Fabrication of Air Conditioning Antimicrobial Filter for Electrically Powered Port Tractors via Electrospinning Coating
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, antibacterial nanofibers (Ag nano powder and AgNO3) were coated on the surface of non-woven fabrics using electrospinning technology. The prepared nanofibers and powders were characterized thoroughly using electron microscopy, XRD, and FTIR. This study shows how the simple electrospinning coating technology can promote the functionalization of the original non-woven fabric membrane, which has great application prospects in the field of preparing functional filter membranes in the future. Such filter membranes can be truly practical in reducing the pollution of the combustion of internal combustion engines. Even though I am interested in the main idea and experimental parts of the paper, and I agree that this paper is interesting for the readers in this field, I believe that some comments should be considered before publication of this paper in Coatings. I highly suggest the authors implement *all* of the requested comments.
1- First of all, there are several comments about the English writing quality of the manuscript:
The English writing of the manuscript needs a thorough revision. Sometimes it is hard to understand what authors meant. For example: In the abstract:
even if PVA membranes containing a low content of 1wt% AgNO3 had excellent antibacterial properties against Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus).
is grammatically wrong, and it is really hard to understand the authors' main purpose.
2- Line 119: “coatng” is wrong
3- Line 109: “there is very little research” is grammatically wrong.
4- “Nanopowder” or “nano powder”? The authors should select one and use it in the entire manuscript.
5- Line 125: AgNO3: 3 should be in subscript format.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
*Scientific issues:
6- I totally agree with the authors about the importance of exhaust pollution caused by the combustion of internal combustion engines and its negative environmental effects. However, it would be better if the authors mentioned other aspects and possible solutions for this issue using advanced materials. For example, energy storage devices, fuel cells, and hydrogen production are possible solutions. The authors can add some sentences in the Introduction about these aspects and then add these references:
a) https://doi.org/10.1002/app.54812
b) 10.30574/wjarr.2023.20.1.2183
c) 10.30574/wjaets.2023.10.2.0310
7- Figure 7: Directly assign the most important bonds on the graph.
8- Figure 10 is useless for this manuscript unless the authors try to depict the antibacterial mechanism of synthesized nanoparticles.
9- More quantitative data should be added to the Abstract. In its current form, the abstract is full of qualitative data or general data about the characterization. The authors should discuss the size, antibacterial assay (give numbers), and other quantitative results.
10- Do the authors have any other evidence of AgNPs formation despite the XRD? The peak intensity in XRD is really low, and only one peak of silver is shown. The TEM images are not enough to prove the composition of particles unless elemental analysis is used. Do the authors measure the UV-Vis spectra of the particles? Or any other analysis that can prove the formation of AgNPs.
11- Figure 6: assign each peak directly on the graph. In the text, the authors should mention the corresponding material. They only mention the planes, not the material.
12- Line 245: To confirm that the characteristic peak at 2θ = 42.3° is for AgNPs, more up-to-date references are needed. I suggest authors to add these:
a) 10.1016/j.aca.2022.340030
b) 10.1016/j.saa.2021.120692
13- For the antibacterial mechanism, the authors should add more up-to-date references; two main references are for 2008 and 2016, which are too old. I highly suggest authors replace these references as the results and theories on the antibacterial mechanism of AgNPs have repeatedly changed in recent years.
14- Several authors are from the industry; the authors should make sure that there is no conflict of interest in the paper.
15- The authors should report the quantitative results from the antibacterial assay as a table or column graph. Then, the results can be compared to previously reported works to show the advantages of the present work.
16- Finally, I do not understand the role of “Powered Port Tractors” in this study; the title of the paper should be something like “Fabrication of Air Conditioning Antimicrobial Filter via Electrospinning Coating”. I don’t think the port tractor is something special and critical to be in the title. Mainly because no field experiment was done.
Again, I highly suggest the authors implement *all* of the requested comments to prepare an appropriate version of the manuscript to be published in Coatings.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. I have studied the comments carefully and have made the correction. I hope it meets with your approval. Our response details are shown in the attachment. Please kindly find the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a meritorious ms that describes the fabrication of air conditioning antimicrobial filter for electrically powered port tractors via electrospinning coating.
The manuscript is skillfully written, presenting its results in a clear and well-defended manner. The adept use of transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to characterize the morphologies and structures of non-woven fabrics and electrospinning coated samples is commendable. While there are some typos that need correction, overall, this manuscript is deemed suitable and likely to be of broad interest. It is well-suited for publication in the Coatings journal, and publication is recommended.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. I have studied the comments carefully and have made the correction. I hope it meets with your approval. Our response details are shown in the attachment. Please kindly find the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, please find below my comments and suggestions:
Abstract: Please clarify the novelty of the work compared to previous works.
Introduction: Line 33, please indicate the meaning of SUV given that it is the first time that it is mentioned.
Lines 48-51. Please provide a reference or several references for these sentences.
Line 54 – Please rephrase the sentence to make it more precise and avoid non formal language (“huge advantages”).
Therefore, it has huge advantages in the directional preparation of functional materials.
Line 61 – Please explain the meaning of PM2.5 or PM10, given it is the first time that it is mentioned. Please revise through all the document.
Line 79 - Please check subscripts and superscripts in all the document. For example in line 79, TiO2 (it should be TiO2). Superoxide anion.
Lines 106 - 109. Authors claimed that an extensive review was done, but no reference was provided. Please add some references to justify this sentence.
The term nanopowder is a single word. In other part of the document, the word is written as a single word. Are they silver nanoparticles or silver nanopowders?
Section 2. Experimental Part. Please provide references for the chemicals used in this work, reference number, purity, etc... Again, check subscripts (AgNO3).
Please provide a table with samples code for clarity (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and M6) or else, explain the notation in each figure (Figure 4 or Figure 5).
Figure 5, please use the same bin size for the fiber diameter distribution for comparison purposes.
Section 3.2. Use the complete name of the characterization techniques, avoid acronyms in titles.
Line 244, please explain what it is mentioned in reference [23] and how it compares to theirs.
In Figure 4, the red letters in the images are not clearly seen.
Please provide or report characterization of Ag and AgNO3 nanopowders or nanoparticles, accordingly.
Authors report that the best results are obtained for samples with low content in particles (1%) indicating that it is an effect of viscosity, but have you considered the possibility of an efficent dispersion of the particles? And how would it affect the formation of agglomerates?
Please provide a scale bar for Figures 8 and 9.
Revise references.
Write conclusions according to the new comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. I have studied the comments carefully and have made the correction. I hope it meets with your approval. Our response details are shown in the attachment. Please kindly find the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, the authors have demonstrated application of the electrospinning technology to coat antibacterial nanofibers on the surface of commercial non-woven fabrics used in electric port tractors. This kind of study has not been performed previously on the existing commercial filter membranes. The article is unique, logical and well organized. Their hypothesis and claims are well supported with the design of the experiments and all the characterizations they have provided. The scope of work covered is appropriate and likely to appeal to the MDPI’s audience. The reviewer suggests acceptance of this work after revisions.
1. Page 6, Figure 4. The red texts inside the SEM images look blurry even after significant zoom in. Using white as a text color may help to increase the resolution.
2. It is highly recommended to illustrate the concept of the figures a bit in the figure captions. It helps readers to quickly glance the results/ findings through the images.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. I have studied the comments carefully and have made the correction. I hope it meets with your approval. Our response details are shown in the attachment. Please kindly find the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have implemented the required work; I believe this paper can be published in Coatings in its current form.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the manuscript as per the suggestions.
