Next Article in Journal
Ventricular Fibrillation and Tachycardia Detection Using Features Derived from Topological Data Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Influence of Loading Frequency on the Dynamic Response of Concrete Sleepers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 14
10.3390/app12147247
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Cold Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Is Effective against P. gingivalis (HW24D-1) Mature Biofilms and Non-Genotoxic to Oral Cells

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(14), 7247; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12147247
by Gabriela de Morais Gouvêa Lima 1, Celina Faig Lima Carta 1, Aline Chiodi Borges 1, Thalita Mayumi Castaldelli Nishime 2, Cézar Augusto Villela da Silva 3, Marcelo Vidigal Caliari 3, Marcia Pinto Alves Mayer 4, Konstantin Georgiev Kostov 5 and Cristiane Yumi Koga-Ito 1,6,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(14), 7247; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12147247
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 16 July 2022 / Published: 19 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Dentistry and Oral Sciences)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In abstract, the authors should describe the type of power supply used

2. Line 108, it is better use "system" other than "reactor"

3. It seems that the system is a plasma jet attached with a long PU tube. Plasma jet is normally considered as a DBD-like system. It is not a regular DBD system.

4. The radical density that directly induces the results in the experiment should be discussed. Otherwise, the mechanisms involving ROS or RNS should be stated.

5. The plasma temperature should be measured and specified, since it would affect the survival rate of cell. 

6. The diameter of the tube should be specified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. You can find a point by point letter in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review of applsci-1813446

This is a nice manuscript written concisely, straight to the points, easy to follow, and will be a nice contribution to the knowledge of plasma technology applied to biomedical research. There are some issues that must be revised in order to improve the manuscript even better, as follows:

  1. Please add the List of Abbreviations. For example in Line 144, the definition of PBS is missing (phosphate-buffered saline).
  2. Please provide a supplementary video of your He-CAPP equipment in action.
  3. The “flame” is reported to be 15 mm (1.5 cm) for 1 SLM He flowrate (standard liter per minute), based on Figure 1b. Do you explore the flame length as a function of flowrate (and optimize it?).
  4. Do you have OES (optical emission spectroscopy) data of your He-CAPP equipment?
  5. Discussion: I found that based on Figure 2, the optimum treatment time is 5 mins, which performs similarly to that of 7 mins, while providing a shorter treatment time. This shorter duration will be beneficial, especially when progressing to clinical trials (projected by the authors in line 296) for patients (because more convenient), and for the economical feasibility (less He gas needed, only 5 L of He for 5 mins, and not 7 L for 7 mins). This kind of statement must be added in the Discussion section in order to display the strong points of this research.
  6. Line 87: Please write the genus for S. gordonii completely (not abbreviated).
  7. Line 90: Do you mean HW24D-1? --> Not WD24D-1.
  8. Line 143: Please define XTT. Why do you not use MTT assay?
  9. Line 144: Please change “ETOH” to “ethanol”. There is no urgent use of abbreviating a common chemical that is mentioned only one time.
  10. Line 154-155: What do you mean with “s” in “Keratinocytes s (OBA-9)”? Maybe it has to be removed?
  11. Line 159: 37 °C --> Please use the correct degree sign (check the correct ones in line 163 and line 170) --> do not use superscripted letter o
  12. Line 170: Do you mean “Schiff’s”? (with letter c).
  13. Line 181: D’Agostino --> with uppercase A
  14. Line 181: Please provide the reference number of the publication of D’Agostino and coworkers mentioned in this paragraph.
  15. Table 1 and Table 2 can be merged as one table only. Please add a new column, i.e. column #2, that consists of the type of cells (OBA-9, HGF).
  16. Line 291: Change “Also,” to be “In addition,”
  17. Line 303: The conclusion is too short. Please provide the He-CAPP condition (time, flowrate, length of the “flame”, voltage, etc.)
  18. References: Journal names are some abbreviated, some are not. Please make them in a uniform style.
  19. References: Please write the list of authors in a complete way, do not use et al. --> Please correct Reference 2, 4, 10, 21, 24, 25, 27, 30, 34, 35, and 36.
  20. References: Please write scientific names in italic --> Reference 11, 29, 31.

 

Author Response

Hello, we appreciate your time dedication to our manuscript.

A letter with a point-by-point response can be found in the attachment. 

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of applsci-1813446-v2

The authors have addressed the issues well, and also provided sufficient arguments when necessary. The manuscript can be accepted now.

Back to TopTop