Production, Optimization and Characterization of Polylactic Acid Microparticles Using Electrospray with Porous Structure
, Berna Dede 1,3, Eray Tabak 1,4, Aybuke Gur 1,5, Rabia Betul Sulutas 1,6, Sumeyye Cesur 1,7, Elif Ilhan 1,8, Chi-Chang Lin 9, Pradip Paik 10, Denisa Ficai 11,12, Anton Ficai 12,13,14 and Oguzhan Gunduz 1,15,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor: I would like to express my deep thanks for inviting me to review the manuscript ID: applsci-11520404
Title: Production, Optimization and Characterization of Polylactic Acid Microparticles using Electrospray with Porous Structure
Authors: Muhammed Enes Tasci, Berna Dede, Eray Tabak, Aybuke Gur, Rabia Betul Sulutas, Sumeyye Cesur, Elif Ilhan, Chi-Chang Lini, Pradip Paikk, Denisa Ficail,m, Anton Ficai and Oguzhan Gunduz
Comments:
Abstract:
Please delete this sentence “Compared to conventional manufacturing methods, electrospraying has many unique advantages, such as easy application, control over the particle size, shape, and cost-effectiveness”.
Rewrite abstract according to your results
Introduction part:
Please discuss in novelty and aim of this work.
Results and discussion:
- Figure 3 is not so clear. Please provide high resolution images.
- Figure 4 is not so clear. Please provide high resolution images.
- Authors need to mark all peaks in FTIR data.
- Authors need to explain the results in detail.
Conclusions:
Please rewrite the conclusion in bullet point
RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the enclosed manuscript for “Applied Sciences”, the present manuscript contains some kinds of scientific analysis but it is required to minor modification according to the preceding remarks. So, the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revisions have been made.
Author Response
Applied Science(Nanoscale Characterization of Bioceramics)
Manuscript ID: applsci-1152040
Manuscript title: Production, Optimization and Characterization of Polylactic acid
Microparticles using Electrospray with Porous Structure
Authors: Tascı Muhammed Enes, Dede Berna, Tabak Eray, Gur Aybuke, Sulutas
Rabia Betul, Cesur Sumeyye, Ilhan Elif, Lin Chi-Chang, Paik Pradip, Denisa
Ficai, Ficai Anton, Gunduz Oguzhan
Dear Editorial Office
Thank you for your kind reviews. We are really happy to obtain positive and productive comments from the reviewers. So we have made changes in manuscript as a red highlight according to the suggestions made by the referees. Herein, we would like to address each comment made by the referees.
Best wishes.
Oguzhan
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oguzhan Gunduz
Director
Center for Nanotechnology and Biomaterials Application & Research (NBUAM)
Reviewers' comments:
(The reviewers’ comments are shown in black and our responses in blue. The revisions made in our manuscript have been marked in red.)
Reviewer #1 (Comments to the Author)
Abstract:
Please delete this sentence “Compared to conventional manufacturing methods, electrospraying has many unique advantages, such as easy application, control over the particle size, shape, and cost-effectiveness”.
Rewrite abstract according to your results
Response: The sentence has been removed from the abstract and the abstract has been reorganized.
Introduction part:
Please discuss in novelty and aim of this work.
Response: With this study, it has been observed that microparticle structures have a more spherical, more porous and monodisperse structure with the effect of different solvents. These structures have the potential to be used in biomedical applications, especially drug release systems.
Results and discussion:
- Figure 3 is not so clear. Please provide high resolution images.
- Figure 4 is not so clear. Please provide high resolution images.
- Authors need to mark all peaks in FTIR data.
- Authors need to explain the results in detail.
Response: Figure 3 and Figure 4 were revised again and their quality was improved.
Peaks in FTIR data were marked.
The results are explained in detail and references from the literature are given.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The current study investigates the molecular interaction between polylactic acid (PLA) microparticles with spherical shape and porous morphology produced using electrospray. The authors study the impact of varying solvent compositions, flow rates, and voltage on microparticle morphology on the resulting particle formation. The authors conclude that type of solvents have strong influence on morphology, size, and distribution. The authors also reported on the optimum parameter for required spherical and porous micron-size particles.
The introduction needs more work, report on past studies and what they did and what were their main findings and how does your study bring new knowledge and different to the field.
Combine materials and methods in one section
The authors are encouraged to add a photo for the material they used in the study
Section 3.1 the authors are encouraged to add some images of the preparation process for the electrospray solutions
Table 1 style is not correct please check the journal template and table format and update the table format accordingly
Line 166 “the flow rate was used ranged from 60 to 12 µL/min.” why these flow rates were used? Please discuss and support with references
Line 167 also why those distance was chosen, are they according to industrial standards or chosen by the authors over a suggested range according to past studies.
In all the references why the authors add a dot before the reference? This is incorrect referencing style please check everywhere and amend
The author must not use we or our or us or similar style of writing, please check everywhere else in the manuscript for this issue.
Paper needs moderate English spelling editing and grammar checks
Line 291-294 please support this discussion with references from past studies
Line 319-323 does this conclusion/finding agree or disagree with past studies, please compare all the findings you report with past studies similar to the one carried out here and explain the different mechanism or chemical reactions responsible for them and support it with references
What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.
The results are merely described and is limited to discussing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more in depth and scientific discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
Author Response
Applied Science(Nanoscale Characterization of Bioceramics)
Manuscript ID: applsci-1152040
Manuscript title: Production, Optimization and Characterization of Polylactic acid
Microparticles using Electrospray with Porous Structure
Authors: Tascı Muhammed Enes, Dede Berna, Tabak Eray, Gur Aybuke, Sulutas
Rabia Betul, Cesur Sumeyye, Ilhan Elif, Lin Chi-Chang, Paik Pradip, Denisa
Ficai, Ficai Anton, Gunduz Oguzhan
Dear Editorial Office
Thank you for your kind reviews. We are really happy to obtain positive and productive comments from the reviewers. So we have made changes in manuscript as a red highlight according to the suggestions made by the referees. Herein, we would like to address each comment made by the referees.
Best wishes.
Oguzhan
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oguzhan Gunduz
Director
Center for Nanotechnology and Biomaterials Application & Research (NBUAM)
Reviewers' comments:
(The reviewers’ comments are shown in black and our responses in blue. The revisions made in our manuscript have been marked in red.)
Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author)
The introduction needs more work, report on past studies and what they did and what were their main findings and how does your study bring new knowledge and different to the field.
Response: Manuscript has been improved by adding more studies to the introduction.In addition, in the last paragraph of the introduction, novelty about how the solvent affects the morphological structure have already been stated.
Combine materials and methods in one section
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
Section 3.1 the authors are encouraged to add some images of the preparation process for the electrospray solutions
Response: Addition was made as requested.
Table 1 style is not correct please check the journal template and table format and update the table format accordingly
Response: The table was rearranged and added to the article.
Line 166 “the flow rate was used ranged from 60 to 12 µL/min.” why these flow rates were used? Please discuss and support with references.
Response: Since this is an optimization study, microparticles were produced with many different parameters (such as varying solvent compositions, flow rates and voltage).
Line 167 also why those distance was chosen, are they according to industrial standards or chosen by the authors over a suggested range according to past studies.
Response: Mai et al., study demostrated that the distance was stated as 15 cm. With this reference, upper and lower values have been tried and optimized.
(Mai et al. 2017)
Mai Z, Chen J, He T, Hu Y, Dong X, Zhang H, Huang W, Ko F, Zhou W (2017) Electrospray biodegradable microcapsules loaded with curcumin for drug delivery systems with high bioactivity. RSC Adv. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ra25314h
In all the references why the authors add a dot before the reference? This is incorrect referencing style please check everywhere and amend.
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
The author must not use we or our or us or similar style of writing, please check everywhere else in the manuscript for this issue.
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
Paper needs moderate English spelling editing and grammar checks
Response: Grammar and language arrangements were made.
Line 291-294 please support this discussion with references from past studies
Response: It is supported and discussed by reference in the article.
Line 319-323 does this conclusion/finding agree or disagree with past studies, please compare all the findings you report with past studies similar to the one carried out here and explain the different mechanism or chemical reactions responsible for them and support it with references
Response: As stated in the previous question, in the literature, microparticles made with DCM were obtained as cracked, sunken and irregular. But in this study, DCM is the solvent with which we obtain the best porous and smooth microparticles.In addition, the fact that the experimental setup installed is carried out under room temperature and ambient conditions is another difference of the study. It is specified in the manuscript.
What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.
Response: Except for our study, considering the literature, a structure with high porous or monodisperse structures with rough surfaces of PLA microparticles formed by electrospray method with DCM solvent was not obtained. Another difference of the study is that the experimental setup is done in room temperature and ambient conditions.
The results are merely described and is limited to discussing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more in depth and scientific discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
Response: As mentioned in the previous questions, reference is given from the literature.
Abstarct and Result section has been revised and improved
Applied Science(Nanoscale Characterization of Bioceramics)
Manuscript ID: applsci-1152040
Manuscript title: Production, Optimization and Characterization of Polylactic acid
Microparticles using Electrospray with Porous Structure
Authors: Tascı Muhammed Enes, Dede Berna, Tabak Eray, Gur Aybuke, Sulutas
Rabia Betul, Cesur Sumeyye, Ilhan Elif, Lin Chi-Chang, Paik Pradip, Denisa
Ficai, Ficai Anton, Gunduz Oguzhan
Dear Editorial Office
Thank you for your kind reviews. We are really happy to obtain positive and productive comments from the reviewers. So we have made changes in manuscript as a red highlight according to the suggestions made by the referees. Herein, we would like to address each comment made by the referees.
Best wishes.
Oguzhan
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oguzhan Gunduz
Director
Center for Nanotechnology and Biomaterials Application & Research (NBUAM)
Reviewers' comments:
(The reviewers’ comments are shown in black and our responses in blue. The revisions made in our manuscript have been marked in red.)
Reviewer #2 (Comments to the Author)
The introduction needs more work, report on past studies and what they did and what were their main findings and how does your study bring new knowledge and different to the field.
Response: Manuscript has been improved by adding more studies to the introduction.In addition, in the last paragraph of the introduction, novelty about how the solvent affects the morphological structure have already been stated.
Combine materials and methods in one section
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
Section 3.1 the authors are encouraged to add some images of the preparation process for the electrospray solutions
Response: Addition was made as requested.
Table 1 style is not correct please check the journal template and table format and update the table format accordingly
Response: The table was rearranged and added to the article.
Line 166 “the flow rate was used ranged from 60 to 12 µL/min.” why these flow rates were used? Please discuss and support with references.
Response: Since this is an optimization study, microparticles were produced with many different parameters (such as varying solvent compositions, flow rates and voltage).
Line 167 also why those distance was chosen, are they according to industrial standards or chosen by the authors over a suggested range according to past studies.
Response: Mai et al., study demostrated that the distance was stated as 15 cm. With this reference, upper and lower values have been tried and optimized.
(Mai et al. 2017)
Mai Z, Chen J, He T, Hu Y, Dong X, Zhang H, Huang W, Ko F, Zhou W (2017) Electrospray biodegradable microcapsules loaded with curcumin for drug delivery systems with high bioactivity. RSC Adv. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ra25314h
In all the references why the authors add a dot before the reference? This is incorrect referencing style please check everywhere and amend.
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
The author must not use we or our or us or similar style of writing, please check everywhere else in the manuscript for this issue.
Response: Arrangement was made as requested.
Paper needs moderate English spelling editing and grammar checks
Response: Grammar and language arrangements were made.
Line 291-294 please support this discussion with references from past studies
Response: It is supported and discussed by reference in the article.
Line 319-323 does this conclusion/finding agree or disagree with past studies, please compare all the findings you report with past studies similar to the one carried out here and explain the different mechanism or chemical reactions responsible for them and support it with references
Response: As stated in the previous question, in the literature, microparticles made with DCM were obtained as cracked, sunken and irregular. But in this study, DCM is the solvent with which we obtain the best porous and smooth microparticles.In addition, the fact that the experimental setup installed is carried out under room temperature and ambient conditions is another difference of the study. It is specified in the manuscript.
What is the research gap did you find from the previous researchers in your field? Mention it properly. It will improve the strength of the article.
Response: Except for our study, considering the literature, a structure with high porous or monodisperse structures with rough surfaces of PLA microparticles formed by electrospray method with DCM solvent was not obtained. Another difference of the study is that the experimental setup is done in room temperature and ambient conditions.
The results are merely described and is limited to discussing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more in depth and scientific discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
Response: As mentioned in the previous questions, reference is given from the literature.
Abstarct and Result section has been revised and improved
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors ignored this comment: The results are merely described and is limited to discussing the experimental observation. The authors are encouraged to include more in depth and scientific discussion and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.
It is also difficult to read the manuscript with its current format, please upload a fresh copy using the journal template and highlight all changes made for the above comment.
Author Response
Dear referee,
More detail and scientific discussions have been included. The observations obtained from the research were critically discussed with the available literature. In addition, the grammar was controlled and arranged.
