Surface Modifiers on Composite Particles for Direct Compaction
and Zhe Li 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review article is very nice and very interesting
I have learned a lot reading it as there is a lot of information and it is very well categorized and organized
The only thing I have missed is a broader discussion in which the usual problems were indicated with the most appropriate approach for each case. To include a new section with practical information and not just a list of the options.
Author Response
Comment 1: Review article is very nice and very interesting.
Reply 1: Thank you very much. I appreciate you approving of this article.
Comment 2: I have learned a lot reading it as there is a lot of information and it is very well categorized and organized.
Reply 2: Thank you very much. We appreciate you taking the time to read, comment, and recognize this content.
Comment 3: The only thing I have missed is a broader discussion in which the usual problems were indicated with the most appropriate approach for each case. To include a new section with practical information and not just a list of the options.
Reply 3: I’m grateful for your instructive suggestion. We are so sorry for not providing enough broader discussion during writing process. We had made a brief analysis and discussion in Section 8 of this manuscript. According to your suggestions, we have made additions and revisions based on Section 8 (for detailed revisions, please see Lines 1000-1004, Lines 1013-1017, Lines 1021-1024 and Line 1026 in the document “Revised manuscript”, bright green highlight).
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of this review is very interesting and has industrial application prespective. However, the manuscript contained some spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. Stricture should read structure; The authors repeated etc too many times. Please remove this. Just name the examples you gave only.
The authors claimed that mannitol has good disintegration properties without proper reference. you need to support this claim with a reference.
The final section (Concluding remarks and future perspective) is poorly written . I would strongly suggest to add additional tables that summarizes pros and cons of each excipient modifer you mentioned and composite particles.
Author Response
English language and style: Extensive editing of English language and style required.
Reply: Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize typographical and grammatical errors. Therefore, the readers may understand our work more clearly. The corrected details are listed as highlighted in the manuscript. In addition, Dr. Abid Naeem, a well-established expert, has polished the manuscript.
Comment 1: The topic of this review is very interesting and has industrial application prespective. However, the manuscript contained some spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. Stricture should read structure; The authors repeated etc too many times. Please remove this. Just name the examples you gave only.
Reply 1: Thanks for your useful comments.
Firstly, we are so sorry for appearing typos and repeated etc in the article.
Secondly, the typos have been corrected in the revision (for detailed revisions, please see Line 60, Line 62, Line 82, Line 300 (Table 1), Line 310, Line 448 (Table 2), Line 585, Line 734 (Table 4), Line 833 and Line 878 (Table 5) in the document “Revised manuscript”, pink high highlight). The repeated etc were removed in the revision (for detailed revisions, please see Line 47, Line 68, Line 210, Line 462, Line 897 and Line 1090 in the document “Revised manuscript”, yellow high highlight).
Comment 2: The authors claimed that mannitol has good disintegration properties without proper reference. you need to support this claim with a reference.
Reply 2: Thanks for your instructive suggestion. We have added the corresponding references in the revision (for detailed revisions, please see Line 203 in the document “Revised manuscript”, gray high highlight).
Comment 3: The final section (Concluding remarks and future perspective) is poorly written. I would strongly suggest to add additional tables that summarizes pros and cons of each excipient modifier you mentioned and composite particles.
Reply 3: Thanks for your instructive suggestion. A table to summarize pros and cons of each excipient modifier has been added in the revision (for detailed revisions, please see Line 1081 (Table 6) in the document “Revised manuscript”, bright green highlight).
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer’s Comments
The review paper can have potential interest to formulation scientists working in the development of tablet dosage forms. However, the text lacks in-depth scientific discussion which needs to be extended. Authors cannot focus only on the simple reporting of the research article findings but also need to analyze their findings. I suggest critically working through the text with this question in mind and making necessary changes
1. I recommend authors to materials properties of the surface modifiers on the composite particles. The pharmaceutical ingredients (active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients) have different materials properties plastic deforming nature, elastic, fragmentation, viscoelastic, etc. It is interesting to highlight and discusses how composite materials having different material properties on direct compaction.
2.
3. Authors can add more figures and schematic diagrams which make the paper more presentable and easy to understand the facts. Therefore, I recommend adding Figures wherever it is suitable in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comment 1: The review paper can have potential interest to formulation scientists working in the development of tablet dosage forms. However, the text lacks in-depth scientific discussion which needs to be extended. Authors cannot focus only on the simple reporting of the research article findings but also need to analyze their findings. I suggest critically working through the text with this question in mind and making necessary changes.
Reply 1: Thanks for your valuable comments. So sorry for our insufficient discussion. Firstly, we have analyzed some findings in the review, e.g., Section 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 5.1.2, 6.2 (for detailed revisions, please see Lines 515-517, Lines 567-569, Lines 658-660 and Lines 725-726 in the document “Revised manuscript”, red highlight). Secondly, we have also supplied the following discussions in the document “Revised manuscript” (for detailed revisions, please see Lines 674-687 in Section 5.1.2 and Lines 1105-1111 in Section 9 in the document “Revised manuscript”, cyan-green highlight).
Comment 2: I recommend authors to materials properties of the surface modifiers on the composite particles. The pharmaceutical ingredients (active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients) have different materials properties plastic deforming nature, elastic, fragmentation, viscoelastic, etc. It is interesting to highlight and discusses how composite materials having different material properties on direct compaction.
Reply 2: Thanks for your valuable comments. Firstly, according to your suggestions and the second reviewer’s comments, a table to summary materials properties of the surface modifiers and composite particles has been added in the document “Revised Manuscript” (for detailed revisions, please see Line 1081 (Table 6) in the document “Revised manuscript”, bright green highlight). Secondly, we have also supplied the following discussions in the document “Revised manuscript” (for detailed revisions, please see Lines 227-229, Lines 230-234, Lines 536-537 and Lines 546-549 in the document “Revised manuscript”, yellow highlight).
Comment 3: Authors can add more figures and schematic diagrams which make the paper more presentable and easier to understand the facts. Therefore, I recommend adding Figures wherever it is suitable in the manuscript.
Reply 3: Thanks for your instructive comments. One figure has been added in the document “Revised Manuscript” (for detailed revisions, please see Line 1028 in the document “Revised manuscript”, bright green highlight).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have staisfactorily addressed the comments; hover, minor comments need to be addressed before the final acceptance.
In table 6 please avoid the use of chemcial formula (NH4HCO3) and use chemical name instead. In addition the cons column fr this modifier and PVPP are vacant. Please complete these sections. The last three items are not soecific modifiers, so I strongly recommend to remove them from the table.
Author Response
English language and style: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
Reply: Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. we have made careful modifications based on the latest manuscript, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize typographical and grammatical errors. In addition, Dr. Abid Naeem, a well-established expert, has polished the manuscript. (for detailed revisions, please see “Revised manuscript”).
Comment 1: The authors have staisfactorily addressed the comments; hover, minor comments need to be addressed before the final acceptance. In table 6 please avoid the use of chemcial formula (NH4HCO3) and use chemical name instead. In addition, the cons column fr this modifier and PVPP are vacant. Please complete these sections. The last three items are not soecific modifiers, so I strongly recommend to remove them from the table.
Reply 1: Thank you for your instructive suggestions. Firstly, NH4HCO3 has been revised to ammonium bicarbonate in Table 6. Secondly, the cons of ammonium bicarbonate and PVPP. Thirdly, the last three items in Table 6 have been removed. (for detailed revisions, please see Table 6 in the document “Revised manuscript”, yellow highlight).
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend to publish the manuscript.
Author Response
Comment 1: I recommend to publish the manuscript.
Reply 1: Thank you very much. I appreciate you approving of this article.
