Corrosion Behavior and Biological Activity of Micro Arc Oxidation Coatings with Berberine on a Pure Magnesium Surface
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I do recommens moderate revision and before publication there are the following points to be changed a). The authors have to discuss clearly this novellty aspect improving introduction. (at line 54 is a need for references )
- b) The used methods are adequately described, but the results are not well organized and and some of them are missing. There are not quantified data from Tafel plots with a range of corrosion rate and polarization resistance for all coatings.
- c) There are not tables in whole manuscript and contact angle values and roughness result as well ( roughnesses have only qualitative images)could be more better presented in tables. d ) In FIG.3 with XRD there are not peaks values and also there are not mentioned ID-identification cards.
e)There are numerous composition for simulated body fluids in literature and the compositiom used in this paper and the corresponding reference have to be introduced
Author Response
Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are some comments that should be resolved:
1- Improve the English writing, grammars and format of the figures.
2- Compare the results of each test with other research and references.
3- Line 47: “Introducing PLGA-BR into implant materials to improve the bone regeneration ability of artificial bone substitute materials.” Rephrase the sentence.
4- Line 69: “和”. Please rephrase the text.
5- Line 74: “Preparation of composite coating: they were then immersed in 3 mol/L NaOH solution at 60°C for 1 h, which is referred to as alkali treatment.” Rephrase the sentence.
6- Line 81: “Coating characterization” Explain the XPS set up and test parameters
7- Line 91: “Electrochemical text”. Text or test?
8- Line 123: “Figure 1. SEM cross-section morphologies of various coatings”. Explain each figure in the caption. Do the same for Figures 2 and 5. Describe each figure in the manuscript as well.
9- Line 217: “The shapes were similar, and there were two time constants in the Bode plots.” What were the criteria for two time constant? Mark the time constant in the Figure.
10- Line 230: “The impedance and capacitive reactance of the drug loaded coating were greater than that of the UMAO coating, indicating that the drug-loaded coating could prevent corrosion more effectively.” Where are the calculated values from the equivalent circuit?
11- Line 260: “(a4) UMAO (b4) UMAO/PLGA/BR.” What is the duration?
12- Line 265: “This prolonged the action time of the drug, increased the concentration of the drug in the local lesion, and” The action time of drug was increased in comparison to what? There is no other case to compare with.
13- Line 271: “Conclusions”. The conclusion should be a synergy of the key points.
Author Response
Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I do agree that the revised version is a better article. The authors corrected the manuscript in line with all my suggestions and provided additional explanations.
The introduction was rewritten providing more data to sustain novelty, quantified data from Tafel plots were added as well as contact angles and roughness data arranged in suitable tables. Mg,MgO ang Mg2SiO4 phase were detected in XRD spectra of all studied samples and their identificationn cards were mentioned. The solution for tests (SBF) is introduced with the specific content and reference.
All changes are in the benefit of paper quality
In this format I do believe that the study is adressed to many researchers
I do not have ethical concern about the present manuscript and my recommendation is to be publiished in the present format.
Author Response
Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was improved. However, there are still some concerns which need further attention:
1- There are still sentences that should be rephrased. Please re-read the text and modify the text where it is needed. For example, Line 235: ”The rough surface of the material is conducive to the adhesion, proliferation, differentiation [39-40].” This sentence has no meaning.
2- Line 303” Figure 8. Nyquist, Bode diagrams and equivalent circuits of different coatings: (a) Nyquist; (b) and (c) Bode plots; (d) equivalent circuit”. Present the high-frequency domain as an inlet in the Nyquist plot in Fig. 8a.
3- The resistant values for the fitting parameters in Table 5 should be reflected in Fig. 8, especially in the Nyquist plot (Fig. 8a). Some of the resistant values are not following the plots in Fig. 8. For example, in Table 5, the R2 value of BR(1.5) is 1.2E+6. As can be seen in Fig. 8a, this value should be much lower than 1.29E+6 for the R2 value of the BR(6).
Note: Compare the R2 values in Table 5 with the value obtained from the intersection between the fitting curve and real impedance axis at the low-frequency domain in Fig. 8a.
4- I previously suggested you describe all the Figures in the manuscript. However, there is still no description for Fig. 8a in the manuscript. Please double-check all the Figures and Tables.
Author Response
Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
