Modeling of Bacterial Cellulose-Based Composite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. A diagram illustrating the device structure should be given. 

2. Improve the quality of Figures 2 and 3.

3. Rearrange these figures to ensure better visual interpretation.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor editing of language is required

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the accurate revision of our manuscript.

We changed the paper accordingly and we believe that with reviewers’ suggestions the quality and readability of the paper has been much more improved.

In the following, a detailed list of replies to the reviewers and of the changes are reported.

REVIEWER 1

1. A diagram illustrating the device structure should be given. 

The diagram has been added as Figure 1

2. Improve the quality of Figures 2 and 3.

Done

3. Rearrange these figures to ensure better visual interpretation.

The size of figures has been increased

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experimental article "Modeling of Bacterial Cellulose-based Composite" is devoted to the creation of environmentally friendly sensors based on a polymer of biological origin, such as bacterial cellulose. This topic is very relevant nowadays, since the desire to preserve the environment is very important. The article lacks a comparison of the experimental data obtained with previous studies.

Questions and comments:

1. Bring the list of references to uniformity.

2. The use of bacterial cellulose in electronics has been known for a long time. Therefore, from the introduction it is not clear what the novelty of the research is. It is necessary to present the novelty and compare your research with already published ones.

3. In materials and methods, provide the methodology for the biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose or provide a link to the relevant publication.

4. The conclusions must clearly state the results of the experiments performed.

5. In the results and discussions, compare the data obtained in this work with previously conducted studies

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the accurate revision of our manuscript.

We changed the paper accordingly and we believe that with reviewers’ suggestions the quality and readability of the paper has been much more improved.

In the following, a detailed list of replies to the reviewers and of the changes are reported.

REVIEWER 2

The experimental article "Modeling of Bacterial Cellulose-based Composite" is devoted to the creation of environmentally friendly sensors based on a polymer of biological origin, such as bacterial cellulose. This topic is very relevant nowadays, since the desire to preserve the environment is very important. The article lacks a comparison of the experimental data obtained with previous studies.

Questions and comments:

1. Bring the list of references to uniformity.

Done. All the reference are now coherent with the journal .bib style.

2. The use of bacterial cellulose in electronics has been known for a long time. Therefore, from the introduction it is not clear what the novelty of the research is. It is necessary to present the novelty and compare your research with already published ones.

The authors agree that bacterial cellulose has been widely used for realizing electronics even and even many sensors. Nevertheless, using BC for realizing piezo-ionic generating sensors is quite new. Results reported in the paper represent a novel contribution. The novelty has been outlined in the introduction.

3. In materials and methods, provide the methodology for the biosynthesis of bacterial cellulose or provide a link to the relevant publication.

The six steps procedure have been added in the introduction.

4. The conclusions must clearly state the results of the experiments performed.

The conclusion has been further detailed.

5. In the results and discussions, compare the data obtained in this work with previously conducted studies.

To the best of authors knowledge, the are no previous studies on BC based mechano-electrical transducer. Shall the reviewer have suggestions on related contribution the authors will be glad to consider them.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript by Caponetto et al. describes the model identification and investigation of the mechano-electrical transduction properties of bacterial cellulose-based composite. Analyses were performed with a separation between the mechanical response from the electrical response of BC. Furthermore, the frequency analysis of the composite was investigated to experimentally determine the dependence of the transduction property on the frequency of the applied mechanical deformation. A model identification has been proposed, and compared with the experimental data, and considerations concerning the system linearity have also been addressed. The study is interesting and presents some interesting results; however, the manuscript is not written very well. Some major issues are listed as follows.

1.       Abstract is too generalized with no information on the study presented. It should be rewritten by adding a clear background of the study, briefly describing the methodology, presenting key findings of the study, and ending it with concluding remarks emphasizing the importance of this study.

2.       Introduction is poorly written with too many small passages – even some comprised of a single sentence. It should be revised following below comments and suggestions.

-          Merge small passages in a logical way. For instance, the first passage should summarize the background information on waste and e-wastes. It should be followed by a passage with information on the use of polymers/cellulose/bacterial cellulose in developing electronics. The third passage may summarize the use of IL. The fourth passage should describe the objectives and importance of this study.

-          BC has been used in developing sensors for bacterial detection. Studies have immobilized phage and other materials in bacterial cellulose for efficient detection of bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus, etc.

-          Lines 87-90. No need to describe the layout of your manuscript.

-          In addition to bacteria (Acetobacter xylinum), BC is also produced by the cell-free enzyme system. Enrich the introduction with the latest updates on the topic. Italicize names of microbial species throughout the text.   

3.       Section 2.1. The heading ‘Materials’ is inappropriate, and should be changed to something like ‘Preparation of membrane…..’. Merge all small passages.

4.       Lines 93-97: The mentioned values of various dimensions of BC are before drying? What were the values after drying? For how long, oven-drying was performed?

5.       Section 2.2. This is inappropriate way, and the description should be changed to a passage.

6.       The manuscript contains a total of 26 references, including 24 references in the Introduction section and 2 references in the Modeling section. There is not a single reference in the Results section.

7.       A separate ‘Discussion’ or merged with the ‘Results’ section is missing in the manuscript. Authors should extensively discuss their results by comparing them with the literature.

8.       The Conclusions section is too general and should be revised by summarizing the key findings of the study.

9.       Define all abbreviations at first appearance and then use them consistently.

10. Manuscript is sprinkled with grammatical errors, typos, lack of punctuation and periods, word joining, and so on. Therefore, careful proofread is strongly recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate language editing is required.

Author Response

We thank the Reviewer for the accurate revision of our manuscript.

We changed the paper accordingly and we believe that with reviewers’ suggestions the quality and readability of the paper has been much more improved.

In the following, a detailed list of replies to the reviewers and of the changes are reported.

REVIEWER 3

This manuscript by Caponetto et al. describes the model identification and investigation of the mechano-electrical transduction properties of bacterial cellulose-based composite. Analyses were performed with a separation between the mechanical response from the electrical response of BC. Furthermore, the frequency analysis of the composite was investigated to experimentally determine the dependence of the transduction property on the frequency of the applied mechanical deformation. A model identification has been proposed, and compared with the experimental data, and considerations concerning the system linearity have also been addressed. The study is interesting and presents some interesting results; however, the manuscript is not written very well. Some major issues are listed as follows.

1. Abstract is too generalized with no information on the study presented. It should be rewritten by adding a clear background of the study, briefly describing the methodology, presenting key findings of the study, and ending it with concluding remarks emphasizing the importance of this study.

The abstract has been rewritten outlining the goals of the research activity.

2. Introduction is poorly written with too many small passages – even some comprised of a single sentence. It should be revised following below comments and suggestions:
   1. Merge small passages in a logical way. For instance, the first passage should summarize the background information on waste and e-wastes. It should be followed by a passage with information on the use of polymers/cellulose/bacterial cellulose in developing electronics. The third passage may summarize the use of IL. The fourth passage should describe the objectives and importance of this study.
   2. BC has been used in developing sensors for bacterial detection. Studies have immobilized phage and other materials in bacterial cellulose for efficient detection of bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus, etc.
   3. Lines 87-90. No need to describe the layout of your manuscript.
   4. In addition to bacteria (Acetobacter xylinum), BC is also produced by the cell-free enzyme system. Enrich the introduction with the latest updates on the topic. Italicize names of microbial species throughout the text.
3. The introduction has been reorganized.
4. The paper deal with mechano-electrical transduction properties of BC based composite. Bacteria are of no interest in the present investigation.
5. Respectfully, these lines could of interest for the reader to better go through the manuscript.
6. The following papers have been added in the manuscript.

Kim Y., Ullah M.W., Ul-Islam M., Khan S., Jang J.H., Park J.K., Self-assembly of bio-cellulose nanofibrils through intermediate phase in a cell-free enzyme system”, (2019) Biochemical Engineering Journal, 142, pp. 135 – 144

Ullah M.W., Ul Islam M., Khan S., Shah N., Park J.K., Recent advancements in bioreactions of cellular and cell-free systems: A study of bacterial cellulose as a model, (2017) Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 34 (6), pp. 1591 – 1599.

Muhammad Wajid Ullah, Khulood Fahad Alabbosh, Atiya Fatima, Salman Ul Islam, Sehrish Manan, Mazhar Ul-Islam, Guang Yang, Advanced biotechnological applications of bacterial nanocellulose-based nanohybrids: A review, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research Available online 2 August 2023

Yeji Kim, Muhammad Wajid Ullah, Mazhar Ul-Islam, Shaukat Khan, Jae Hyun Jang, Joong Kon Park “Self-assembly of bio-cellulose nanofibrils through intermediate phase in a cell-free enzyme system” Biochemical Engineering Journal, Volume 142, 15 February 2019, Pages 135-144

 

3. Section 2.1. The heading ‘Materials’ is inappropriate, and should be changed to something like ‘Preparation of membrane…..’. Merge all small passages.

The title of the subsection has changed according to reviewer’s suggestion.

4. Lines 93-97: The mentioned values of various dimensions of BC are before drying? What were the values after drying? For how long, oven-drying was performed?

Info added in section 2.1

5. Section 2.2. This is inappropriate way, and the description should be changed to a passage.

Section 2 has been unified, without subsections

6. The manuscript contains a total of 26 references, including 24 references in the Introduction section and 2 references in the Modeling section. There is not a single reference in the Results section.

 

Further refences have been added to report the SOA and the cell-free enzyme system.

7. A separate ‘Discussion’ or merged with the ‘Results’ section is missing in the manuscript. Authors should extensively discuss their results by comparing them with the literature.

The results are described in the section IV. To the best of authors knowledge, the are no previous studies on BC based mechano-electrical transducer. Shall the reviewer have suggestions on related contribution the authors will be glad to consider them.

8. The Conclusions section is too general and should be revised by summarizing the key findings of the study.

Done

9. Define all abbreviations at first appearance and then use them consistently.

Done

10. Manuscript is sprinkled with grammatical errors, typos, lack of punctuation and periods, word joining, and so on. Therefore, careful proofread is strongly recommended.

The paper has been extensively revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no more comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

publish in the present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language editing