Fabrication of a Flower-like Copper Oxide Film-Coated Nanoporous Stainless Steel Using Anodization-Assisted Electrodeposition as a Novel Antibacterial Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some intriguing findings in the author's submitted work, yet some considerations also arise. Because of this, the reviewer recommends substantial changes be made before publishing the research article in "Coatings." This current work may be better if the following suggestions were implemented.

·         The abstract is in need of editing. Lacking coherence, it is riddled with typos and grammatical mistakes. For better readability, I recommend revising it.

·         It is unclear from the abstract what the authors are suggesting.

·         Introduction Section needs to be revised.

·         It's unclear what the author aspires to accomplish with this piece of writing. How do authors ensure that their work stands out?

·         The authors should aim to add additional interest to the findings and discussion sections by highlighting the novel aspects of their study.

·         The offered conclusion needs revision. Conclusions should be more concrete and future research directions should be presented.

·         The authors should talk about why this is a useful topic and whether there will be any new discoveries or opportunities for research in the future. The report's emphasis should be on the study's management and practical consequences.

·         A second read-through is required to catch any spelling or grammar mistakes in the English text.

 

·         In-depth information may be provided by the authors. Please provide the corrected version as soon as feasible.

Author Response

Coatings

coatings-2160218

Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments as followings:

1. The abstract is in need of editing. Lacking coherence, it is riddled with typos and grammatical mistakes. For better readability, I recommend revising it.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. This research’s goal was to investigate the antibacterial properties of Cu/NPSS made using anodization-assisted electrodeposition. These nanoporous materials may have promising prospects due to their dual functionality, strong antibacterial activity, and nanoporous properties across a wide range of possible applications, including multifunctional coatings, healthcare-related environments, and biomedical devices and implants.

2. It is unclear from the abstract what the authors are suggesting.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. flower-like copper oxides film was prepared on the surface of 316L nanoporous stainless steel (Cu/NPSS) by anodization-assisted electrodeposition. Composition and phase characterization of NPSS and Cu/NPSS samples were evaluated. The antibacterial activity of Cu/NPSS against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) was investigated. This research’s goal was to investigate the antibacterial properties of Cu/NPSS made using anodization-assisted electrodeposition.

3. Introduction Section needs to be revised.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have made a revision according to the comment.

4. It's unclear what the author aspires to accomplish with this piece of writing. How do authors ensure that their work stands out?

Answer: Thanks for this comment. This research’s goal was to investigate the antibacterial properties of Cu/NPSS made using anodization-assisted electrodeposition. These nanoporous materials may have promising prospects due to their dual functionality, strong antibacterial activity, and nanoporous properties across a wide range of possible applications, including multifunctional coatings, healthcare-related environments, and biomedical devices and implants. Adding the right elements or metal oxides to well-ordered nanostructures can improve their electrochemical or antibacterial capabilities.

5. The authors should aim to add additional interest to the findings and discussion sections by highlighting the novel aspects of their study.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. The highlightings of paper were: 1). Flower-like copper oxides film was prepared on the surface of 316L nanoporous stainless steel (Cu/NPSS) by anodization-assisted electrodeposition; 2) The growth inhibition rates of Cu/NPSS against E. coli and S. aureus was 99.6% and 97.4% within 12 h, respectively.

6.The offered conclusion needs revision. Conclusions should be more concrete and future research directions should be presented.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have made a revision according to the comment.

7. 7. The authors should talk about why this is a useful topic and whether there will be any new discoveries or opportunities for research in the future. The report's emphasis should be on the study's management and practical consequences.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. The highlightings of paper were: 1). Flower-like copper oxides film was prepared on the surface of 316L nanoporous stainless steel (Cu/NPSS) by anodization-assisted electrodeposition; 2) The growth inhibition rates of Cu/NPSS against E. coli and S. aureus was 99.6% and 97.4% within 12 h, respectively.

8. A second read-through is required to catch any spelling or grammar mistakes in the English text.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have made a revision according to the comment.

9. In-depth information may be provided by the authors. Please provide the corrected version as soon as feasible.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have made a revision according to the comment.

The manuscript has been resubmitted to journal. We look forward to your positive response. Anyway, if you need any other information and/or action from our part, do not hesitate in contact us.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely

Reviewer 2 Report

Copper oxide micro-flowers have been grown by electrodeposition on stainless steel substrates, and it was shown that this material exhibits antibacterial activity against staphylococcus aureus and escherichia coli. This material could be useful for biomedical implants and other medical applications. However, the following issues should be addressed:

1. The following sentences are repeated in the introduction section: “adding the right elements or metal oxides to well-ordered nanostructures can improve their electrochemical or antibacterial capabilities. A potentially effective bottom-up method for creating hard nanoporous templates is electrodeposition of metallic atoms into their nanopores” and “incorporation of appropriate elements or metal oxides into well-ordered nanostructures can enhance antimicrobial activity or other electrochemical properties. An effective, low-cost bottom-up method for creating arrays of nanostructured materials is the electrodeposition of metallic atoms into the nanopores of hard nanoporous templates”.

2. Figure 1 should be removed, since the technology is clearly described in the text.

3. The wavelength should be clearly indicated in the XRD methodology.

4. Equation 1 should be clearly explained.

5.  It is not clear, where are the reflexes from the CuO phase in Fig. 2, and what is the ratio of CuO to Cu₂O content. The reflexes should be indexed according to PDF cards. The reflexes marked as CuO belong actually to the iron.

6. It is not evident that the porosity of the austenite substrate is important for the Cu deposition, since the diameter of pores is much smaller that the size of Cu-related flowers. To demonstrate this, the deposition on the substrate anodized at 50V should be compared with the deposition on a substrate anodized at 20 V.

The paper needs major revision.

 

 

Author Response

 Coatings

coatings-2160218

Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments as followings:

Copper oxide micro-flowers have been grown by electrodeposition on stainless steel substrates, and it was shown that this material exhibits antibacterial activity against staphylococcus aureus and escherichia coli. This material could be useful for biomedical implants and other medical applications. However, the following issues should be addressed: 

1.The following sentences are repeated in the introduction section: “adding the right elements or metal oxides to well-ordered nanostructures can improve their electrochemical or antibacterial capabilities. A potentially effective bottom-up method for creating hard nanoporous templates is electrodeposition of metallic atoms into their nanopores” and “incorporation of appropriate elements or metal oxides into well-ordered nanostructures can enhance antimicrobial activity or other electrochemical properties. An effective, low-cost bottom-up method for creating arrays of nanostructured materials is the electrodeposition of metallic atoms into the nanopores of hard nanoporous templates”.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. The repeated sentences have been changed and modified. 

2. Figure 1 should be removed, since the technology is clearly described in the text.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. Figure 1 is clearly described in the text indeed. We thought it might be more intuitive to use figure 1.

3.The wavelength should be clearly indicated in the XRD methodology.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. Cu target (λ=1.5410) as the excitation source, an X-ray diffractometer was used to study the crystal structures of NPSS and Cu/NPSS.

4. Equation 1 should be clearly explained.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. In the formula, andrepresented the average number of the bacterial colony on nutrient agar plates corresponded to NPSS and Cu/NPSS sample.

5. It is not clear, where are the reflexes from the CuO phase in Fig. 2, and what is the ratio of CuO to Cu₂O content. The reflexes should be indexed according to PDF cards. The reflexes marked as CuO belong actually to the iron.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have carefully studied reference papers. The CuO diffraction peak overlaps the iron diffraction peak. The corresponding atomic ratios of coatings indicates that the coatings are both CuO and Cu₂O present.

6. It is not evident that the porosity of the austenite substrate is important for the Cu deposition, since the diameter of pores is much smaller that the size of Cu-related flowers. To demonstrate this, the deposition on the substrate anodized at 50V should be compared with the deposition on a substrate anodized at 20 V.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. In this study, flower-like copper oxides film was prepared on the surface of 316L nanoporous stainless steel (Cu/NPSS) by anodization-assisted electrodeposition. The porosity of the austenite substrate have the capacity to adsorb and interact with atoms, ions, and molecules in the nanometer-sized pore space. It is helpful to improve the bonding strength and lightweight of membrane base.

The manuscript has been resubmitted to journal. We look forward to your positive response. Anyway, if you need any other information and/or action from our part, do not hesitate in contact us.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have written well, Few modifications required

In Pg 1 of 8, line 40 – 41 there is therefornanoporous materials have the potential e a great deal of interest in the design. Kindly check the line

In Pg 2 of 8, Line 47 efficient bacterial killing… The sentence is not complete

In Pg 2 of 8, Line 56 adding the right elements or metal oxides to well-ordered nanostructures can improve their electrochemical or antibacterial capabilities. Reference can be added

In Pg 3 of 8, Line 106, The testing samples were put in Petri dishes that had been sterilized. Sentence can be modified

In Pg 3 of 8, Line 143 This is due to the fact that nanopore structures improve the capacity for atom absorption and interaction. Sentence can be modified, Reference can be given

In Pg 3 of 8, Line 193 also provide a more favorable bioactive environment for osteoblast cell proliferation. Sentence can be modified

Author Response

 Coatings

coatings-2160218

Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments as followings:

1. In Pg 1 of 8, line 40 – 41 there is therefornanoporous materials have the potential e a great deal of interest in the design. Kindly check the line

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We are sorry to make this mistake.

2. In Pg 2 of 8, Line 47 efficient bacterial killing… The sentence is not complete.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We are sorry to make this mistake. We have rewritten this section.

3. In Pg 2 of 8, Line 56 adding the right elements or metal oxides to well-ordered nanostructures can improve their electrochemical or antibacterial capabilities. Reference can be added

Answer: Thanks for this comment. References have been added.

4. In Pg 3 of 8, Line 106, The testing samples were put in Petri dishes that had been sterilized. Sentence can be modified.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We are sorry to make this mistake. We have rewritten this section.

5. In Pg 3 of 8, Line 143 This is due to the fact that nanopore structures improve the capacity for atom absorption and interaction. Sentence can be modified, Reference can be given.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have rewritten this section and cited relevant reference.

6. In Pg 3 of 8, Line 193 also provide a more favorable bioactive environment for osteoblast cell proliferation. Sentence can be modified.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. We have rewritten this section.

The manuscript has been resubmitted to journal. We look forward to your positive response. Anyway, if you need any other information and/or action from our part, do not hesitate in contact us.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not revised the paper according to my comment No. 6.

I consider that the comparison of deposition on the substrate anodized at 50V with the deposition on a substrate anodized at 20 V is needed to demonstrate the importance of the porosity of the austenite substrate for the Cu deposition.

I consider that the paper can not be published in the present form.

Author Response

 Coatings

coatings-2160218

Thank you for the reviewer’s comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments as followings:

1. The authors have not revised the paper according to my comment No. 6.I consider that the comparison of deposition on the substrate anodized at 50V with the deposition on a substrate anodized at 20 V is needed to demonstrate the importance of the porosity of the austenite substrate for the Cu deposition. I consider that the paper can not be published in the present form.

Answer: Thanks for this comment. Reviewer’s comment No. 6 “It is not evident that the porosity of the austenite substrate is important for the n, since the diameter of pores is much smaller that the size of Cu-related flowers. To demonstrate this, the deposition on the substrate anodized at 50V should be compared with the deposition on a substrate anodized at 20 V”. Indeed, The diameter of Cu deposition is bigger than that of the nanopores formed at 50V. NPSS can act as a hard template for direct synthesis of metal nanostructures on the surface and electrodeposition method provides a simple way to fill the pores of NPSS. The findings demonstrate that the nanopore structure at 50V, which has an estimated value of 93 nm and 87 nm, is slightly larger than that at 20V. Considering the the membrane binding strength, the NPSS with large nanopore size was selected as far as possible.

The manuscript has been resubmitted to journal. We look forward to your positive response. Anyway, if you need any other information and/or action from our part, do not hesitate in contact us.

Best wishes

Yours sincerely

 Hefeng Wang

March 22, 2023

Author Response File: Author Response.doc