Next Article in Journal
Chitosan-Based Nanoparticles for Cardanol-Sustained Delivery System
Previous Article in Journal
l-Arginine as Bio-Based Curing Agent for Epoxy Resins: Temperature-Dependence of Mechanical Properties
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Functionalized Moringa oleifera Gum as pH-Responsive Nanogel for Doxorubicin Delivery: Synthesis, Kinetic Modelling and In Vitro Cytotoxicity Study

Polymers 2022, 14(21), 4697; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214697
by Sunita Ranote 1,2,3,*, Marta Musioł 1, Marek Kowalczuk 1,*, Veena Joshi 2, Ghanshyam S. Chauhan 3, Rakesh Kumar 3, Sandeep Chauhan 3 and Kiran Kumar 3
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Polymers 2022, 14(21), 4697; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14214697
Submission received: 4 October 2022 / Revised: 30 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Polymer Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- There are some typo errors.

- Abstract conclusion is missing.

- Please use the full names of abbreviations before using abbreviations.

- free DOX and DOX–MOGN should be tested against normal cells.

- Why MOGN did not enhance the cytotoxicity of DOX in RD cells.

- The rationale for using RD cells is missing, why not the other kind of cells? 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Although several research has been published on Moringa oleifera gum grafted with acrylamide using free radical grafting techniques, the results presented by authors are interesting. 

The authors failed to bring the novelty of the current work into the abstract and introduction sections. Suggested improving both sections.

Moreover, in the method section, it is suggested to elaborate on the characterization sections in a concise manner.

In addition, suggested adding NMR analysis to confirm the grafting 

Further, suggested performing a thermal analysis with a comparison between native and graft forms.

Furthermore, an improvement in the discussion section requires, comparing the results with the previously published paper does not reflect exactly how the previous work significantly differs. The significant difference requires a brief discussion to prove the concept of current work worth.

 Some grammatical errors have been reflected in the attached PDF version. Suggested to consider while doing revisions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all the comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have reflected required corrections / suggestions. The manuscript can be accepted in present form.

Back to TopTop