Bactericidal Mechanisms of Chlorine Dioxide against Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus CMCC 32210
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provided for peer review investigates the damages occurring to the Beta hemolytic Streptococcus (BHS) as a result of the action of chlorine dioxide in different concentrations. There have been monitored changes in the lipids, proteins, ATPase activity, DNA damage, and MBC values of chlorine dioxide, as well. The authors establish that the level of the damaging effect of chlorine dioxide on BHS is a function of its concentration.
Here are my specific recommendations and suggestions:
- Bad command of English, multiple grammar and technical mistakes, too long and not structured well sentences which are different to follow.
- The title of the manuscript should include the specific Streptococcus strain used for the research: Beta hemolytic Streptococcus CMCC 32210. This strain specification appears neither in the title nor in the Materials and methods section, till the Discussion.
- The names of the microorganisms, as they are Latin names, should be written in Italics. In the manuscript microorganisms’ names are in Italics only in the title and in the abstract.
- Line 11: Missing the verb “is”: This study is focused on…
- Line 12: The sentence “BHS was exposed to chlorine dioxide;” ends up with “;” instead of a full stop. The meaning of the abbreviation MBC is not given. Same for SEM and ATPase. The abbreviation's meaning should be given at its first appearance in the text.
- The last sentence of the abstract is too long.
- Lines 42-46: repetitional “disinfection performance”.
- Line 47: Better use “research on” rather than “research into”.
- Line 48: A full stop goes with “et al.” Same for 53, 318, 320, 322.
- Line 55: Better use “Streptococcus strain” or “streptococci”. Moreover, the sentence is
not well designed. My suggestion is: “BHS is an important streptococci that forms a 2-4 mm wide hemolytic ring around its colonies due to the production of hemolysin toxin.”
- Line 69: Use “culture suspension” rather than “cultured suspension”.
- Line 74: I suggest “r/min” be replaced with “rpm.” Same for lines 105, 107, 113, 150, 163.
- Lines 76: Inappropriate usage of a past tense, too long sentence.
- Line 86: Add the species identification: CMCC 32210.
- What does the abbreviation BCA mean?
- Line 118: “shanghai” should be written with a capital letter.
- Lines 163-169: Too long sentence, difficult to understand.
- Lines 187-189: This statement should not be here.
- Lines 195-202: The sentences are not structured precisely and are grammatically incorrect.
- Line 206: Replace “treatment times 0, 0.5, 5, and 10 minutes” with “treatment at 0, 0.5, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively”. Same for line 209.
- Line 212: Replace ”bacteria” with “bacterial cell”.
- Line 213: Replace “from Figure” with “on figure”.
- Increase the size of figures 4, 5, and 6.
- Line 234: What does the BCA abbreviation mean?
- Line 229: The phrases “Results of” and “Measurement result of” are unnecessary. Same for lines 231, 245, 246, 251, 252, 253, 255, 265.
- 239-243: technical errors, a comma at the end of the sentence instead of a full stop, a missing verb in the last sentence of the paragraph.
- Repetitional word “study” in the first sentence of the Discussion section. Same for line 292: replace the repeated “cell” with its.
- Line 319: a verb missing at the end of the sentence. Add: “…leading to death.”
- Figure 9 does not fit well in the Conclusions. Figures are usually put in the Results or Discussion sections.
- The conclusions could be written in a more attractive manner. Future prospects could be added. What would be the benefits of this study? Where would this study find application?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript needs to be examined by a native English speaker. There are multiple grammar and technical mistakes, too long and hardly understandable sentences, and verbs missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comments are attached in the separate Word document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The authors should check for language corrections to remove vague sentences. English needs to be carefully checked and again polished
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIndeed, the properties and efficacy of disinfectants has been of great interest in recent years. As a result, elucidating the mechanism of action of a disinfectant on certain bacterial strains is an interesting idea.
In my opinion, some additions/modifications are needed.
Firstly, all bacterial names should be written in italics.
The authors state that they have created a stable chlorine dioxide solution with levels up to 500 mg/L. In which reference is this process described? 17 or 18? It is not clear. In addition, I tried to download both references and failed to do so. I think it would be useful to briefly describe the method of obtaining the stable solution at point 2.2. in the material and method section and to clearly indicate the reference in which the method was published.
In general, three concentrations of chlorine dioxide solution (10, 50, 100 mg/L) were used in the tests and the effect was monitored at 1,5,10,30 minutes. In the study on the effect on the cell morphology of BHS only two concentrations were used and the effect was followed up to 10 minutes. Why did this change occur?
In general the authors comment on the effect of different concentration of chlorine dioxide, not the exposure time. I would suggest to complete with an analysis on the influence of the exposure time to chlorine dioxide in the tests performed. Possibly a conclusion about the optimal exposure time to the disinfectant.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all the comments appropriately. Now the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the Journal "Current Issues in Molecular Biology"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made changes to the article in accordance with the reviewers' requirements.
One more observation: references 22, 23, 27, 29, 49 are incomplete. Please fill in all the data for these references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
