Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires major revision before it can be considered for publication in JFB:

1. The abstract uses phrases such as “novel bioinstructive implants” and “enhanced apatite formation” without sufficient quantitative support.
2. The term “simplistic, pulsed LSV technique” is vague and scientifically unclear. The electrochemical protocol is actually complex and should be described more precisely in electrochemical terms.
3. The introduction discusses UV-induced ROS and electrolyte modification (page 2-3), but no experimental evidence ( ROS measurement, UV intensity distribution, photochemical analysis) is provided to support these mechanistic claims. 
4. The authors are recommended to include more relevant literature when discussing the biological advantages of Mg: https://doi.org/10.1680/jemmr.18.00048
5. The statement that anodized ZrNTs “do not extensively suffer from low-temperature degradation” is too generalized and requires stronger citations and discussion of phase composition (amorphous vs crystalline after annealing at 300 C).
6. The electrolyte composition for anodization (2 wt% H2O2 wt% NH4F, and 30 vol% formamide in glycerin) is ambiguously written and potentially erroneous. The exact concentrations and preparation protocol must be clarified for reproducibility.
7. The Mg deposition mechanism is scientifically questionable. Magnesium metal electrodeposition from aqueous alkaline electrolytes at the given potentials is thermodynamically unlikely; Mg is more likely present as Mg(OH)2 or MgO species rather than metallic Mg.
8. The UV source is described as “680 mW – 365 nm,” but important parameters are missing: distance from sample;irradiance at surface ;exposure uniformity;temperature rise during irradiation.
9. The EDS shows Mg below 0.1 at%, which is close to detection limits (page 6). Yet strong conclusions about Mg coverage and functionality are made.
10. The Ca/P ratios reported (0.170-0.266) are extremely low and do not correspond to hydroxyapatite formation but rather amorphous CaP or loosely adsorbed ions. Explain to readers why it was interpreted as bioactive apatite formation instead of early-stage amorphous calcium phosphate adsorption?
11. The interpretation that reduced charge transfer resistance indicates improved implant performance is not sufficiently justified. Implants generally require corrosion resistance rather than increased conductivity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. If each image involves multiple images, it is best to label them with a, b, and c etc.

2. It is necessary to specifically describe in the main text how ultraviolet (UV) irradiation affects the adsorption kinetics of magnesium.

3. The conclusion needs to be rewritten, preferably written in sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a surface modification strategy based on Mg decoration of anodized zirconia nanotubes (ZrNTs) using pulsed linear sweep voltammetry (pLSV), with additional UV-assisted modulation of Mg adsorption. The topic is relevant and aligns with current trends in bioactive implant surface engineering, particularly in the context of corrosion-controlled biomineralization and osseointegration. The approach is interesting and potentially valuable. However, several methodological clarifications and data presentation issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. My comments are provided below.

1. In the Supplementary Information, the corrosion current (Icorr) values obtained from the Tafel curves are reported in µA. However, for meaningful comparison between samples, these values should be presented as corrosion current density (µA/cm²). The data should therefore be revised accordingly.
2. The formulation used to calculate the electrochemical parameters derived from the Tafel analysis is not clearly stated. The authors should explicitly indicate how Icorr and the Tafel slopes (βa, βc) were determined, in terms of equations.
3. The EIS–Nyquist plots do not start from origin, which makes comparison more difficult. It is recommended that all Nyquist plots be presented using a consistent origin reference to improve clarity and comparability.
4. The EIS–Nyquist curves presented in Figure 10 (before SBF immersion) exhibit clear capacitive behavior. Therefore, the proposed equivalent circuit model should include an appropriate capacitive element. The circuit model is recommended to be reconsidered accordingly.
5. The findings of the study should be more explicitly linked to previous Mg-based biomaterial studies investigating corrosion behavior (e.g., DOI: 10.1002/app.57321). Direct comparison with existing literature would strengthen the scientific positioning of the work.
6. The environmental and experimental conditions under which the contact angle measurements were performed are not specified. Details such as temperature, relative humidity, droplet volume, and number of repetitions should be provided to ensure reproducibility. Please write all Materials and Methods section in details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in the present form.