A Comprehensive Review on the Integration of Antimicrobial Technologies onto Various Surfaces of the Built Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “A Comprehensive Review on the Integration of Antimicrobial Technologies into the Built Environment” proposes an extensive review on the t antimicrobial technologies for protect building environment. And this area of study has been focused on recently. As such, the matter is of interest; however the paper suffers for some serious limits:
1. This review paper focused on introduction about the newly developed antimicrobial technologies such as nanomaterial and antimicrobial polymers. Most technologies were performed in laboratory. How about their practical application in building environment protection? What’s the main problems that affected the large-scale application.
2. Authors should provide the economic cost analysis of different technologies.
3. The current researching status of authors about antimicrobial technologies should be positioned in the article. Please give the description and discussions combined with the authors’ related work.
4. Besides, author should give more profound perspective point on the development of other antimicrobial technologies.
Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal.
Author Response
Please find enclosed the detailed point by point response to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a good comprehensive review, but the authors should refine some details.
As this review paper focused on antimicrobial for “surfaces”, I think in the title should mention as “Integration of Surface Antimicrobial Technologies into the Built Environment”, which is more accurate since it did not mention the technology for air.
Section 1 only contains one subsection. I suggest that remove or add more subsection titles.
Line 28 missed a ‘.’ at the end
Line 124 there was error, same for Line 137
Line 159, Line 166, citation should be superscript
Line 176 what was [JC(1][LX2] ?
How to obtain the subsections in Section 3, the different surface material classification ? How about wood, concrete, and other material for building ?
Author Response
Please find enclosed the detailed point by point response to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A Comprehensive Review on the Integration of Antimicrobial Technologies into the Built Environment
ABSTRACT
1.The first paragraph need to be directly connected with the objects in the title of the article.
2.The authors need to describe how the study was carried out the objectives and major findings and recommendation.
3.The authors should avoid the use of personal pronoun
INTRODUCTION
i. The author presented claims that need to be substantiated and validated, e.g. paragraphs 1 and 2.
ii. The authors should clearly describe further what has been done as regards the microbial study in the built environment, the current state and what the study discovered as a gap that they stands to fill.
iii. The section should be concluded with summary of methodology adopted in the study.
iv. Avoid the use of personal pronoun like as found on line 100-101
v. Fig.3 should be made readable and discussed in the text.
vi. Line 162 should be properly cited lines 168 to 175. Statement and paragraphs like this are all over the article
vii. Ditto to section 3.0
viii. The sections 2,3 and 4 should be discussed rigorously, the review is weak in term of presentation.
3.Gaps.
i.Identifying the gaps as claimed by the authors has been difficult, the gaps can not be linked to a identified source and lack cross validation.
ii. The article did not follow regular review format.
iii. No objective and research question was presented.
iv. There should be a theory that anchored the concepts presented which is lacking.
v. The authors should aggregate common line of thoughts presented by a set of authors and sue them to validate concepts presented in the article, this would assist in cross discussion of opinion to be able to situate or identify a gap. This is missing out in this work.
4.Conclusion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find enclosed the detailed point by point response to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has addressed my concerns
Author Response
We provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Abstract should be rewritten avouding the first personal pronoun but report tense tobe used throughout the text.
The author should indicate the research domains after the first sentence of the study.
What type of research is this? should be stated.
The methodology of approach should be stated, the recommendation for the study based on research outcomes. All the above should be addressed in the Abstract.
B.Introduction:
The authors should cast the summary of the methodology of the study, research domains and the expected research outcome at the end of the introduction section.
Section 1, should be sepparated, the authors should create a section for review of related literatures and situate the gaps observed relating them to the established research domain for the study.
Line 133-134: The authors should state the reason behind the choice of 2021-2022 and parameters selected for consideration.
The objectives should be clearly stated.
Table 1-4: The authors should indicate the source of each methods presented in the table under each methods presented.
The source of the Figures should be cited under each Figures.
Conclusion: The authors should make the presentation based on concluded facts that corroborates the stated research domain and further the relevance and significance of the study to relevant quarters.
Author Response
We provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments in the enclosed document,=.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
