Physicochemical Characteristics and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Plasma-Activated Water Produced by an Air-Operated Coaxial Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review water-2723719

 

I have read your paper "Physicochemical Characteristics and Antimicrobial Efficacy of 2 Plasma-Activated Water Produced by an Air-Operated Coaxial 3 DBD Plasma" which has been submitted to Water.  Some suggestions and comments were made to make the article more attractive and easier to read, which are presents below:

 Line 67: I suggest reducing the confusion between plasma source and technique. In the case of line 67, understand that DBD is a plasma source that can be used in techniques such as plasma jet, for example. Please also correct to the line 76.

Figure 1: The figure does not help in understanding the reactor configuration and also in the electrical measurements, especially the resistor. I suggest making the reactor schematized to help with understanding, and the specific points for measuring the potential difference of the resistor

Section 3.1: Was plasma optical emission spectroscopy analysis performed? This result is important for discussing the reactions at the plasma-water interface and justifying the products and, consequently, the properties of the PAW obtained.

Results sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5: These results are important, but only present a particular condition of your laboratory. A discussion regarding the production of RONS based on knowledge of plasma species and possible chemical reactions would be interesting to predict results with different parameters, including those from sections 3.4 and 3.5.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript discusses the chemical and biological properties of plasma-activated water produced by a coaxial aid DBD setup. I regard this paper interesting, and worth publication, after a minor revision according to the points listed below:

1) The discussion in section 3.3 does not include the concept of ozone-dominated and NOx-dominated regimes, which take place in DBDs depending on the power level. I think that these concepts should be included in the discussion, as they could help understanding the observed results.

2) I am still puzzled by the fact that higher flow, which means lower residence time in the DBD region, yield higher concentration of reactive species. This is in my opinion a central result of the paper, useful for all the scholars working on DBDs with flowing air, and should be discussed more in detail. While the authors have tried to give some explanations, I think that the text is still somehow confusing. I invite the authors to make an effort to give a clearer explanation for this phenomenon, considering both the generation in the gas phase and the diffusion to the liquid phase.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Current study is devoted to synthesis of Plasma-Activated Water (PAW) using a coaxial Dielectric 16 Barrier Discharge (DBD) reactor and antimicrobial potential of the PAW was also assessed against pathogenic microbes.

The manuscript is well written and can be accepted after minor revisions.

I have just a couple of cooments:

1. The economical aspects of presented water antimicrobial treatment should be revealed in introduction or discussion section as it is important for further technology application and realization.

2. Why positive control was not added to the microbiological investigations?

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf