Recent Developments in Electrospun Nanofibers as Delivery of Phytoconstituents for Wound Healing
, Govindaraj Sabarees 3, Siddan Gouthaman 4, Krishnan Manikandan 2, Vadivel Velmurugan 3, Veerachamy Alagarsamy 5,* and Viswas Raja Solomon 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
“Recent Developments in Electrospun Nanofibers as Delivery of Phytoconstituents for Wound Healing”
Ajith et al. would like to summarize recent developments in using nanofiber encapsulated phytoconstituents for tissue engineering, drug delivery, and wound healing.
However, antimicrobial properties should be the main topic of this manuscript, as described below.
“Incorporating these phytoconstituents into electro-spun nanofibers combines the structural properties of the nanofibers with the antibacterial and therapeutic properties of the plants, making the nanofibers ideal for use as a wound dressing.”
“5. Antibacterial mechanism of phenolic compounds”
It would be great if the authors could focus on the antimicrobial field rather than the abstracts of other published review manuscripts.
Many sentences should be rewritten because they don't make any sense.
“Treating wounds is one challenging biomedical field due to delayed wound healing common in chronic wounds.”
“Several factors, such as microbial infections, malnutrition, underlying physiological conditions, etc., slow the healing of wounds.”
“Most currently utilized wound dressings have poor antimicrobial properties, biodegradability, biocompatibility, and mechanical performance.”
“Wound healing must be seen as a sequence of regulated and interconnected steps, as shown in (Figure 1)….” What does "must be treated as" mean?
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
“Recent Developments in Electrospun Nanofibers as Delivery of Phytoconstituents for Wound Healing”
Ajith et al. would like to summarize recent developments in using nanofiber encapsulated phytoconstituents for tissue engineering, drug delivery, and wound healing.
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable time, and suggestion for improving the quality of the MS. We agree with this reviewer’s suggestions and corrected/revised them. Please note that we did extensive English corrections using Grammarly.com and ProWritingAid.com. Furthermore, we checked some manual help from a native English-speaking colleague.
However, antimicrobial properties should be the main topic of this manuscript, as described below.
“Incorporating these phytoconstituents into electro-spun nanofibers combines the structural properties of the nanofibers with the antibacterial and therapeutic properties of the plants, making the nanofibers ideal for use as a wound dressing.”
Response: Agreed, Revised accordingly.
“5. Antibacterial mechanism of phenolic compounds”
It would be great if the authors could focus on the antimicrobial field rather than the abstracts of other published review manuscripts.
Response: As per the reviewer’s suggestion, Section 5 was revised.
Many sentences should be rewritten because they don't make any sense.
“Treating wounds is one challenging biomedical field due to delayed wound healing common in chronic wounds.”
“Several factors, such as microbial infections, malnutrition, underlying physiological conditions, etc., slow the healing of wounds.”
“Most currently utilized wound dressings have poor antimicrobial properties, biodegradability, biocompatibility, and mechanical performance.”
“Wound healing must be seen as a sequence of regulated and interconnected steps, as shown in (Figure 1)….” What does "must be treated as" mean?
Response: Agreed. The above sentences were modified as per the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments
1. Introduction. The authors should give some more detail on the mechanism of wound healing (Figure 1).
2. Introduction. The effects of enhancing or retarding wound healing should be discussed separately.
3. Introduction. Current chemical or synthetic drugs used for wound healing should be mentioned.
4. Introduction. The advantages of using phytoconstituents rather than chemicals should be discussed.
5. Electrospinning Technique. The principle of how the machine works and the factors affecting the nanofibers should be mentioned in more detail.
6. Advantages of Electrospun Nanofibers. Table 1: Scientific names should be in italics.
7. Polymers. Polymers should be classified into groups such as synthetic polymers and biopolymers. Then, each group of advantages of nanofiber fabrication should be described in detail.
8. Polymers. The full name of the polymer in the sentence should be lowercase.
9. Antibacterial mechanism of phenolic compounds. “phenolic compounds” should be changed to “phytoconstituents”, and the text inside should be modified to be relevant to phytoconstituents.
10. Electrospun nanofibers as delivery of phytoconstituents. According to the context inside, I think this title should be modified. Sub-topic titles should be improved to be more consistent, for example, only scientific names should be used.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
- Introduction. The authors should give some more detail on the mechanism of wound healing (Figure 1).
Response: Agreed. Mechanism of action for wound healing were discussed in detail in lines 38–71.
- Introduction. The effects of enhancing or retarding wound healing should be discussed separately.
Response: Agreed. Incorporated in lines 81–98.
- Introduction. Current chemical or synthetic drugs used for wound healing should be mentioned.
Response: Accepted. Incorporated in lines 103–107.
- Introduction. The advantages of using phytoconstituents rather than chemicals should be discussed.
Response: Agreed. Incorporated in lines 108–122
- Electrospinning Technique. The principle of how the machine works and the factors affecting the nanofibers should be mentioned in more detail.
Response: Accepted. Incorporated in lines 163–279.
- Advantages of Electrospun Nanofibers. Table 1: Scientific names should be in italics.
Response: Agreed. Scientific names in Table 1 changed to italics.
- Polymers. Polymers should be classified into groups such as synthetic polymers and biopolymers. Then, each group of advantages of nanofiber fabrication should be described in detail.
Response: Agreed. Detailed Classification of polymers with its advantages to nanofiber fabrication were described in Table 2.
- Polymers. The full name of the polymer in the sentence should be lowercase.
Response: Full names for polymers in sentences were given in lowercase.
- Antibacterial mechanism of phenolic compounds. “phenolic compounds” should be changed to “phytoconstituents”, and the text inside should be modified to be relevant to phytoconstituents.
Response: Accepted. Phenolic compounds changed to Phytoconstituents and it's relevant content were modified in the paragraph lines 327–350 .
- Electrospun nanofibers as delivery of phytoconstituents. According to the context inside, I think this title should be modified. Sub-topic titles should be improved to be more consistent, for example, only scientific names should be used.
Response: Agreed. The titles have been modified, and the subtopics have been improved with scientific names.
We thank the reviewer for providing a comprehensive review of our manuscript and recommendations to improve the quality of the MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for their responses, the manuscript has been revised for publication.
Author Response
Thanks to the authors for their responses, the manuscript has been revised for publication.
Response: We thank the reviewer for providing a comprehensive review of our manuscript and recommendations MS for the publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The revised version has been improved. However, some minor mistakes are still found e.g. plant scientific names should be in italic at the genus and species e.g., Zataria multiflora Boiss, Aloe barbadensis Miller, ect.
2. The full scientific name of each plant should be stated only on the first mention.
3. The line numbers of the edited sections notified to reviewers do not match.
Author Response
- The revised version has been improved. However, some minor mistakes are still found e.g. plant scientific names should be in italic at the genus and species e.g., Zataria multifloraBoiss, Aloe barbadensis Miller, ect.
Response: As per reviewer comments all the scientific names were changed to italics
- The full scientific name of each plant should be stated only on the first mention.
Response: Full scientific names stated only on the first mention
- The line numbers of the edited sections notified to reviewers do not match.
Response: Agreed. As per Reviewer’s Ist round of comments we have mentioned here with appropriate Line numbers rectified
- Introduction. The authors should give some more detail on the mechanism of wound healing (Figure 1).
Response: Agreed. Mechanism of action for wound healing were discussed in detail in lines 39–72.
- Introduction. The effects of enhancing or retarding wound healing should be discussed separately.
Response: Agreed. Incorporated in lines 82–99.
- Introduction. Current chemical or synthetic drugs used for wound healing should be mentioned.
Response: Accepted. Incorporated in lines 104–108.
- Introduction. The advantages of using phytoconstituents rather than chemicals should be discussed.
Response: Agreed. Incorporated in lines 109–123
- Electrospinning Technique. The principle of how the machine works and the factors affecting the nanofibers should be mentioned in more detail.
Response: Accepted. Incorporated in lines 164–281.
- Antibacterial mechanism of phenolic compounds. “phenolic compounds” should be changed to “phytoconstituents”, and the text inside should be modified to be relevant to phytoconstituents.
Response: Accepted. Phenolic compounds changed to Phytoconstituents and it's relevant content were modified in the paragraph lines 330–354 .
We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable time, and suggestion for improving the quality of the MS. We agree with this reviewer’s suggestions and corrected/revised them. Please note that we did extensive English corrections using Grammarly.com and ProWritingAid.com. Furthermore, we checked some manual help from a native English-speaking colleague too.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
