Synergistic Action of Reactive Plasma Particles and UV Radiation to Inactivate Staphylococcus Aureus
, Matteo Pedroni 1, Marco Aloisio 1, Tiziana Silvetti 2, Stefano Morandi 2 and Milena Brasca 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the submitted manuscript, the authors showed synergistic effect of plasma particles and UV irradiation against staphylococcus aureus. Although the aim of the study is interesting, the data are presented and discussed in a superficial way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we are sorry for this judgment; we have tried to improve the paper with the revision, within the limits of our diagnostic feasibilities. Anyway, his assessment is so generic, which does not allow us to act specifically. Anyway, the title has been revised; Introduction and Discussion sections have been revised. Figs. 3-4-5-6-7-8 have been revised. A separate "Conclusions" section has been inserted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The document has been improved but still lacks quality
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we are sorry for this judgment; we have tried to improve the paper with the revision, within the limits of our diagnostic feasibilities. Anyway, his assessment is so generic, which does not allow us to act specifically. Anyway, the title has been revised; Introduction and Discussion sections have been revised. Figs. 3-4-5-6-7-8 have been revised. A separate "Conclusions" section has been inserted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version could be accepted now. But a minor error should be amended before publication,
1. In Fig. 8, caption for x axis, O2 and N2, the number of 2 should be subscript.
2. Is the UV an additional irradiation source? If UV is irradiated from the plasma, the Title could be revised, and remove the UV radiation.
3. Introduction, the research development of microorganisms decontamination by plasma could be discussed more detailly. 4. All figures should be revised to improve the resolution. Besides, The formation of figure could not reach the standard of a scientific paper, which should be revised. 5. The discussion and conclusion should be separated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we hope to have responded to your comments in detail.
The revised version could be accepted now. But a minor error should be amended before publication,
- In Fig. 8, caption for x axis, O2 and N2, the number of 2 should be subscript.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, Fig. 8 has been modified.
- Is the UV an additional irradiation source? If UV is irradiated from the plasma, the Title could be revised, and remove the UV radiation.
A low-pressure plasma is composed of charged particles, neutral particles and photons produced from deexcitation of various excited species present. In the title (it has been modified) we prefer to include “UV radiation” because there are other papers that only study the effect of charged and neutral particles (ions, electrons, atoms, excited and ground-state molecules, radicals) without considering UV.
- Introduction, the research development of microorganisms decontamination by plasma could be discussed more detailly.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the section “Introduction” has been revised.
- All figures should be revised to improve the resolution. Besides, The formation of figure could not reach the standard of a scientific paper, which should be revised.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, Figs. 3-4-5-6-7-8 have been revised.
- The discussion and conclusion should be separated.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, a new section “Conclusions” has been included.
Reviewer 4 Report
It seems that article is in revised form. Despite of this, there are significant concerns over article. The data is not sufficient to support publication in this journal. Authors need to describe what they are focusing? while in current form, it is less likely to cover antibacterial activity.
1. Poorly written: Introduction contains redundant description and shows weak expression of statement of problem
2. Results: This portion contains most of description of methodology. According to methodology, there are missing results or not described properly. For example, focus on antibacterial activity is less described. There is no proof of antibacterial activity in any picture
3. Discussion: It contains results section and found that there is only one reference quoted.
Author Response
It seems that article is in revised form. Despite of this, there are significant concerns over article. The data is not sufficient to support publication in this journal. Authors need to describe what they are focusing? while in current form, it is less likely to cover antibacterial activity.
In our view, we drafted this paper (and developed experimental measurements) with the aim of develop a plasma process for decontamination of bacteria, in particular, Gram-positive (S. aureus) and provide scalable process data for industrial applications.
- Poorly written: Introduction contains redundant description and shows weak expression of statement of problem
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the section “Introduction” has been revised.
- Results: This portion contains most of description of methodology. According to methodology, there are missing results or not described properly. For example, focus on antibacterial activity is less described. There is no proof of antibacterial activity in any picture
We understand your observation, the microbial inoculum, corresponding to 7.1-7.5 Log10 CFU, deposited on the glass Petri dishes appeared as a very faintly coloured opaque patina. The colonies were not identifiable, and inoculum appearance did not change before and after treatment, consequently no picture was taken. We tried also to treat Petri dishes containing an inoculated culture medium. However, this was not possible because the vacuum conditions of the process did not allow the treatment of a rehydrated culture medium. Thus, no picture of the Petri dishes is available.
- Discussion: It contains results section and found that there is only one reference quoted.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the section “Discussion” has been revised. References have been added.
Reviewer 5 Report
The present study ID: coatings-1757792 entitled " Staphylococcus aureus inactivation by means of synergistic action of reactive plasma particles and UV radiation" written by authors Espedito VASSALLO , Matteo PEDRONI , Marco ALOISIO , Tiziana SILVETTI , Stefano MORANDI 2 and 4 Milena BRASCA
The study is written on a very current topic. The search for The inactivation efficiency was studied on a Staphylococcus aureus using a low-pressure plasma process by means of synergistic action of reactive plasma particles and UV radiation. The study is written very precisely. Much has been done both experimentally and for the subsequent evaluation of the obtained data. The text is quite clear. I recommend the study for acceptance in coatings, however, I have minor (rather formal) comments.
I have only minor comments on the study:
- Title: see the following title is it suitable (Synergistic action of reactive plasma particles and UV radiation to inactivate staphylococcus aureus).
- Abstract very short and need to improve. It is must be start by senetnece about subject of article. ended by conclusion senetnece.
- All figures resolution not clear.
- Please separate discussion and conclusion
- In the discussion, it must be connect between the application of Ar/O2/N2 ternary mixture in a plasma discharge in a capacitively coupled configuration with bacterium reduction, and validating this process as a possible sterilization decontamination procedure for medical devices. Please improve it.
- Please identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study in the discussion
Author Response
The study is written on a very current topic. The search for The inactivation efficiency was studied on a Staphylococcus aureus using a low-pressure plasma process by means of synergistic action of reactive plasma particles and UV radiation. The study is written very precisely. Much has been done both experimentally and for the subsequent evaluation of the obtained data. The text is quite clear. I recommend the study for acceptance in coatings, however, I have minor (rather formal) comments.
Dear Reviewer, we hope to have responded to your comments in detail.
I have only minor comments on the study:
- Title: see the following title is it suitable (Synergistic action of reactive plasma particles and UV radiation to inactivate staphylococcus aureus).
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the title has been revised.
- Abstract very short and need to improve. It is must be start by senetnece about subject of article. ended by conclusion senetnece.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the abstract has been revised.
- All figures resolution not clear.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, Figs. 3-4-5-6-7-8 have been revised.
- Please separate discussion and conclusion
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, a new section “Conclusions” has been included.
- In the discussion, it must be connect between the application of Ar/O2/N2 ternary mixture in a plasma discharge in a capacitively coupled configuration with bacterium reduction, and validating this process as a possible sterilization decontamination procedure for medical devices. Please improve it.
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the section “Discussion” has been revised. Anyway, we think that the connection is present. Findings reported here provide a “recipe” (N2 concentration in the range of 10-12% was used, at the pressure of 20 Pa, treatment time o f 4 min, RF power of 200 W (0.6 W/cm2), an Ar+ ion flux density of approximately 1.2×1018 m−2 s−1and a O2 concentration of 8-10%, with O density in the range of 2×1019 m-3) of interest for scalable development of real application.
- Please identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study in the discussion
In according to the reviewer's suggestion, the section “Discussion” has been revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The study is good but presentation is very poor. Moreover, data is not sufficient to support it's publication in this journal. More data need to be added on antibacterial activity. The observations I made to improve this article are not fully taken into account. For example, results' section seems to have "discussion section". Conclusion is very lengthy. Same goes for introduction.
Author Response
The authors thank the Reviewer for the work done.
Best regards,
E. Vassallo
Reviewer 5 Report
Accept
Author Response
The authors thank the Reviewer for the support.
Best regards,
E. Vassallo
