Comparison of Properties of the Hybrid and Bilayer MWCNTs—Hydroxyapatite Coatings on Ti Alloy
, Dorota Rogala-Wielgus 1, Michał Bartmański 1, Bartosz Bartosewicz 2 and Andrzej Zieliński 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well structured and the study is of actual interest for the area of biomedical applications.
I think that the manuscript can be considered for publication after the following minor adjustments:
The SEM images should be presented at the same magnification for each sample. The authors could also add SEM at different magnifications but this should be for all the presented samples. Furthermore, the EDX spectra need to be redrawn! The axes are hard to understand. Also, the English language should be carefully checked thorough the manuscript.
Author Response
Point 1:The SEM images should be presented at the same magnification for each sample. The authors could also add SEM at different magnifications but this should be for all the presented samples.
Response 1: SEM images have been changed as the reviewer suggested. There are three images, presenting material surface structure at the same two magnifications for each sample.
Point 2: Furthermore, the EDX spectra need to be redrawn! The axes are hard to understand.
Response 2: The EDX spectra was redrawn, so that the axes are clear and visable.
Point 3: Also, the English language should be carefully checked thorough the manuscript.
Response 3: The English grammar has been checked. We hope it is good enough to be considered for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
his manuscript contains the interesting matter. I recommend the publication after revision as following:
Line 28-29: on the other hand, ……. This sentence is hard to be comprehensible. I understand the effectiveness of CNT, however, I do not do which process of three authors presented is better. Introduction is too long to be comprehensible. Shorting for half volume is better. Line 53: single-wall CNT (SWCNTs) already appeared at Line 46. Line 59: CNTS -> CNTs Line 60: SWCBTS -> SWCNTs Line 64-65: carbon nanotube -> CNT Line 107: MWCNTS, CNTS -> MWCNTs, CNTs Line 410, 433: There is no page number. Line 417, 432: TiO2 “2” is subscript.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 28-29: on the other hand, ……. This sentence is hard to be comprehensible. I understand the effectiveness of CNT, however, I do not do which process of three authors presented is better.
Response 1: The sentence has been changed to: "Such behavior may be attributed to the applied deposition method, resulted in high hardness of the coating and high adhesion of carbon nanotubes to the substrate. On the other hand, bilayer coating and hybrid coating demonstrated insufficient properties, what could be the reason of the presence of soft porous hydroxyapatite and some agglomerates of nanometals in prepared coatings."
Point 2: Introduction is too long to be comprehensible. Shorting for half volume is better.
Response 2: Introduction has been shortened almost for half volume.
Point 3: Line 53: single-wall CNT (SWCNTs) already appeared at Line 46.
Point 4: Line 59: CNTS -> CNTs
Point 5: Line 60: SWCBTS -> SWCNTs
Point 6: Line 64-65: carbon nanotube -> CNT
Point 7: Line 107: MWCNTS, CNTS -> MWCNTs, CNTs
Point 8: Line 417, 432: TiO2 “2” is subscript.
Response to points 3-8: All the typing errors have been corrected.
Point 9: Line 410, 433: There is no page number.
Response 9: The numbers of pages have been filled in.
