Next Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Resistance and Comparative Genome Analysis of Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Isolated in Egypt
Previous Article in Journal
Infection of Cronobacter sakazakii ST1 Producing SHV-12 in a Premature Infant Born from Triplet Pregnancy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Inactivation of Acanthamoeba Cysts in Suspension and on Contaminated Contact Lenses Using Non-Thermal Plasma

Microorganisms 2021, 9(9), 1879; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091879
by Tereza Měřínská 1,*, Vladimír Scholtz 1, Josef Khun 1, Jaroslav Julák 2 and Eva Nohýnková 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Microorganisms 2021, 9(9), 1879; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9091879
Submission received: 16 July 2021 / Revised: 25 August 2021 / Accepted: 30 August 2021 / Published: 5 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Parasitology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for giving me an opportunity in reviewing this manuscript. Please see the attached document for the detailed report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the use of non-thermal plasma generated by high voltage DC discharge as a method to sterilise contact lens inoculated with Acanthamoeba cysts.  The paper is very well written and very clear. The claims that cysts were deactivated by the treatment were justified by the results and the fact that the lens were unaffected well documented by spectral analysis, however I wonder if the lenses were tested by a CL wearer before and after treatment (having been thoroughly washed to remove any remaining detrimental ions)?

Line 135. (2.5. Plasma generation). More details on the generation of the DC sparks would be helpful here.  What is the duration of the transient? How much does the temperature of the liquid increase as a result of the passage of the spark? (was this measured?).

Line 139-140 current given as 300 and 350 A whereas in figure 1 currents are 300uA and 350uA. I suspect the uA are correct otherwise the energy dissipated would be huge! Also, uA units were mentioned in the cited Khun et al, 2018 paper.

Line 322. (5. Conclusions). Do the authors really envisage contact lens users having 5KV DC units in their homes?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to review the manuscript. Authors have addressed my comments successfully. 

Back to TopTop