Advanced Nanotechnological Approaches for Biofilm Prevention and Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this manuscript, the authors were focused on nanocarriers for biofilm prevention and control. The topic seems to be interesting and this work can be useful for this field. However, the following problems should be addressed before further consideration of publication:1. The abstract can be revised to be concise, in order to clearly show the main contents and innovation of this review. Besides, a schematic illustration can be created in the Introduction section for better summarization of this review. 2. In the manuscript, typical examples of antibacterial treatment can be briefly introduced. The recent advances in this fields should be contained including: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.133295, 10.1002/EXP.20210145. 3. The authors presented quantitative assessment methods of biofilm yet the contents are quite simple. The mechanisms and features of various methods can be included in this part for better comparison. 4. As a comprehensive review, composite figures of typical researches in the related fields or schematic illustrations should be added. At least 3-5 figures should be included for better demonstration. The current manuscript is not rich enough considering graphic materials and convincing descriptions. 5. The manuscript structure seems quite confusing, and some parts can be merged as one with exact subheadings. It can be improved with a clear chapter arrangement, where the concept, mechanism, methods, various nanocarriers, and perspectives can be better demonstrated. 6. The authors are suggested to add a separate section to describe challenges and future perspectives for researches and applications of various antibiofilm nanocarriers. 7. In the manuscript, the authors show various types of nanocarriers. The depth could be improved if the authors provided some insights of micro-/nano and biological interactions responsible for these antibacterial and antibiofilm process. 8. The references can be updated to include some novel researches in recent 3-5 years, and the formats should be checked considering some errors.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Answers for reviewer 1:
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for your helpful and important comments which were taken into consideration and responded to below and marked on the manuscript in yellow.
Comment 1: The abstract can be revised to be concise, in order to clearly show the main contents and innovation of this review. Besides, a schematic illustration can be created in the Introduction section for better summarization of this review.
Answer: The abstract was revised and the requested illustration was added and marked in yellow, Pag 1-2.
Comment 2: In the manuscript, typical examples of antibacterial treatment can be briefly introduced. The recent advances in this fields should be contained including: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2024.133295, 10.1002/EXP.20210145.
Answer: The required information was added and marked in yellow, Pag 9.
Comment 3: The authors presented quantitative assessment methods of biofilm yet the contents are quite simple. The mechanisms and features of various methods can be included in this part for better comparison.
Answer: The required information was added and marked in yellow, Pag 4-6.
Comment 4: As a comprehensive review, composite figures of typical researches in the related fields or schematic illustrations should be added. At least 3-5 figures should be included for better demonstration. The current manuscript is not rich enough considering graphic materials and convincing descriptions.
Answer: The manuscript was changed according to the comment and Figures were added.
Comment 5: The manuscript structure seems quite confusing, and some parts can be merged as one with exact subheadings. It can be improved with a clear chapter arrangement, where the concept, mechanism, methods, various nanocarriers, and perspectives can be better demonstrated.
Answer: The manuscript was reorganized and marked in yellow, Pag 8-9. Also, Figure 1 was included which helps follow the manuscript organization
Comment 6: The authors are suggested to add a separate section to describe challenges and future perspectives for researches and applications of various antibiofilm nanocarriers.
Answer: Section 8 was added and marked in yellow, Pag 20-21.
Comment 7: In the manuscript, the authors show various types of nanocarriers. The depth could be improved if the authors provided some insights of micro-/nano and biological interactions responsible for these antibacterial and antibiofilm process.
Answer: The text was modified according to the comment and added and marked in yellow, Pag 8-9.
Comment 8: The references can be updated to include some novel researches in recent 3-5 years, and the formats should be checked considering some errors.
Answer: References were updated, novel research was added and references were corrected according to reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides an extensive review of current nanotechnology-based strategies for combating biofilm-associated infections. The manuscript covers the fundamental aspects of biofilm formation, challenges in treating biofilm-associated infections, and the potential of various nanocarriers.
1. “Abstract” can be more concise.
2. In the “Introduction” section, authors can make a more explicit statement on the specific objectives of the review. It would be helpful to clarify whether the focus is on a particular type of biofilm or a broader scope.
3. In the section of “Biofilm Concepts and Formation”, it would be beneficial to include recent advances in understanding the genetic and molecular mechanisms that drive biofilm resilience.
4. The impact of biofilm heterogeneity on treatment efficacy could be discussed.
5. In the section of “Biofilm Characterization”, the manuscript could provide a clearer comparison of the advantages and limitations of direct versus indirect methods.
6. In the section of “Nanocarriers as a strategy to fight biofilms”, the manuscript can provide a more detailed analysis of the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of these nanocarriers in vivo.
7. When talking about specific nanocarriers, it would be helpful to also talk about the potential cytotoxicity.
8. In the “Conclusion” section, the manuscript can provide a more forward-looking perspective and a discussion of future research direction.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Answers for reviewer 2:
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for your helpful and important comments which were taken into consideration and responded to below and marked on the manuscript in yellow or green.
Comment 1: “Abstract” can be more concise.
Answer: The abstract was changed according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in yellow, Pag 1.
Comment 2: In the “Introduction” section, authors can make a more explicit statement on the specific objectives of the review. It would be helpful to clarify whether the focus is on a particular type of biofilm or a broader scope.
Answer: The text was changed according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 2. Also, Figure 1 was added.
Comment 3: In the section of “Biofilm Concepts and Formation”, it would be beneficial to include recent advances in understanding the genetic and molecular mechanisms that drive biofilm resilience.
Answer: The text was changed according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 3.
Comment 4: The impact of biofilm heterogeneity on treatment efficacy could be discussed.
Answer: The text was changed according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 3-4.
Comment 5: In the section of “Biofilm Characterization”, the manuscript could provide a clearer comparison of the advantages and limitations of direct versus indirect methods.
Answer: The text was changed according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 4. Also, detailed information was added and highlighted in yellow in Pages 4-6.
Comment 6: In the section of “Nanocarriers as a strategy to fight biofilms”, the manuscript can provide a more detailed analysis of the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of these nanocarriers in vivo.
Answer: Explanations were added according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 11-12.
Comment 7: When talking about specific nanocarriers, it would be helpful to also talk about the potential cytotoxicity.
Answer: Requested information was added according to the suggestion, changes are highlighted in green, Pag 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Also in section 8 information concerning toxicity was added.
Comment 8: In the “Conclusion” section, the manuscript can provide a more forward-looking perspective and a discussion of future research direction.
Answer: Section 8 (Challenges and future perspectives was added. It is not included in the conclusion due to other reviewer requests.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the revisions have been checked.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS
Reviewer 1
Answers for reviewer 1:
Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for your helpful and important comments throughout manuscript submission process.
Comment: All the revisions have been done.
Answer: Thanks for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has adequately justified the remarks that have been provided. The manuscript's existing format can be accepted.
