Underwater Shock Wave-Enhanced Cavitation to Induce Morphological Changes and Cell Permeabilization in Microscopic Fungi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, Martínez-Maldonado and colleagues employed an approach using shock waves to alter the morphological changes and cell permeability of the fungus Aspergillus niger. Utilizing scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy techniques, they meticulously characterized the morphological changes of Aspergillus niger under various experimental parameters. Furthermore, the study delves into the changes in proteins released into the culture medium after shock wave treatment. The authors describe the experimental design, process, and results in a clear and comprehensive manner, showcasing the significance and innovation of the study. However, to further enhance the quality of the paper, I recommend the authors make the following revisions:

 

1. The logical structure of the introduction seems somewhat disorganized. It is suggested that the authors revise the introduction to transition from a broader background to a more specific one, clearly stating the key scientific question, and then describing how this study addresses it. Please avoid overly general introductions after mentioning "in this study."
2. There is some lack of clarity between the main text and the caption of Figure 2, especially the markers labeled 1-8, which are not easily understood. The authors are suggested to adjust this for better clarity.
3. It is recommended to change the titles of subsections 3.1 and 3.2 to specifically describe the morphological characteristics of Aspergillus niger, rather than naming them after the characterization methods, i.e., SEM and TEM.
4. If possible, could you please provide a larger scale scanning electron microscopy image, for instance, as an additional figure in the Supporting Information, to offer a broader field of observation? Additionally, it is suggested to change the black arrowheads in the images to white ones for better visibility.
5. Please mention figures 2b, 2d, 2f, and 2h in the main text.
6. In section 3.3, regarding the observation that the protein concentration is lowest for 200 SDT, it is suggested that the authors delve deeper into this phenomenon and provide an explanation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression throughout the article is clear; it is recommended to further enhance the logical flow and description of the results for more coherent and impactful presentation.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting application of wave-induced cavitation in biotechnology. The authors have analyzed the effects of a single pulse, short-delay tandem pulse, and long-delay tendum pulse on the modifications made on the cell wall surface of A.nigger conidia. The study found interesting results.

It is unclear how the authors decided on the shot delay and long delay of 40 and 100 microseconds were selected and the basis of such selection should be justified.

The literature review could be further improved by highlighting any previous studies that used acoustic-induced cavitation, as of now it is too generic. it is suggested to include some literature explaining the fluid mechanics/physics behind the underwater shock waves-induced cavitation and microjets.

The authors have mainly focused on analyzing the modifications to the cell structure using SEM and TEM and have not discussed the fluid dynamic-related phenomena such as cavitation and related multi-bubble phenomena to explain how these changes are made and the underlying physics of the fluid flows is missing, which is one of the main drawbacks of the paper. The paper is submitted to the Fluids Journal under a special issue on cavitation and bubble dynamics, it will be attractive for the readers if the authors can include this aspect in the paper.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf