Sustainable Integration of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Enhancing Properties of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Electrospun Nanofibers and Cast Films
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Referee's comments
to the paper entitled "Sustainable Integration of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Enhancing Properties of Poly(ε-caprolactone) Electrospun Nanofibers 3 and Cast Films for Advanced Applications " by Johar Amin Ahmed Abdullah et al.
The paper is devoted to very interesting problem, which is important from the practical point of view. In this work, membranes containing particles, which possess antimicrobial properties, were synthesized and investigated. The paper should be published after major revision, since some corrections are needed. In general, the main claim is the paper composition.
Title. I would advice to remove the words " for Advanced Applications ". It is possible to specify the application field, though it is not detailed in the text. Other way is to mention remarkable properties of the membranes, for instance, antioxidant activity or high mechanical durability.
Abstract. "The mechanical properties of the composite membranes and films also improved, with Ϭmax increasing by 56-32 % and Young's modulus increasing by 91-95 %, while εmax decreased by 79-57 %. "
Please avoid symbols. What are the symbols of SP%, Ϭmax and εmax?
Introduction. " Accordingly, nanoparticles of metal oxides, including nanofillers, are introduced into films and nanofiber-based polymers to enhance their properties ". What properties? Papers 42-49 are mainly devoted to mechanical properties of gelatin film. Please also indicate that modifying with oxides of multivalent metals enhances separation ability and antifouling properties of filtration membranes. Refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.124367,
DOI: 10.2298/APT1647153M
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtchem.2021.100532.
Experimental
Please avoid subsubsections like 3.3.1 etc. In this case, the paper looks like a report. It is the same for the "Results" section.
It is strongly recommended to merge sections 2 and 3.
I would recommend to omit the DSC results, since modifying gives no significant effect.
Fig. 11 contains 10 bars, the legend shows 12 bars.
Thr section Result contains too many description of the works of other authors. It is recommended only to remove them or to make them much shorter.
Englishshould be slightly improved.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere thanks for your review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been incredibly valuable in improving our work. We've made the recommended revisions, and you'll find our detailed responses in the enclosed document.
Your commitment to maintaining high standards in Coatings is greatly appreciated, and we eagerly await your feedback on the revised manuscript.
Thank you once again for your time and expertise.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes interesting and original work worthy of publication. I have the following comments:
ZnO is not a metal; it is an inorganic semiconducting compound (oxide of a metal). There are frequent mentions of metal particle nanocomposites, but these are not necessarily relevant to the present work as the nanoparticle used is not a metal.
The hydrophobicity of ZnO-NPs discussed in lines 238-241 is not convincing. References 76 and 77 do not give any direct evidence for ZnO-NPs. Ionic and hydrogen bonding increases hydrophilicity and not hydrophobicity.
Line 329: “The cast films also exhibit the same interweaving.” The cast film is not fibrous. Is the word interweaving appropriate?
Minor: lines 159, 339, max should be in subscript.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere thanks for your review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been incredibly valuable in improving our work. We've made the recommended revisions, and you'll find our detailed responses in the enclosed document.
Your commitment to maintaining high standards in Coatings is greatly appreciated, and we eagerly await your feedback on the revised manuscript.
Thank you once again for your time and expertise.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript (ID: coatings-2603360) examines the influence of incorporating zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) into poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) electrospun membranes and cast films, assessing their physicochemical, mechanical, and morphological properties. Additionally, the authors systematically assessed their physicochemical, mechanical, and morphological properties. This work is interesting, and certainly fits well with the journal of Coatings. Nevertheless, to my opinion the manuscript presents some weaknesses that need additional modification.
1. The authors mentioned applications in tissue engineering, food packaging, and drug delivery in the abstract. However, the demonstrated performance in this study does not correlate with tissue engineering or drug delivery. Maybe it is more meaningful for the authors to provide further supplementary information or revise accordingly.
2. In the introductory section, the authors discuss various topics separately, including the advantages of electrospinning, the advantages of PCL, challenges in food storage, the advantages of nanoparticles in food preservation, the advantages of ZnO-NPs, the preparation of ZnO-NPs, the combination of ZnO-NPs and PCL, and applications in different fields. The introduction exhibits an incoherent logical flow and raises several issues: a. Electrospinning, as a nanofiber processing technique, is mentioned in the first paragraph with applications in twelve different fields, including biomedicine. This may not seem entirely relevant to the topic of the manuscript, and it is advisable to consider selective removal; b. The authors emphasize various advantages of PCL as a material but do not highlight its processing capabilities. It is advisable for the authors to supplement the reasons for its suitability for electrospinning; c. There is a lengthy discussion about the role of nanoparticles before highlighting the advantages of ZnO-NPs. This part seems somewhat repetitive and could be streamlined; d. The detailed explanation of the preparation of ZnO-NPs may not be necessary and may not significantly contribute to the topic. Consider revising these sections to enhance the coherence and fluidity of the original manuscript.
3. The manuscript emphasizes the enhancement of various properties of PCL by nanoparticles and suggests that there may be interactions between the two. It is advisable for the authors to provide additional evidence to support this hypothesis.
4. Minor errors found (mainly editorial type): a. Page 2, Line 45 “hydrogen (H2)” change to “hydrogen (H2)”; b. Page 3, Line 100 “ZnO-NP” change to “ZnO-NPs”; c. Page 3, Line 105 “(CH3)2NC(O)H”change to “(CH3)2NC(O)H”; d. Page 4, Line 24 “samples (1 x 2 cm2)” change to “samples (1 x 2 cm2)”; Page 4, Line 159 “(Ϭmax)” change to “(Ϭ max)” …and so on…
5. There are many formatting errors in the references:
a) Incorrect title formatting: [46], [8], [9], [13] …and so on…
b) The reference document titles have inconsistent formatting, with both Melt-electrospinning of nanofibers and Beyond the Single-Nozzle: Coaxial Electrospinning Enables Innovative Nanofiber Chemistries, Geometries, and Applications formats, and further verification is required.
There's nothing wrong with the English writing in this manuscript.
Author Response
We want to express our sincere thanks for your review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been incredibly valuable in improving our work. We've made the recommended revisions, and you'll find our detailed responses in the enclosed document.
Your commitment to maintaining high standards in Coatings is greatly appreciated, and we eagerly await your feedback on the revised manuscript.
Thank you once again for your time and expertise.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
AS for my opinion, the initial version has been sufficiently improved, now the paper can be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript has been reviewed and revised with no issues, and I recommend its acceptance.
