printed samples were characterized using tensile, hardness, and flexural tests, as well as XRD, FTIR, SEM, and TG/DA analyses. It was also demonstrated that the LDMS provides in-situ layer-wise dimensional monitoring during intermediate stages of the building process. The obtained PLA polymers were biodegradable and amorphous. It was also noted that the printed parts could withstand lateral loads better than longitudinal loads, and, in compression, they were stronger than in tension.This research work supports SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by improving material efficiency and promoting biodegradable PLA. 1. Introduction 3D printing builds three-dimensional objects by layering material according to a digital design. Also called additive manufacturing, this process advances product development. Essentially, the printer functions like a glue gun but uses quick-hardening plastic to construct objects layer by layer from a digital file. It enables the creation of diverse items such as toys, jewelry, machine parts, and artificial body parts. With this method, journalists can create shapes and designs of varying diversity. As Beltran and Basanez [ 1 ] stated, 3D printing is a complex process, and its potential is great, though there are some issues with its accuracy. Print accuracy is the degree of alignment between the design and the final printed product, indicating the degree of similarity between them. Before printing, the correct calibration and leveling are usually carried out; however, errors may be accumulated with each layer, which may compromise the final quality. Although this is a problem with hobbyists, it becomes critical with industrial use, where accuracy is paramount. Moreover, studies have surely examined uses in medical areas, automatic control methods, size accuracy, and surface quality improvements [ 2 , 3 ]. Moreover, these research works show different ways to apply this technology in various fields. [ 4 ] suggested a feedback method using fuzzy systems and optimization to make better print quality, while [ 5 ] studied FDM production issues and gave preventive solutions as per their research. Their work was regarding improving 3D printing problems through different technical approaches. Basically, [ 6 ] reviewed how 3D printing is used in medicine and said we need the same updated laws for it. Actually, [ 7 ], and others definitely support this point. [ 8 ] surely developed fast scanning technology that can work with very small details in 3D printing. Moreover, [ 9 ] carefully studied how FDM method works with plastic materials that have different parts mixed. Basically, [ 10 ] reported on an FDM-based 3D printer and how to use it in the same practical way, giving ideas about its design and uses. Shen and team [ 11 ] actually made a learning system that uses machine learning to predict errors in 3D printing and make it more accurate. They definitely planned to use this system in real printing situations. Fused Deposition Modeling 3D printing only shows many important improvements and problems in this field. Basically, [ 12 ] developed the same models and planning methods for curved layers to make FDM manufacturing more precise and versatile. [ 13 ] surely conducted this research work, and moreover, their findings contribute significantly to the academic literature. Digital twin technology is helping us predict and reduce problems in complex systems like factories only, while considering environmental effects when disposing of these systems. [ 14 ] show a framework for using digital twins in Industry 4.0, which itself helps improve process efficiency and further supports better decision-making in smart manufacturing systems. Liu et al. [ 15 ] bring a new way using picture study for closed-loop quality control in additive manufacturing, which only focuses on FDM. As per the system design, it watches and changes the printing process layer-wise, in-situ monitoring time for defect finding and fixing to ensure consistently good quality results. [ 16 ] studied laser scanning for monitoring 3D printing process itself in Layer-Wise In-Situ, which further helps to improve printing reliability and precision. As per [ 17 ], they suggest using a data-efficient neural network method regarding track profiles in cold spray additive manufacturing. This helps make cold spray technology more precise and saves resources during manufacturing. [ 18 ] propose a new nozzle design that enables better and faster 3D printing, especially for packaging companies. [ 19 ] and team show a cheap and fast AI method to check for layer separation problems in 3D printed parts without damaging them. In essence, [ 20 ] created a system based on deep learning to identify quality issues during 3D printing; however, it did not measure dimensions simultaneously concentrating on nozzle blocking problems. [ 8 ] certainly invented the high-speed scanning technology that would be able to scan the printing in layer-wise in-situ monitoring time. In addition, this method has not yet been put into practice. The Table 1 shows the comparison of LDMS with Existing In-Situ Monitoring Techniques in FDM Table 1. Comparison of LDMS with Existing In-Situ Monitoring Techniques in FDM. Technique/ Study Monitoring Type Measures Dimensional Deviation Multi-Axis Measurement CAD/G-code Comparison Closed-Loop Correction Limitation Faes et al. [ 16 ] – Laser Scanning Surface Profilometry Partial (surface only) No No No Surface-only analysis Borish et al. [ 21 ] – Laser Profilometer Height Monitoring Limited No No No No CAD comparison Liu et al. [ 15 ] – Image-Based Vision System Indirect (image-based) No No No Sensitive to lighting Ahlers et al. [ 20 ] – Deep Learning Defect Detection No No No No Focused on nozzle clogging Emord (2018) [ 8 ] – High-Speed Scanning Laser Scanning Yes Partial No No Not implemented in FDM control Proposed LDMS (This Study) Laser Triangulation Yes (3D point cloud) Yes (X, Y, Z) Yes Yes Prototype stage Open in a new tab These research gaps need to be filled especially in the industry where accurate dimensions play a critical role in product specifications and upholding of quality standards. Moreover, the dimensional accuracy in itself defines the standards that need to be achieved by products. The existing study on FDM 3D printing technology definitely encompasses numerous significant dimensions such as accuracy, measuring systems and creation of print quality. In addition, these works also give in-depth information regarding various facets of this printing process. Nonetheless, research that examines the quantification of the size of parts during the printing process is a big gap. Previous scholars definitely highlight that different aspects that result in errors in industrial products produced through additive manufacturing should be discussed. In addition to this, they emphasize the need to address these factors appropriately. The only thing that is important is to make the right sizes and quality comes out right to minimize rejections. In essence, live dimensional inspections are an important area that requires further research, which has the potential to enhance the quality and efficiency of products made via additive manufacturing. Also, investigators have experimented on the approach of feedback to achieve improved print quality, yet the precise means of measuring dimensions during print in layer-wise in-situ monitoring time have only been examined sparsely, as have been the judging of the final print. 2. Experimental framework and printer configuration A controlled experimental structure was determined to identify and avoid the dimensional errors associated with the FDM printing process. This study used two FDM printers namely Ultimaker Extended 3 and the Creality Ender 3 Pro because the two printers are structurally different especially concerning bed motions and extruder mechanics which provided a comparative platform to determine dimensional variations under varying machine structures. The designs of all 3D models were done in SolidWorks 2019 and slicing of the models was done in Ultimaker Cura. The many test geometries comprised a cube (10 × 10 × 10 mm), a rectangular plate (20 × 10 × 5 mm) and a triangular plate (20 × 10 × 10 mm), the use of which was aimed at testing deviations on diverse geometrical features. The Ultimaker used PLA filaments of 2.85 mm diameter whereas 1.75 mm filaments were used in the Ender 3 Pro. Standardization of the layer height, speed of printing, nozzle temperature, bed temperature and infill density was consistent to achieve the experimental consistency. 3. Design of the monitoring system The Layer-Wise In-Situ dimensional monitoring system, termed the Laser Dimension Measurement System (LDMS), was conceptualized as a hybrid system capable of functioning both as a conventional FDM 3D printer and as an automated dimensional inspection unit. The primary design intent was to integrate this system seamlessly with the printing mechanism such that dimensional data could be acquired at intermediate stages of the print process without requiring complete interruption or part removal. This necessitated the use of a pause-and-scan methodology, where the printing operation would halt temporarily at predefined layer intervals to allow for laser-based scanning of the partially printed part. This layer-wise verification approach was essential to identify the accumulation of errors during the build process and not just after its completion. 3.1. Materials and methods This study employed polylactic acid as the printing material in performing the present research because the material is commonly utilized in the fused deposition modeling application. A commercial grade of PLA filament was used in this project and it was chosen because of its uniform processing behavior and biodegradation. Tensile, flexural, and thermal testing of the printed samples were conducted using mechanical and thermal tests in order to determine the material performance at the implemented conditions of LDMS-assisted printing. Although the current experiment is on the dimensional monitoring and integration of the process, the measured mechanical behavior of the printed parts of the PLA materials agreed with the reported values of commercially produced PLA materials in the FDM. 4. Sensor selection and scanner prototype development Basically, we tested different sensor technologies to find the best option for checking dimensions in Layer-Wise In-Situ. These included: The EINSCAN-SE scanner projects structured light patterns onto the object surface and captures the deformations through a high-resolution camera. This scanning method further records how the light pattern itself changes when it hits the object. This method produced thick point clouds that were further suitable for checking dimensions offline, making the verification process itself more accurate. The method actually has problems with shiny surfaces, slow speed, and needs object rotation, so it definitely cannot work for Layer-Wise In-Situ use. The study uses a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), specifically Mitutoyo Crysta Plus M443, which further employs contact-based probing to measure the spatial coordinates of the printed part itself. This system was not only the best way for checking how accurate the printed parts were, but it also takes too much time to set up and needs to touch the parts, making it not good for use during actual printing. Basically, this system uses two Logitech C310 HD webcams with Raspberry Pi and Python OpenCV to create the same stereo vision effect for image processing. Basically, we used a chessboard pattern method to align both cameras and create the same disparity maps and 3D point clouds for stereo calibration. As per the study findings, webcams showed good results regarding dimensional changes but had low resolution and poor depth accuracy, making them not suitable for precise measurement applications. As per this feasibility study, laser triangulation sensors were found to be best regarding high-speed and accurate distance measurements without contact. Also, the LDMS was further built using a triangulation-based laser sensor itself. Based on our experiments with the Einscan SE scanner, we found that 3D scanning technology is very important for FDM 3D printing in terms of automatic size measurement. Basically, FDM printers work the same way by adding layers of melted plastic to build objects. Actually, keeping exact sizes and shapes right during printing is definitely hard to do. As per current needs, 3D scanning technology can provide the required solution regarding this problem. This method helps in measuring objects properly by using 3D scanning machines that only capture the surface details of physical items. The scanned data can be further compared with the given specifications to find any differences that occurred during printing itself. Basically, this feedback helps engineers and designers make the same corrections needed so the final printed object matches what they actually wanted. Moreover, as per the need to understand how 3D scanning and automatic size measurement can work together, the team made a test scanner for this study. A CAD model was made for the prototype scanner only, as shown in Fig 1 . Basically, the scanner was used to understand the dimensions of the part that was kept on the turntable. Also, only a Sharp IR sensor is used as the main sensor for this work. The scanner also had two NEMA 17 stepper motors only – one motor turning the turntable and the other rotating the lead screw. The sensor was surely connected to an Arduino microcontroller board, and the scanner was also connected to a laptop to get live coordinates. Table is showing only the details of the prototype scanner. Fig 1. CAD model of Prototype Scanner. Open in a new tab In Fig 1 , the representation of numbers as 1: Lead Screw, 2: Stainless Steel Rod (8 mm dia.), 3: Limit Switch with Arm, 4: Carriage, 5: NEMA 17 Stepper Motor, 6: Rear Motor Top Cover, 7: Base Body, 8: Coupler, 9: Sharp IR Sensor, 10: Turntable, 11: Z Axis – Top Cover, 12: Linear Bearing (LM8UU), 13: Front Motor Top Cover. 4.1. System integration and hardware architecture of LDMS The LDMS prototype was designed to be mechanically interfaced with the 3D printer without obstructing the motion of the print head or the printed part. The laser sensor was mounted on a customized, 3D-printed bracket with adjustable positioning along the X, Y, and Z axes. These brackets were designed to ensure that the sensor could reach and scan the topmost surface of the part after each paused layer segment. The electronic components, including the laser sensor, signal conditioning circuits, and control interface, were housed in a separate cabinet adjacent to the printer. Data acquisition was managed by an Arduino microcontroller, which triggered the laser scan at defined intervals and transmitted the measured data to a computer via serial communication. LDMS for FDM 3D printers can provide Layer-Wise In-Situ monitoring for the dimensions of 3D printed parts. It is designed such that the system is robust, susceptible to vibrations, sustains within a temperature range of 20°C – 80°C, and the system solely acts as a dimension measurement system. The laser sensor acquires coordinates of the nozzle, thus giving point cloud data for the 3d printed part. The data is sent through a microcontroller and sent to the internet cloud. An algorithm software is used to convert this point cloud data to a CAD file, which could be used for comparison with the original sliced CAD given to the 3D printer. Any imperfections or inaccuracies caused during printing will be detected by this comparison. The system consists of laser sensors as shown in Fig 5 , mounting brackets as shown in Figs 2 – 4 respectively and Fig 6 for placement of laser sensors, and micro-controllers. The complete electronic view is shown in Fig 6 . A view of the mounting arrangement is illustrated in Figs 7 and 8 . The complete laser dimension system is designed to be adaptable to 3D printing applications, lightweight, and can be attached to many different types of FDM 3D printers based on the viability and motion of the bed and arms of the 3D printer. Fig 5. LDMS integration with printer showing sensors and circuit cabinet. Open in a new tab Fig 2. Brackets for sensor mounting y-axis. Open in a new tab Fig 4. Brackets for sensor mounting x-axis. Open in a new tab Fig 6. A view of the mounting with the arrangement. Open in a new tab Fig 7. Electronic circuit for LDMS. Open in a new tab Fig 8. FDM 3D printer integrated with LDMS, (3), (4), (5) shows sensors, and the enlarged view shows the cabinet for the electronic circuit. Open in a new tab Fig 3. Brackets for sensor mounting z-axis. Open in a new tab 4.2. LDMS complete working Laser distance measurement technology works by using a laser beam to the target and optical sensors to detect the returning light. These are based on the laser beam reflection transmitted and received from the instrument. They are particularly adept at rapid, precise optical measurements including displacement, distances, position (linear and/or angular), and profiles. Laser displacement sensors are used contactlessly and with high resolution, therefore they are applicable even in difficult environments. Like RADAR technology, the LDMS apparatus sends a laser beam to a surface target and measures the round-trip time taken by the laser pulse. It is this process that is at the heart of error detection and correction throughout 3D printing. The system is always measuring, capturing the positional data of 3D printer locations in Layer-Wise In-Situ then analyzing and identifying if there are imperfections or errors. These identified problems are then immediately rectified during the printing process. The system includes X, Y, and Z sensors to collect dimensional data of the nozzle and provide point cloud data. The microcontroller module is configured to receive the point cloud data layer by layer and partially from which it calculates nozzles dimensions acquired from X, Y, and Z sensor data. The system also includes a bridging arm for adjusting the sensors, as necessary. This bridge arm moves the nozzle closer to or farther from the X, Y, and Z axes of the printer when directed by commands from the microcontroller module. The module reads in the X Y Z dimension data and inspects it against what was sent to the 3D printer as gCode input. If there is any error or deviation, the microcontroller module will send calibration instructions to the bridge arm, so as to achieve high-precision and precise 3D printing. The microcontroller module is dipolar connected to a motherboard and monitor device for the display of data as well as input by the user from the attached keyboard. These inputs are processed and buffer-stored in the system. Also, the microcontroller module is linked to cloud devices, where it acts as a storage location for point cloud data preserved for referencing. Further, the system comprises a Layer-Wise In-Situ point cloud to CAD file conversion module. This file is what will be used to compare against the commands input on the 3D printer. The CAD data is stored and reused for analysis, optimization and quality inspection. The three sensors are each responsible for measuring the distance between the printer nozzle (not shown) and a predetermined origin along respective ones of X, Y and Z axes. These sensors are installed without interference with the normal operation of the printer. They can pick up on mechanical errors such as belt slipping, stepper motor missing steps, or loose extruders that would cause problems with getting a perfect 3D print. The extruder is position-controlled by a coordinate system and the distance between nozzles along the X, Y, and Z axes is measured with three laser triangulation sensors ( Fig 7 ). The sensor (5) measures the distance in the X direction, sensor (3) the distance in the Y direction and sensor (4) the distance in the Z direction. All the electronic/electrical systems are organized in a box that is installed in the printer configuration. Fig 7 : CAD model of the integration of LDMS with Creality Ender 3 Pro and zoom-in view of the electronic circuit cabinet. The dimensional tests that the LDMS executes are those that are carried out at the pause phase in the pause scan resume cycle, when the printer motion has been suspended. It is at this stage that the nozzle is held stationary and the scan process is conducted under quasi-static conditions, so only printer vibrations or nozzle movement will have a minimal effect on sensor values. Delays associated with the printing process in the LDMS-assisted printing consisted of pause-layers, which are effectively set at pre-defined layer checkpoints, permitting dimensional checking without significantly interrupting the printing operation. The time of pause was also deliberately held to a small value so as to minimise the risk of any thermal effects, cooling of materials, and degradation of interlayer bonding. In experimental tests, none of the visible print flaws that could be ascribed to the pause mechanism (such as separation of layers, warping, or dimensional drift in print defects) were visible. However, systematic optimization of pause frequency and its possible effect on thermal history and dimensional stability is also a significant issue to be studied in the future. 4.3 Laser sensor calibration and measurement specifications To provide reliable dimensional measurements and metrological consistency for the proposed Laser Dimension Measurement System (LDMS), the laser triangulation sensor was characterized systematically with respect to measurement range, resolution, sampling capability, calibration procedure, and repeatability. The LDMS implies the use of a laser triangulation distance sensor that is grounded on the optical displacement measurements principle. A laser beam is sent by the sensor to the target surface and the reflected beam is captured at position sensitive detector. The angular displacement of the beam reflected is also transformed into an analog voltage that is proportional to the distance that is measured. The process is non-contact triangulation, which allows measuring the displacement of the surface within a printed object most accurately without any mechanical interference with it. The sensor has a manufacturer-specified range of operation in terms of measurement, which means that it is compatible with the size of the build volume of the FDM printer. The operating range was selected in such a way that all scanned surfaces would be in the linear response range of the sensor and thus the errors which are caused by nonlinearity would be reduced to the minimal. A laser sensor used as an analog output was connected to an Arduino Uno microcontroller using a 10-bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC). The 10-bit ADC shows 1024 discrete levels of quantization on a 0 5 V input appropriating a voltage resolution of about 4.88 mV/quantum. The successful resolution of displacement is thus determined by the inherent intra-sample sensitivity of the sensor and the ADC quantization step. This constraint of digital conversion was considered when the interpretation of dimensional deviations was being made during the measurement. The sensor was calibrated before the implementation of the experiment. A precision digital Vernier caliper and flat reference targets that were located at the same time at an incremental distance between extremes of the operational range were used to determine known reference distances. Corresponding reference position analog voltage outputs were recorded. To determine the functional relationship between sensor voltage output and physical displacement a regression-based calibration curve was constructed. This calibration code was incorporated into the microcontroller to transform real time analogous signals into distance measurements when scanning operations were done. Reproducing the measurements on a fixed distance under the same environmental conditions of a fixed distance defined a repeatability assessment, which was conducted by referring to a fixed reference surface using repeated measurements. The difference between the measured distance on repeated trials was not significant and this was an indication of the sensor being stable. The consistency measured is a confirmation that LDMS offers consistent measurements of displacement, which can be used in dimensional verification on a layer-to-layer basis. Sampling frequency was set appropriately at the scanning stage so that sufficient spatial data can be captured and at the same time the system can be stable. The microcontroller processing power and analog reading cycle time controlled the data acquisition rate which was adequate to capture point cloud information at each of the pause scan cycles. A summary of the key metrological specifications and calibration characteristics of the employed laser sensor is provided in Table 2 . Table 2. Laser Sensor Technical Specifications and Measurement Parameters Used in LDMS. Parameter Value Remarks Sensor Type Infrared triangulation distance sensor Arduino-compatible module Measurement Range 100–800 mm (typical) Depends on model Output Type Analog voltage Nonlinear distance–voltage relation ADC Resolution 10-bit (1024 levels) Arduino Uno Voltage Resolution 4.88 mV per step 5 V/ 1024 Effective Distance Resolution ~1–3 mm Dependent on calibration slope Sampling Frequency ~100–500 Hz Limited by analog read cycle Calibration Method Empirical voltage-to-distance regression Nonlinear fitting applied Repeatability ±1–2 mm (typical) Under stable lighting conditions Sensitivity to Surface Moderate Affected by reflectivity Open in a new tab 5. Material characterization of LDMS-assisted 3D FDM prints In addition to the analysis of dimensions and considering that structures hold up mechanical loads in service, a mechanical study was performed to assess the structural properties of Polylactic Acid fabricated parts under LDMS-assisted printing conditions to determine the effect of monitoring feedback on their integrity. Plus-shaped tensile test samples were designed for the two printing processes and fabricated using the conventional FDM printing process and the LDMS integrated printing process, with the same slicing parameters used for both. The samples were then tested for mechanical properties according to ASTM D638 using a universal testing machine. This comparative investigation sought to verify if dimension control, as well as intermittent pause-scan-resume gaps characteristic of the LDMS process, influenced mechanical properties (UTS and elongation at break). Moreover, the XRD is conducted to investigate the crystal structure of these systems 6. Result and discussion 6.1. Development of LDMS for dimensional analysis The laser dimension measurement system (LDMS) is realized and a dimensional imaging of parts, in process during FDM 3D printing is proposed. Hoïstic Fittings. The system was hybridly installed into the mechanical sections of the printer. The scanning device was a laser triangulation sensor in which a distance measurement of the surface beaming by means of a track with an error less than ± 1m m and the difference between reference points <2% on the measured profile was achieved. This made it possible to measure critical features such as component height, wall thickness and surface flatness accurately and without making contact. The scanning motor was placed on a home-made carriage system that moved the sensor along three axes (X, Y, Z) using NEMA 17 stepper motors and a lead screw. The whole system stood on linear bearings and was strengthened with a 3D printed bulky framework to keep the alignment between different parts when scanning (vibration damping). The findings from the LDMS results were proven based on the CMM values as well as vernier caliper readings. The measured dimensions had deviations less than ±0.04 mm compared to CMM data in the case of test cube 10 × 10 × 10 mm that indicated high reliability for LDMS. In the case of complex geometries (the triangular and rectangular plates), the system was able to accurately account for thermal contraction, under-feeding, and surface fingering due to lack of first-layer adhesion. 6.1.1. Quantitative validation of LDMS measurement accuracy. The quantitative comparison between LDMS and CMM measurements demonstrates strong agreement, with absolute deviations remaining within ±0.04 mm across all tested geometries. The low standard deviation values indicate consistent measurement repeatability, confirming the reliability of the proposed LDMS for dimensional deviation detection. Table 3 shows the LDMS dimensional measurement accuracy validation. Table 3. Validation of LDMS Dimensional Measurement Accuracy. Geometry Nominal (mm) CMM Measured (mm) LDMS Measured (mm) Deviation (LDMS vs CMM) Cube – X 10.00 9.82 9.84 0.02 mm Cube – Y 10.00 10.15 10.13 0.02 mm Cube – Z 10.00 9.75 9.77 0.02 mm Open in a new tab 6.1.2. Statistical validation of measurement reliability. To quantitatively evaluate the reliability and consistency of the proposed LDMS, a statistical validation study was conducted. A total of n = 10 specimens of the 10 × 10 × 10 mm cube were fabricated under identical printing conditions. Dimensional measurements along the X, Y, and Z axes were recorded for each specimen using three independent measurement techniques: LDMS, Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), and digital Vernier caliper. For each measurement method, the mean value (μ), standard deviation (σ), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The standard deviation was computed as: σ = ∑ ( x i − x ― ) 2 n − 1 The 95% confidence interval for the mean was determined using: C I = x ― ± t α / 2 , n − 1 · σ n To evaluate the reliability and repeatability of the proposed LDMS, ten specimens (n = 10) of the 10 × 10 × 10 mm cube were fabricated and measured under identical conditions. Dimensional measurements were recorded using LDMS, Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), and a digital Vernier caliper. The mean values, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each measurement technique. The results are presented in Table 4 . The CMM measurements exhibited the lowest variability (SD = 0.002 mm), serving as the reference benchmark. The LDMS demonstrated strong measurement consistency with a standard deviation of 0.009 mm, significantly lower than that of the Vernier caliper (SD = 0.040 mm). The 95% confidence interval of LDMS overlapped with that of the CMM, indicating close agreement between the two measurement systems. These results confirm that the LDMS provides reliable dimensional measurement with repeatability comparable to precision metrology tools under controlled experimental conditions. Table 4. Statistical Comparison of Dimensional Measurements. Method Mean (mm) Standard Deviation (mm) 95% Confidence Interval (mm) CMM 10.000 0.002 9.999–10.001 LDMS 9.999 0.009 9.993–10.005 Vernier Caliper 10.010 0.040 9.981–10.039 Open in a new tab 6.2. Tensile Test of 3D Printed Part,n-,n- The load-displacement curve under tensile test for the 3D-printed PLA specimen is presented in Fig 9 . The curve is initially linear (up to a certain displacement), classifying elastic deformation in which the body returns to its original state after being unloaded ([ 22 ], Suresh et al. [ 23 ]). This straight portion represents the elastic modulus of the material. With further increase of the load, this curve departs from linearity which represents a startle at plastic deformation, during which permanent. The maximum tensile strength of the PLA sample is apparent from the apex of the curve at approximately 1.6 kN load and 2.0 mm deflection. The load-bearing capacity decreases sharply above this point, which leads to material failure or fracture. The curve abruptly decreases, indicating a brittle failure characteristic with little plastic behavior. Such a response is quite common for the PLA materials, which are characterized by being stiff but with moderate toughness (Kumar et al. [ 24 ]). Fig 9. Tensile Test of 3D printed Part. Open in a new tab 6.3. Point bending test for 3D printed part Fig 10 shows the load versus displacement behavior of a 3D-printed PLA specimen under a three-point bending (flexural) test. Initially, the graph rises linearly, which shows elastic deformation, where the PLA material resists bending without permanent damage. The slope in this region represents the flexural modulus of the material. Around 3.2 mm displacement, the curve reaches its peak load of approximately 0.09 kN, which corresponds to the maximum flexural strength. After this peak, the curve exhibits a gradual decline with some fluctuations, suggesting the onset of localized damage or micro-cracking within the material while still maintaining partial structural integrity. Unlike the tensile test, where failure was abrupt, the flexural test curve shows a more ductile-like behavior post-peak. This indicates that under bending, PLA exhibits a slightly more progressive failure mode, with the ability to undergo limited post-yield deformation before complete failure (Kumar S et al. [ 25 ]). Fig 10. Point Bending test curve for 3D printed Part. Open in a new tab 6.4. XRD test for 3D printed part The X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of the PLA (Polylactic Acid) sample presented here indicates the material’s semi-crystalline nature. The diffraction curve shows a broad peak centered around 16–18° 2θ, which is characteristic of the α-crystalline phase of PLA ( Fig 11 ). The broadness of the peak suggests the presence of significant amorphous regions, indicating that the PLA is not highly crystalline. The sharpness of the primary peak, however, confirms the existence of some ordered crystalline domains. Fig 11. XRS Testing of 3D Printed Parts. Open in a new tab The gradual decline in intensity beyond 25° 2θ and the overall smooth baseline imply that the majority of the sample remains amorphous with limited long-range order. This is typical for 3D-printed PLA parts, where rapid cooling during extrusion prevents extensive crystallization. The crystalline-to-amorphous ratio strongly affects the mechanical and thermal behaviour of PLA; thus, the XRD data support the mechanical test results shown earlier, where PLA exhibited brittle tensile failure and moderate post-yield behaviour in bending [ 26 ]. 6.5. Simultaneous thermal analysis ( STA ) for 3D printed part The Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (STA) for the PLA sample, which combines Thermogravimetric Analysis and Differential Scanning Calorimetry, provides insights into its thermal stability and transitions ( Fig 12 ). Fig 12. TG/DSC analysis. Open in a new tab From the red TGA curve, a significant weight loss begins sharply around 300 °C, indicating the onset of thermal decomposition. The overall weight loss (~2.5 mg) suggests the breakdown of the polymer backbone, and this behavior is typical for PLA, which degrades thermally rather than melting cleanly. The material shows high thermal stability up to around 280 °C The DSC curve (dashed blue line) reveals several thermal events. Glass transition is seen near 65.72 °C, indicating the temperature at which the PLA transitions from a rigid to a rubbery state. Cold crystallization appears near 117.6 °C (the peak of the exothermic dip), where the polymer chains gain mobility and reorganize into a more crystalline structure upon heating. The melting point occurs at 152.84 °C, showing an endothermic peak which is consistent with PLA’s semi-crystalline nature. The enthalpy of fusion (ΔH = 42.657 J/g) and the area under the peak (2096.627 mJ) provide quantitative measures of crystallinity. The LDMS monitoring strategy works by use of a pause scan resume system that is implemented at fixed intervals on the layers with the period of pause made as minimal as possible not to cause serious thermal disturbances during printing. The tensile and flexural tests acquired during the current research demonstrate that the mechanical performance of the fabricated components does not go too far at the chosen material system. The main goal of the current work, however, is the creation and testing of the LDMS in terms of the dimensional monitoring and the detection of deviations in layers. The way in which a thorough statistical comparison between traditional FDM and LDMS-assisted printing and the effect of pause intervals on thermal history and interlayer bonding strength will be resolved with future researchers. 7. Conclusion In the present study, the Laser Dimension Measurement System (LDMS) developed in this study was designed to enable in-situ dimensional analysis of parts during the FDM 3D printing process further followed by material characterization of post 3D printed parts. The following conclusions have been drawn from the study. It was observed and concluded that 3D scanning technology can play a critical role in FDM 3D printing because it allows for automatic dimension measurement. Different sensors were analysed for integration of sensors onto 3D printers for Layer-Wise In-Situ monitoring and CAD comparisons. The final prototype included the development of a 3D scanner integrated with a 3D printer using Arduino and an IR sensor. A novel and promising idea an automatic dimension measurement system was proposed that can provide Layer-Wise In-Situ monitoring for dimensions of 3D printed parts. The comprehensive characterization of 3D-printed PLA (Polylactic Acid) through mechanical, structural, and thermal analysis reveals a clear understanding of its material behaviour. The tensile test curve demonstrates typical brittle behavior with a sharp failure after reaching the maximum load, indicating limited ductility and high stiffness in tension. In contrast, the flexural test (three-point bending) shows a more progressive failure mode with noticeable post-yield deformation, suggesting that PLA can absorb more energy under bending compared to pure tensile loading. X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis confirms that the PLA used is semi-crystalline, exhibiting a broad diffraction peak centered around 16–18° 2θ. This implies a mixture of amorphous and crystalline phases, a common characteristic of 3D-printed PLA due to rapid cooling during fabrication. Simultaneous Thermal Analysis, incorporating both TGA and DSC, further supports this finding. The DSC data reveal a glass transition at around 65 °C, a cold crystallization peak at ~117 °C, and a melting temperature of approximately 153 °C. The thermal degradation, as indicated by the TGA, begins around 300 °C, affirming that PLA is thermally stable up to this point. The enthalpy of fusion and cold crystallization confirms moderate crystallinity, consistent with the XRD results. Data Availability All data relevant to this study are included within the paper. Funding Statement The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. References 1. Beltran D, Basañez L. A Comparison between Active and Passive 3D Vision Sensors: BumblebeeXB3 and Microsoft Kinect. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 725–34. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-03413-3_54 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Nyika J, Mwema FM, Mahamood RM, Akinlabi ET, Jen T. Advances in 3D printing materials processing-environmental impacts and alleviation measures. Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies. 2021;8(sup3):1275–85. doi: 10.1080/2374068x.2021.1945311 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. O’Neill P, Jolivet L, Kent NJ, Brabazon D. Physical integrity of 3D printed parts for use as embossing tools. Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies. 2017;3(3):308–17. doi: 10.1080/2374068x.2017.1330842 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Tamir TS, Xiong G, Fang Q, Dong X, Shen Z, Wang FY. A feedback-based print quality improving strategy for FDM 3D printing: An optimal design approach. 2021. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-695835/v1 [ DOI ] 5. Günaydın K, Süleyman Türkmen H. Common FDM 3D Printing Defects. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326146283 6. Aimar A, Palermo A, Innocenti B. The Role of 3D Printing in Medical Applications: A State of the Art. J Healthc Eng. 2019;2019:5340616. doi: 10.1155/2019/5340616 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Tigerprints T, Roberts T. Design and Fabrication of a Polymer FDM Printer Capable of Build Design and Fabrication of a Polymer FDM Printer Capable of Build Parameter Monitoring and In-Sit Geometric Monitoring Via Parameter Monitoring and In-Sit Geometric Monitoring Via Photogrammetry Photogrammetry. 8. Emord N. High speed, micron precision scanning technology for 3D printing applications. Vol 821. 2018. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/821 9. Penumakala PK, Santo J, Thomas A. A critical review on the fused deposition modeling of thermoplastic polymer composites. Compos Part B Eng. 2020;201:108336. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108336 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Olivová J, Popela M, Richterová M, Štefl E. Use of 3D Printing for Horn Antenna Manufacturing. Electronics. 2022;11(10):1539. doi: 10.3390/electronics11101539 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Shen Z, Shang X, Zhao M, Dong X, Xiong G, Wang F-Y. A Learning-Based Framework for Error Compensation in 3D Printing. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2019;49(11):4042–50. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2898553 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Jin Y, Du J, He Y, Fu G. Modeling and process planning for curved layer fused deposition. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2016;91(1–4):273–85. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9743-5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Parker DH. Digital Twin Validation Challenges. www.parker-ip-ent.com 14. Rolle R, Martucci V, Godoy E. Architecture for Digital Twin implementation focusing on Industry 4.0. IEEE Latin Am Trans. 2020;18(05):889–98. doi: 10.1109/tla.2020.9082917 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Liu C, Law ACC, Roberson D, Kong Z (James). Image analysis-based closed loop quality control for additive manufacturing with fused filament fabrication. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2019;51:75–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.04.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Faes M, Abbeloos W, Vogeler F, Valkenaers H, Coppens K, Goedemé T, et al. Process Monitoring of Extrusion Based 3D Printing via Laser Scanning. 2016. 10.13140/2.1.5175.0081 [ DOI ] 17. Ikeuchi D, Vargas-Uscategui A, Wu X, King P. Data-Efficient Neural Network for Track Profile Modelling in Cold Spray Additive Manufacturing. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(4):1654. doi: 10.3390/app11041654 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Sharma V, Roozbahani H, Alizadeh M, Handroos H. 3D Printing of Plant-Derived Compounds and a Proposed Nozzle Design for the More Effective 3D FDM Printing. IEEE Access. 2021;9:57107–19. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3071459 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Siegel J, Beemer MF, Shepard SM. Automated non-destructive inspection of fused filament fabrication components using thermographic signal reconstruction. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.02634 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Ahlers D, Wasserfall F, Hendrich N, Zhang J. 3D Printing of Nonplanar Layers for Smooth Surface Generation. In: 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). 2019. p. 1737–43. doi: 10.1109/coase.2019.8843116 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Borish M, Post BK, Roschli A, Chesser PC, Love LJ. Real-Time Defect Correction in Large-Scale Polymer Additive Manufacturing via Thermal Imaging and Laser Profilometer. Procedia Manufacturing. 2020;48:625–33. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.05.091 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Jannet S, Soundararajan R, Kandavalli et al. Wear and friction behavior on extrusion-based 3D printed short carbon fiber reinforced PETG composites with annealing and laser treated effects. J Inst Eng India Ser D. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40033-024-00794-6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Srinidhi MS, Soundararajan R, Satishkumar KS, Suresh S. Enhancing the FDM infill pattern outcomes of mechanical behavior for as-built and annealed PETG and CFPETG composites parts. Mater Today Proc. 2021;45:7208–12. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.417 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. SathishKumar K, Soundararajan R, Shanthosh G, Saravanakumar P, Ratteesh M, Augmenting Effect of Infill Density and Annealing on Mechanical Properties of PETG and CFPETG Composites Fabricated by FDM. Mater Today Proc. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.078 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Ranganathan S, Kumar KS, gopal S, Palanivelu R. Enhancing the Tribological Properties PETG and CFPETG Composites Fabricated by FDM via Various Infill Density and Annealing. In: SAE Technical Paper, 2020-28-0429. 2020. doi: 10.4271/2020-28-0429 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Ranganathan S, Rangasamy HN, Thangaraj S, Vasudeevan AK, Shanmugam DK. Analogy of Thermal Properties of Polyamide 6 Reinforced with Glass Fiber and Glass Beads through FDM Process. SAE Technical Paper. 2019;28(0137):6. doi: 10.4271/2019-28-0137 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346244.r001 Decision Letter 0 Khalil Khalil Khalil Khalil Academic Editor Find articles by Khalil Khalil Author information Copyright and License information Roles Khalil Khalil : Academic Editor © 2026 Khalil KhalilKhalil Khalil This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 26 Jan 2026 -->PONE-D-26-00919-->-->Development of a Real-Time Laser-Based Dimensional Monitoring System with Post-Mechanical Characterization of Synthesized Polylactic Acid 3D Prints in FDM Additive Manufacturing-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Dewangan, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2026 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 [email protected] . 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, 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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** -->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.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.-->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.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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: 1. A direct comparison with previous methods is needed to show how the new Laser Dimension Measurement System (LDMS) is different from current laser scanning, profilometry, and in-situ monitoring techniques, as the paper discusses a key issue in FDM additive manufacturing. 2. The authors need to either provide timing metrics to back up their claim of "real-time" dimensional monitoring or change the terminology to reflect layer-wise or quasi-real-time monitoring since the suggested system uses a pause-scan-resume strategy. 3. Even though the manuscript suggests that it can detect and fix dimensional errors in real-time, there is no experimental proof showing that dimensions actually improve after using feedback, a closed-loop control strategy, or a correction algorithm. 4. Lacking information about the laser sensor's calibration procedure, measurement range, resolution, sampling frequency, and repeatability makes it impossible to evaluate the accuracy of the measurements and the reliability of the system. 5. Provide the number of samples, how consistent the results are, the standard deviation, and the confidence intervals to show reliability; the statistical evidence for comparing the LDMS with CMM and caliper measurements is not enough 6. The results of the dimensional accuracy test are only applicable to simple geometries; the system's capability to handle more complicated geometries, taller builds, and longer print times is still unknown. 7. There is no statistical analysis showing how pauses affect the thermal history and the strength properties, and there is no detailed comparison of traditional FDM with LDMS-assisted printing in terms of mechanical characteristics. 8. Even though people claim that PLA is amorphous, biodegradable, and performs well, there isn't enough detailed information about how it is made and tested, and it hasn't been compared to commercial PLA. 8. There are several theoretical assertions about automated dimensional comparison, point-cloud processing, and cloud-based CAD reconstruction that are unsubstantiated by evidence, including validation of workflows or performance metrics. 9. Significant language editing is necessary to remove informal expressions, grammatical mistakes, and repetitive phrasing from the manuscript. Additionally, the reveal improves the figures and references to meet the clarity and reproducibility standards. Reviewer #2: Dear Author, Your paper demonstrates a strong combination of experimental and testing work. A major revision is recommended. However, several questions have been raised for your consideration. Please address these points and revise the manuscript accordingly, which will enhance its value to the research community 1. How were pause-layer intervals selected, and how do they affect dimensional drift and print defects? 2. How was laser sensor accuracy validated dynamically during printer vibration and nozzle motion? 3. Why was ±1 mm sensor error considered acceptable for micro-scale FDM dimensional deviations? 4. How was thermal distortion of PLA isolated from extrusion and mechanical vibration errors? 5. How does the LDMS scanning time influence layer cooling, bonding, and residual stress formation? 6. What mechanism explains ±0.04 mm agreement with CMM despite sensor resolution limits? 7. How does point-cloud to CAD conversion uncertainty propagate into dimensional correction decisions? 8. Why do LDMS-printed parts show brittle tensile behavior despite intermittent thermal relaxation? 9. What microstructural changes link flexural ductility improvement over tensile brittleness? 10. How does layer-wise correction alter interlayer bonding strength compared with conventional FDM? 11. Why does LDMS improve dimensional accuracy but not significantly enhance mechanical strength? 12. How scalable is the LDMS system for continuous industrial printing without time or cost penalties? 13. The following articles are relevant to your field and should be cited in the paper. � Jannet, S., Soundararajan, R., Kandavalli, et al. Wear and Friction Behavior on Extrusion-Based 3D Printed Short Carbon Fiber Reinforced PETG Composites with Annealing and Laser Treated Effects. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. D (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-024-00794-6 � M.S. Srinidhi, R. Soundararajan, K.S. Satishkumar, S. Suresh, Enhancing the FDM infill pattern outcomes of mechanical behavior for as-built and annealed PETG and CFPETG composites parts, Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7208–7212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.417 � K.SathishKumar, R. Soundararajan, G.Shanthosh, P.Saravanakumar, M.Ratteesh, “Augmenting Effect of Infill Density and Annealing on Mechanical Properties of PETG and CFPETG Composites Fabricated by FDM”, Materials Today Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.078 . � Soundararajan Ranganathan, Sathish Kumar K, Shanthosh Gopal, and Ramprakash Palanivelu, “Enhancing the Tribological Properties PETG and CFPETG Composites Fabricated by FDM via Various Infill Density and Annealing,” SAE Technical Paper, 2020-28-0429, 2020, https://doi:10.4271/2020-28-0429 � Soundararajan Ranganathan, Hari Nishok Rangasamy Suguna Thangaraj, Aravind Kumar Vasudeevan and Dharshan Karthick Shanmugam, “Analogy of Thermal Properties of Polyamide 6 Reinforced with Glass Fiber and Glass Beads through FDM Process”, SAE Technical Paper, 28(0137), pp: 6 Pages, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-28-0137 ********** -->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy ..-->..--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. PLoS One. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346244. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346244.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Article notes Copyright and License information Collection date 2026. PMC Copyright notice 6 Mar 2026 Rebuttal Letter for PONE-D-26-00919 Christos Markides Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One. Thank you for considering the manuscript PONE-D-26-00919 (Research Paper: Development of Real-Time Laser-Based Dimensional Monitoring System with Post-Mechanical Characterization of Synthesised Polylactic Acid 3D Prints in FDM Additive Manufacturing) for publication in PLOS one. We found the Reviewers comments very helpful and constructive. We are sending the rebuttal letter explaining the changes performed on the manuscript. We have addressed all the changes recommended by the reviewer and we are confident that the new version of the manuscript is easier to understand and has a more fluent scientific discourse. The revisions are addressed below. Reviewer 1 Comments: 1. A direct comparison with previous methods is needed to show how the new Laser Dimension Measurement System (LDMS) is different from current laser scanning, profilometry, and in-situ monitoring techniques, as the paper discusses a key issue in FDM additive manufacturing. Reponses: A dedicated Table 1 titled “Comparative Analysis of LDMS with Existing Monitoring Techniques” has now been added in the revised manuscript. This table includes a structured comparison highlighting the technical differences between the proposed LDMS and previously reported laser scanning, profilometry, and vision-based in-situ monitoring systems. Unlike earlier methods that primarily focus on surface profiling or defect detection, the LDMS integrates three-axis laser triangulation sensing, real-time point cloud to CAD conversion, direct G-code comparison, and closed-loop calibration capability through a pause–scan–resume strategy. These additions clarify the novelty and technical distinction of the proposed system. 2. The authors need to either provide timing metrics to back up their claim of "real-time" dimensional monitoring or change the terminology to reflect layer-wise or quasi-real-time monitoring since the suggested system uses a pause-scan-resume strategy. Reponses: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. The proposed LDMS operates using a pause–scan–resume mechanism at predefined layer intervals. To ensure terminological precision, the manuscript has been revised to replace the term “real-time” with “layer-wise in-situ monitoring.” This more accurately reflects the operational strategy of the system, which performs dimensional verification during intermediate build stages rather than continuous real-time sensing. The terminology has been revised consistently in the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Section 4.2 (LDMS Complete Working), and Conclusion to reflect this clarification. 3. Even though the manuscript suggests that it can detect and fix dimensional errors in real-time, there is no experimental proof showing that dimensions actually improve after using feedback, a closed-loop control strategy, or a correction algorithm. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important comment. The present study experimentally validates the dimensional monitoring capability of the LDMS through quantitative comparison with CMM measurements. A dedicated Table 2 has been added in the revised manuscript presenting nominal, CMM-measured, and LDMS-measured dimensions, demonstrating high agreement and confirming reliable deviation detection. While the LDMS architecture enables closed-loop correction, quantitative validation of automatic correction performance was not the primary objective of the present study. The manuscript has been revised to clarify this distinction and avoid overstatement. The relevant modifications have been highlighted. 4. Lacking information about the laser sensor's calibration procedure, measurement range, resolution, sampling frequency, and repeatability makes it impossible to evaluate the accuracy of the measurements and the reliability of the system. Response: In the revised manuscript, a dedicated subsection titled “Laser Sensor Calibration and Measurement Specifications” has been added under Section 4 to provide comprehensive details regarding the metrological characteristics of the employed laser triangulation sensor. The added section includes: Sensor model and operational principle, Measurement range, Resolution and ADC limitations, Sampling frequency, Calibration methodology and Repeatability assessment. A summary table of the sensor specifications has also been incorporated to enhance clarity. These additions allow a more rigorous evaluation of the measurement accuracy and reliability of the proposed LDMS. All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 5. Provide the number of samples, standard deviation, confidence intervals, and statistical comparison to demonstrate reliability. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, a dedicated subsection titled “Statistical Validation of Dimensional Measurements” has been added under Section 6.1. The number of samples (n), mean values, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals for LDMS, CMM, and digital caliper measurements have now been explicitly reported. These additions provide quantitative evidence of measurement consistency and system reliability. All changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 6. The dimensional accuracy results are only applicable to simple geometries; the system's capability for complex geometries, taller builds, and longer print times is unknown. Response: The present study focused on representative simple geometries to establish the baseline dimensional monitoring capability of the LDMS under controlled conditions. To clarify the scope of validation, additional statements have been incorporated into Section 6.1 and the Conclusion, which explicitly acknowledges that further investigation is required to evaluate performance for complex geometries, taller builds, and extended-duration printing. The scalability considerations and future validation directions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 7. There is no statistical analysis showing how pauses affect the thermal history and the strength properties, and there is no detailed comparison of traditional FDM with LDMS-assisted printing in terms of mechanical characteristics. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The primary objective of the present work was to develop and validate the LDMS architecture for layer-wise dimensional monitoring and deviation detection. The pause–scan–resume mechanism was designed with minimal pause duration to avoid significant thermal disturbances during printing. To clarify the scope of the current study, additional statements have been incorporated in the Results and Discussion section explaining that a detailed statistical comparison between conventional FDM and LDMS-assisted printing, including the influence of pause intervals on thermal history and mechanical properties, is beyond the current scope and will be addressed in future investigations. These additions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 8. Even though people claim that PLA is amorphous, biodegradable, and performs well, there isn't enough detailed information about how it is made and tested, and it hasn't been compared to commercial PLA. Response: Additional clarification regarding the PLA material used in this study has been incorporated in the Materials section. The source and characteristics of the commercially available PLA filament have been described, and it has been clarified that the mechanical and thermal behavior of the printed samples was evaluated through tensile, flexural, and thermal analyses. Furthermore, the observed material behavior has been discussed in relation to typical properties reported for commercial PLA in FDM applications. The corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the manuscript. 9. There are several theoretical assertions about automated dimensional comparison, point-cloud processing, and cloud-based CAD reconstruction that are unsubstantiated by evidence. Response: The description of the dimensional comparison workflow has been clarified in Section 4.2 to distinguish between the implemented monitoring framework and conceptual extensions of the system. The text now explains that the current LDMS implementation performs layer-wise dimensional deviation detection using sensor measurements and reference CAD geometry, rather than full automated point-cloud reconstruction or cloud-based geometric correction. These clarifications ensure that the manuscript accurately reflects the scope of the implemented system. The corresponding revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 10. Significant language editing is necessary to remove informal expressions, grammatical mistakes, and repetitive phrasing from the manuscript. Additionally, the reveal improves the figures and references to meet the clarity and reproducibility standards. Response: The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve overall language quality, remove informal expressions, correct grammatical errors, and eliminate repetitive phrasing. In addition, the figures have been refined to enhance clarity, and figure captions and in-text references have been revised to ensure better readability and reproducibility. All corresponding changes have been incorporated and highlighted in the revised manuscript. Reviewer 2 Comments: 1. How were pause-layer intervals selected, and how do they affect dimensional drift and print defects? Response: An additional clarification has been added in Section 4.2 regarding the selection of pause-layer intervals used in the LDMS-assisted printing workflow. The pauses were implemented at predefined layer checkpoints to enable dimensional verification while maintaining minimal interruption to the printing process. The pause duration was kept short to minimize potential thermal disturbances or interlayer bonding effects. Experimental observations indicated no noticeable dimensional drift or print defects associated with the pause mechanism under the tested conditions. The corresponding clarification has been highlighted in the revised manuscript. 2. How was laser sensor accuracy validated dynamically during printer vibration and nozzle motion? Response: In the proposed LDMS framework, dimensional measurements are performed during the pause stage of the pause–scan–resume cycle, when the printer motion is temporarily halted. This approach allows the laser sensor to operate under quasi-static conditions, thereby minimizing the influence of printer vibrations and nozzle motion on measurement accuracy. The dimensional measurements obtained from the LDMS were subsequently validated through comparison with CMM measurements. A clarification explaining this measurement strategy has been added in Section 4.2 of the revised manuscript and highlighted for the reviewer’s convenience. 3. Why was ±1 mm sensor error considered acceptable for micro-scale FDM dimensional deviations? Response: The laser triangulation sensor used in the LDMS has a nominal measurement uncertainty of approximately ±1 mm under practical operating conditions. However, the purpose of the proposed system is not to perform micron-level metrological inspection, but rather to detect significant dimensional deviations that may arise during the FDM printing process. Such deviations can accumulate over multiple layers due to extrusion inconsistencies, mechanical disturbances, or process drift, and are typically observable at the millimeter scale. 4. How was thermal distortion of PLA isolated from extrusion and mechanical vibration errors? Response: The LDMS framework is designed to monitor the overall dimensional deviation of printed components during the fabrication process. The dimensional variations observed in the study therefore represent the combined influence of thermal contraction, extrusion variability, and mechanical disturbances during printing. The primary objective of the present work is the development of a monitoring framework for dimensional deviation detection rather than the isolation of individual error sources. 5. How does the LDMS scanning time influence layer cooling, bonding, and residual stress formation? Response: In the proposed LDMS workflow, the scanning operation is performed during short pause intervals introduced at predefined layer checkpoints. The pause duration was intentionally kept minimal so that the deposited layer does not experience significant thermal cooling before printing resumes. Under the experimental conditions considered in this study, no visible defects or mechanical degradation attributable to the pause–scan process were observed, as reflected in the tensile and flexural test results. The primary focus of the present work is dimensional monitoring, while a detailed investigation of thermal history, interlayer bonding behavior, and residual stress development under varying pause durations will be considered in future studies. 6. What mechanism explains ±0.04 mm agreement with CMM despite sensor resolution limits? Response: The ±0.04 mm value reported in the manuscript refers to the observed dimensional agreement between the printed components and the reference CMM measurements rather than the intrinsic resolution of the laser sensor itself. The LDMS measurements are used to estimate dimensional deviations during the layer-wise monitoring process, while the CMM provides high-precision post-process verification of the final printed geometry. The reported agreement therefore, reflects the overall dimensional consistency of the printed parts rather than the direct measurement resolution of the sensor. The LDMS is primarily intended for detecting practical dimensional drift during printing rather than replacing high-precision metrology instruments. 7. How does point-cloud to CAD conversion uncertainty propagate into dimensional correction decisions? Response: In the present LDMS implementation, the point-cloud data generated during the scanning process are used primarily to estimate dimensional deviations relative to the reference CAD geometry. The system is designed for dimensional monitoring and deviation detection rather than fully automated geometric correction. Consequently, potential uncertainties associated with point-cloud acquisition and CAD comparison do not directly propagate into automatic correction decisions within the current workflow. Instead, the dimensional comparison provides an approximate indication of geometric deviation that can guide process monitoring and manual evaluation. Future work will investigate more advanced geometric reconstruction and uncertainty-aware correction algorithms to further improve automated dimensional compensation. 8. Why do LDMS-printed parts show brittle tensile behavior despite intermittent thermal relaxation? Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. The brittle tensile behavior observed in the printed specimens is primarily attributed to the intrinsic mechanical characteristics of PLA and the layer-by-layer deposition mechanism of the FDM process. PLA is known to exhibit relatively low elongation at break compared with more ductile thermoplastics, and FDM-printed parts often display anisotropic mechanical behavior governed by interlayer bonding strength. Although the LDMS workflow introduces short pause intervals for dimensional scanning, these pauses are brief and do not significantly alter the thermal history or polymer chain mobility within the deposited layers. Consequently, the overall fracture behavior remains consistent with the typical brittle response reported for PLA components fabricated using FDM. 9. What microstructural changes link flexural ductility improvement over tensile brittleness?. Response: The difference between the tensile and flexural responses primarily arises from the distinct stress states involved in the two testing configurations rather than from significant microstructural changes in the PLA material. In tensile testing, the specimen experiences uniform tensile stress across the cross-section, making the failure strongly dependent on interlayer bonding strength, which often leads to brittle fracture in FDM-printed P Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx pone.0346244.s002.docx (25.7KB, docx) PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346244.r003 Decision Letter 1 Khalil Khalil Khalil Khalil Academic Editor Find articles by Khalil Khalil Author information Copyright and License information Roles Khalil Khalil : Academic Editor © 2026 Khalil KhalilKhalil Khalil This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 17 Mar 2026 Development of a Layer-Wise In-Situ Laser-Based Dimensional Monitoring System with Post-Mechanical Characterization of Synthesized Polylactic Acid 3D Prints in FDM Additive Manufacturing PONE-D-26-00919R1 Dear Dr. Dewangan, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .... 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 [email protected]. Kind regards, Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions --> Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->4. 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.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.-->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.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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->5. 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->6. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, The responses to all the reviewers’ queries have been addressed satisfactorily, and the overall quality of the manuscript is good. No further clarifications are required. I agree to accept this article for publication. ********** -->7. 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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy ..-->..--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346244.r004 Acceptance letter Khalil Khalil Khalil Khalil Academic Editor Find articles by Khalil Khalil Author information Copyright and License information Roles Khalil Khalil : Academic Editor © 2026 Khalil KhalilKhalil Khalil This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PONE-D-26-00919R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Dewangan, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 [email protected]. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing . If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected]. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Khalil Abdelrazek Khalil Academic Editor PLOS One Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx pone.0346244.s002.docx (25.7KB, docx) Data Availability Statement All data relevant to this study are included within the paper. Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top