Chitosan as a Natural Copolymer with Unique Properties for the Development of Hydrogels

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

This review is too superficial and does not thoroughly review the literatures. Therefore, I suggest a major correction is required.

The paper has been prepared carelessly, for instance

1. The advances in the field of biomaterials has led ------ line 25

2. A full stop is missed in line 36.

3. The figure number is missed in line 124 and the fig.5 is not properly presented in line 127.

4. Check the lines 147 and 150 please.

Author Response

This review is too superficial and does not thoroughly review the literatures. Therefore, I suggest a major correction is required.

We thank review 1 for this suggestion, accordingly the manuscript underwent to a thoroughly revision.

The paper has been prepared carelessly, for instance

1.      The advances in the field of biomaterials has led ------ line 25

I would like to thank review 1, it is corrected

2.      A full stop is missed in line 36.

I would like to thank review 1, now a full stop is added

3.      The figure number is missed in line 124 and the fig.5 is not properly presented in line 127.

I would like to thank review1; the figure number is corrected

4.      Check the lines 147 and 150 please.

I would like to thank review1: they are corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports tries to report a review on chitosan as a natural copolymer for the development of hydrogels. Although the idea and the structure are well thought, I am afraid the document is not ready to be published.

Firstly, although the composite word is in the title, it is not presented once in the full text. Moreover, after reading the document carefully, I do not match the title with the document. I would rather call “Chitosan as natural copolymer with unique properties for the development of hydrogels”.

Furthermore, there are many mistakes and typos along the document (eg L70, L84, L94), spaces between words missing (eg L183, L192), capital letters in the middle of sentences (eg L125, L141) and missing on the beginning (eg L50), figures not documented on the text (eg Figure 4), legend of a figure missing (eg L127), Figure 3 is inside the image and even the legend has a mistake “Iontotropic” (L92), “in vivo” not in italic (L126), either use of “crosslinking” and “cross-linking” in the same sentence (L229-230), the use of “…etc” (eg L189, L199) or even in L230, the paragraph ends with “…etc…, [31]”. These are just few examples. For instance, check L122-126; apart all mistakes, it is introduced Clozapin (L125), brand name is Clozaril, and clozapine (L126), but still, it is not mention what is clozapine.

Since it is a review, I think the document is lacking more studies, more references. The document presents 31 references, 22 out of them published more than 10 years ago. I would expect more references from the last 5-10 years.  

This document is far not ready to be published. The authors should revise the English and the document formatting, search more recent papers and develop better the different subtitles, for instance, section 3 “Limitations of chitosan” and section 4 “Chitosan in nanoscience”, with more references. A deep work should be done to re-submit.

Author Response

Firstly, although the composite word is in the title, it is not presented once in the full text. Moreover, after reading the document carefully, I do not match the title with the document. I would rather call “Chitosan as natural copolymer with unique properties for the development of hydrogels.

I would like to thank review 2: the title is  now changed

Furthermore, there are many mistakes and typos along the document (eg L70, L84,L94)

This mistake is corrected.

spaces between words missing (eg L183, L192).

Spaces are now added.

capital letters in the middle of sentences (eg L125, L141) and missing on the beginning (eg L50).

Capital letters are removed and they were added in the beginning of sentence.

figures not documented on the text (eg Figure 4), legend of a figure missing (eg L127).

Figure 4 now is documented.

Figure 3 is inside the image and even the legend has a mistake “Iontotropic” (L92).

Figure 3 is corrected.

“in vivo” not in italic (L126)

In vivo is now in italic format.

either use of “crosslinking” and “cross-linking” in the same sentence (L229-230)

Crosslinking now is  informality

the use of “…etc” (eg L189, L199) or even in L230, the paragraph ends with “…etc…, [31]”

“…etc…, is removed.

These are just few examples. For instance, check L122-126

The lines L122-126 are corrected.

apart all mistakes, it is introduced Clozapin (L125), brand name is Clozaril, and clozapine (L126), but still, it is not mention what is clozapine.

It is corrected by adding definition of clozapine

Since it is a review, I think the document is lacking more studies, more references. The document presents 31 references, 22 out of them published more than 10 years ago. I would expect more references from the last 5-10 years

References have been updated and increased to 53 one

This document is far not ready to be published. The authors should revise the English and the document formatting, search more recent papers and develop better the different subtitles, for instance, section 3 “Limitations of chitosan” and section 4 “Chitosan in nanoscience”, with more references. A deep work should be done to re-submit.

English is revised. section 3 “Limitations of chitosan” and section 4 “Chitosan in nanoscience”, have been updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The review aims to study structure and function of chitosan and its hydrogel properties.

The manuscript responds to the objectives defined in the title and developed in the introduction, the analysis is in accordance with the advanced explanation in the discussion part with regards to prepare and to characterize chitosan hydrogels.

After a careful proof-reading of the manuscript, this research article is recommended for publication in Applied Sciences with some remarks and suggestions.

-       Please specify the reaction condition of each step of chitosan synthesis.

-       Please include the sources of all used chemicals.

-       Rheological experiments in stationary and dynamic mode could be complementary to determine the hydrogel macroscopic behaviour.

-       IR and RMN results could be explain the hydrogel structure.

-       Please provide TEM micrographs.

References should be checked as some references are not properly formatted.

Author Response

Please specify the reaction condition of each step of chitosan synthesis.

I would like to thank review 3. Synthesis of chitosan is not mentioned here, however methods of chitosan nanoparticles synthesis are written.

Please include the sources of all used chemicals.

I would like to thank review 3. Because this is a review, I think there are no need to write source of all used chemicals.

Rheological experiments in stationary and dynamic mode could be complementary to determine the hydrogel macroscopic behaviour.

I would like to thank review 3, there is no Rheological experiments in stationary and dynamic mode.

IR and RMN results could be explain the hydrogel structure.

I would like to thank review 3, there are no results  for IR and RMN because it is review article.

Please provide TEM micrographs

 I would like to thank review 3. There are no results for TEM micrographs because it is review.

References should be checked as some references are not properly formatted

All references have been re-formatted

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest a minor revision to this paper, because the authors are so careless that the title is not properly prepared.

1. "Chitosan as a natural copolymer with unique  properties forthe development" a space is missed betwee "forthe"

2. please check line 37.

3. it is suggested to show the source of the Fig.3 in line 112. and also others Figures in lines 132.149.

4.please check the line 255.

Author Response

1-Chitosan as a natural copolymer with unique  properties forthe development" a space is missed betwee "for the”

I would like to thank review 1: It is corrected.

2. please check line 37

I would like to thank review 1: It is improved.

3- it is suggested to show the source of the Fig.3 in line 112. and also others Figures in lines 132.149.

I would like to thank review1: all figures were drew by authors.

4.please check the line 255.

I would like to thank review 1: It is corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reports a review on chitosan as a natural copolymer for the development of hydrogels. This document was full of mistakes, lacking information with just few references. The authors have done a big effort on overcoming all the issues documented before, and I would say that, in the present format, this manuscript is close to be published as a Review.

Some parts were well-updated and the paper presents now 22 more references. After minor revisions (see below), I would accept this paper to be published in Applied Sciences.

There are still few issues regarding the spaces missing, even in the title (L3) and I the authors names (L4). I would suggest to the authors to review again all manuscript and check the “spaces”. Lines 70, 78, 80, 91, 116, 205, 209, 216, 218-219, 234, 244, 247-250.

I would suggest to include a Figure for the Spray-drying method.

In what respects to references, different fonts/letter size have been used (eg L279, 289, 290), and in L280 and L296 it is used “&”. Sometimes, the authors are in different formats. Take a look on it.

Some Typos:

L89: (full stop)

L183: However, water

L190: They can also be

L215: firmness, while

L246: especially

Author Response

We thank review 2 for this suggestion, accordingly the manuscript underwent to a thoroughly revision.

(L3) and I the authors names (L4). I would suggest to the authors to review again all manuscript and check the “spaces”. Lines 70, 78, 80, 91, 116, 205, 209, 216, 218-219, 234, 244, 247-255

I would like to thank review 2: all spaces are removed and corrected.

in what respects to references, different fonts/letter size have been used (eg L279, 289, 290), and in L280 and L296 it is used “&”. Sometimes, the authors are in different formats. Take a look on it

I would like to thank review2: all references were formatted .

Some Typos:

L89: (full stop)

L183: However, water

L190: They can also be

L215: firmness, while

L246: especially

I would like to thank review 2: all above mistakes were corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx