Characterization of Nanoparticles in Antimicrobial Coatings for Medical Applications—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Quality of Figure 1, 2, 3 should be improved.

2. Table 1, 2 should be more elaborative.

3. Reference format not in line with that of MDPI

4. The topic is interesting, but the MS requires thorough revision. In the title, "comprehensive" is written, but the comprehension is missing in the MS. Latest researchers should be covered. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank You for your time and for Your valuable comments.

 

We have made the changes in Figures 1, 2 and 3, as well as in Tables 1 and 2. All of those were completely revised.

In addition, we have revised the title of the manuscript, and the word “comprehensive” is removed, while many new references and lates research inputs were added to the text.

 

We hope that you will find that the manuscript now much more improved.

 

Best regards, authors.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is written to introduce antibacterial coatings for medical applications. For the following reasons, the article in its current form lacks comprehensiveness suitable to accept and needs very fundamental changes. This version should be rejected.

1- The title of the article is dedicated to antibacterial coatings, while the article deals with antibacterial nanoparticles.

2- The classification of antibacterial nanoparticles is not done correctly and the difference between metals and metal oxides is not considered. The text also mentions other nanoparticles, such as carbon nanotubes.

3- The antibacterial mechanism of inorganic substances has not been presented, and it is not clear whether the particles themselves or the ions released from them or both have antibacterial properties and what is the mechanism of their action on bacteria.

4- The numbering and titling of the content need to be changed.

5- In Table 1, it is not clear whether the authors meant metal or metal oxide.

6- The presented figures do not provide any useful information to the reader.

7- The importance of nanoparticle characterization techniques and their relevance to the article's topic is unclear.

The reader will generally not find any attitude towards the subject by reading this article. The content is scattered and written without a clear trend. A review article should be based on a comprehensive study of the conducted research, proper classification, and a clear presentation process, which unfortunately the article lacks such features.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for your time and for Your valuable comments.

 

We have made the changes according to your recommendations. All the changes are marked in yellow color, and are listed here:

1. The title is corrected and changed into “Charaterization methods of nanoparticles in antimicrobial coatings for medical applications – a review“
2. The classification is now more carefully performed, resulting in changes of the text of the manuscript and the Table 2
3. Figure 3 presenting some of the most significant mechanisms are now presented in clearer manner. The fact that the particles themselves have antibacterial properties and that there are several different mechanisms of their action on bacteria are now emphasized.
4. The numbering and titling of the content are changed
5. Table 1 is revised, as well as Table 2
6. Figures 1, 2 and 3 are now corrected for a better clarity
7. The importance of nanoparticle characterization techniques and their relevance to the article's topic is more emphasized in the manuscript.

“Without proper characterization and testing, there could be no standards, norms or procedures applied and vital for the preservation of human health and the environment “

“Monitoring of antimicrobial effects of metal and metalo oxide nanoparticles strongly depends on their chemical and morphological properties. Not only that the chemistry, concentration and the quantity depend on the antimicrobial potential, but also the size and the morphology (sphere, needle like, stars and others). For example, very often smalle nanoparticles in a very low concentrations have much stronger antimicrobial effects than samples with their higher concentrations. In addition, the agglomeration of the nanoparticles in some samples leads to changes in their antimicrobial effects. In order to be able to monitor properly the antimicrobial effects, it is crucial to firstly perform the thorough characterization of the coatings that contain metal and metalo oxide nanoparticles. Only then can the antimicrobial properties be linked to proper physical, chemical and morphological ground.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, The comments can be addressed before the manuscript is accepted.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accetable

Author Response

Reviewer 3

With respect to the results and conclusion reported, I would like to comment that:

1. Author should read manuscript carefully in order to avoid a typo mistake, as can be seen in the manuscript.
2. All abbreviations should be defined at the place of their first appearance in the body text.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for your time and for Your valuable comments.

 

We have made the changes according to your recommendations. All the changes are marked in yellow color, and are listed here:

1. The manuscript is thoroughly revised
2. All abbreviations are defined at the place of their first appearance, after which only the abbreviations are used, and all changes are marked in yellow color in the manuscript

 

1. Abstract somehow is dry and author need to explain the results.
2. Problem statement is not clear in introduction part.

3. Clarification on the topic of the manuscript is added to the Abstract: “Without proper characterization and testing, there could be no standards, norms or procedures applied and vital for the preservation of human health and the environment “.
4. In addition, the clarification is added to the Introduction of the manuscript with more details

“Monitoring of antimicrobial effects of metal and metalo oxide nanoparticles strongly depends on their chemical and morphological properties. Not only that the chemistry, concentration and the quantity depend on the antimicrobial potential, but also the size and the morphology (sphere, needle like, stars and others). For example, very often small nanoparticles in a very low concentrations have much stronger antimicrobial effects than samples with their higher concentrations. In addition, the agglomeration of the nanoparticles in some samples leads to changes in their antimicrobial effects. In order to be able to monitor properly the antimicrobial effects, it is crucial to firstly perform the thorough characterization of the coatings that contain metal and metalo oxide nanoparticles. Only then can the antimicrobial properties be linked to proper physical, chemical and morphological ground.

 

1. The objective of the work is not clear in last paragraph of introduction.

The clear hypothesis and the objective of this work are added to the last paragraph of the Introduction.

 

1. There is no hypothesis set for this work. Or in other word, clearly show why to do this work

The clear hypothesis and the objective of this work are added to the last paragraph of the Introduction.

 

1. More attention in section 1.4.

 The paragraph 1.4. is now 1.3 and is revised.

 

1. The introduction about antimicrobial coatings is very poor and please rewrite it. not supported by sufficient references and must include.! i.e. The citation can be used as well to improve an introduction part. 

10. -Polymers for Advanced Technologies; https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4042
11. - Environmental Research; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116634

In addition, the introduction has been thoroughly revised.

 

1. Measurements and descriptions of the accumulating effects of antimicrobial nanoparticles characterization are required.

We have made the revision accordingly.

 

1. More details are required for the microscopical analysis of antimicrobial nanoparticles in coatings.

We have made the revision accordingly.

 

1. The color in figures can be adjusted. The font needs to be consistent. For example, Fig. 3

We have made the changes in Figures 1, 2 and 3, as well as in Tables 1 and 2. All of those were completely revised.

 

1. Conclusion need to be rewrite after done the correction.

We have made the revision accordingly.

 

1. Author needs to update the references with a latest and related research work.

We have made the changes in the list of references, and many older ones are replaced with related recent research work

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Acceptable

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your valuable comments, due to which this manuscript is much improved. 

We have edited the grammar and the style of the manuscript and we hope that it is now much more suitable for publication.

Sincerely

Authors