Electrospun Filtering Membrane Designed as Component of Self-Decontaminating Protective Masks
, Sarah Gabut 1, Mickael Maton 2, Pascal Odou 3, Michèle Vialette 4, Anthony Pinon 4, Christel Neut 5, Nicolas Tabary 1, Nicolas Blanchemain 2 and Bernard Martel 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, the authors' teams created an electrospun nanofiber filter membrane with built-in anti-coronavirus and anti-bacterial activities. According to the results, nanofibers supported on polypropylene (PP) with a weight of just 2 g/m2 offered the optimum balance between pressure drop and filtering effectiveness for PM0.3, PM0.5, and PM3.0. E. coli, S. aureus, and the human coronavirus HCoV-229E were all successfully tested on the filtering electrospun membranes that were loaded with benzalkonium chloride (ADBAC) as a biocidal agent. If the following concerns are adequately addressed, the reviewer feels that this article may have a potential contribution to a promising solution for individual and group protection in a pandemic environment.
1. Due to the lack of logic and neatness in the article, it is crucial to note that your manuscript needs to be carefully checked for editorial, formatting, and attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure errors.
2. Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in INTRODUCTION.
3. The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION part lacks focus and importance since it references other people's work so frequently.
4. This paper's significance has not been clearly explained. The unique contribution of this paper in comparison to prior articles in related fields has to be emphasized by the authors.
5. This paper's obvious flaw is its inability to adequately explain the findings. You must provide a thorough justification for your findings.
6. The authors should cite more references about electrospinning in introduction for the wider readership. Such as Advanced Science 2022, 9, 2103879; Adv. Func. Mater. 2022, 32, 202200302；InfoMat, 2022, 4（7）, e12294.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
In this work, the authors' teams created an electrospun nanofiber filter membrane with built-in anti-coronavirus and anti-bacterial activities. According to the results, nanofibers supported on polypropylene (PP) with a weight of just 2 g/m2 offered the optimum balance between pressure drop and filtering effectiveness for PM0.3, PM0.5, and PM3.0. E. coli, S. aureus, and the human coronavirus HCoV-229E were all successfully tested on the filtering electrospun membranes that were loaded with benzalkonium chloride (ADBAC) as a biocidal agent. If the following concerns are adequately addressed, the reviewer feels that this article may have a potential contribution to a promising solution for individual and group protection in a pandemic environment.
- Due to the lack of logic and neatness in the article, it is crucial to note that your manuscript needs to be carefully checked for editorial, formatting, and attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure errors.
The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and improved on all these points
- Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in INTRODUCTION.
The authors included the following references to improve research background in Introduction section:
- Journal of Cleaner Production 378 (2022) 134567
- Separation and Purification Technology 302 (2022) 122175
- The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION part lacks focus and importance since it references other people's work so frequently.
Indeed, we referred to anterior works from the state-of the-art in order to justify our strategic choices and also to compare our results and their consistence (or difference) with literature. We estimate that it is worthy to place our study and its results in the context of general knowledge on the subject. However we would appreciate if the referee could precise which citations should be withdrawn in a next version.
- This paper's significance has not been clearly explained. The unique contribution of this paper in comparison to prior articles in related fields has to be emphasized by the authors.
Indeed, the introduction and also the conclusion have been thouroughly modified in order to highlight the significance of the paper
- This paper's obvious flaw is its inability to adequately explain the findings. You must provide a thorough justification for your findings.
We made efforts for bringing some clear explanations and som interpretations of our results and we hope this new version will respond to those expectations.
- The authors should cite more references about electrospinning in introduction for the wider readership. Such as Advanced Science 2022, 9, 2103879; Adv. Func. Mater. 2022, 32, 202200302；InfoMat, 2022, 4（7）, e12294.
The authors agreed with the Reviewer and included some articles about electrospinning in the introduction (as mentioned in item 2). The authors did not include the suggested articles because their focus differed from the scope of air filtration as they all deal with (electrospun) batteries separators far from the topic of the present paper
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the excellent suggestions that enhanced the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current publication is interesting as it deals with the electrospinning of PVA for covid membrane materials.
It can be accepted for publishing after several issues are corrected.
- Please use only one abbr PVA vs PVOH.
- There are two "Table 1". Numbering of tables is to be corrected.
- Abstract is fine.
- Introduction needs to have some enhancements. It is not clear the motivation for choosing polyvinyl alcohol polymers of different molecular weights. PVOH is plenty used for electrospinning. Please provide strong arguments at the end of the Introduction section.
- well discussed the chemical crosslinking modification of PVOH nanofibers to decrease their water swelling. While physical crosslinking with other filler is missing. Please discuss nanocellulose in comparison to paper 10.1515/hf-2014-0277 and 10.3390/gels7040223. and any other; while inorganic nanoparticle effect on antimicrobial activity also needs to be discussed. For example, 10.1080/00405000.2019.1622263 and also any other related publications.
- The details of the used electrospinning equipment are missing.
- Lines 244, 344, 386 contain some text in Chinese. Please check the text carefully.
- It will be nice to have a paragraph discussing the proposed crosslinking routes, chemical reactions and their yield and conversion degree.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The current publication is interesting as it deals with the electrospinning of PVA for covid membrane materials.
It can be accepted for publishing after several issues are corrected.
- Please use only one abbr PVA vs PVOH.
The authors changed all abbreviations for PVA.
- There are two "Table 1". Numbering of tables is to be corrected.
The authors double-checked the article and renumber all tables.
- Abstract is fine.
- Introduction needs to have some enhancements. It is not clear the motivation for choosing polyvinyl alcohol polymers of different molecular weights. PVOH is plenty used for electrospinning. Please provide strong arguments at the end of the Introduction section.
The authors included this information in the manuscript to provide an argument for using PVA (page 3): “The possibility of avoiding secondary environmental contamination by using eco-friendly solvent water instead of an organic solvent has been positively encouraged (Deng et al., 2023). PVA is available in several molecular weights, and Ngadiman et al. (Ngadiman et al., 2015) investigated its effect on morphological electrospun fiber parameters.
A paragraph was added in order to justify why in a fist approach, PVA-L, M and H were tested and why then PVA-L and M were discarded due to the low stability in water : “Furthermore, the above-mentioned experiment was also performed with electrospun nanofibers from solutions prepared with 8% PVA-L and 8% PVA-M. Results demonstrated that these electrospun nanofibers did not display any stability in water batch, regardless of BTCA concentration or heat treatment. Fibers morphology changed drastically upon selling, and in the worse cases (especially for PVA-L) were transformed into film-like materials. According to Limpan et al [53] behaviour of PVA in water is correlated with its molecular weight, i.e. the higher it is, the lesser it swells or solubilizes in water. Therefore, PVA-H was selected for preparing the electrospun membranes in the rest of the study”
- well discussed the chemical crosslinking modification of PVOH nanofibers to decrease their water swelling. While physical crosslinking with other filler is missing. Please discuss nanocellulose in comparison to paper 10.1515/hf-2014-0277 and 10.3390/gels7040223. and any other; while inorganic nanoparticle effect on antimicrobial activity also needs to be discussed. For example, 10.1080/00405000.2019.1622263 and also any other related publications.
The authors included the suggested articles in the manuscript and added this information (page X): “Physical crosslinking is another method for achieving water stabilization without the use of chemicals. Some studies have shown that adding nanocellulose particles can result in a crystalline structure. The PVA matrix and the cellulose nanowhiskers form a strong hydrogen bond interaction (Ji et al., 2021; Sutka et al., 2015).”
Reviewer #1 reproached that we have referred too frequently to literature in the results and discussion part and asked to focus more on our subject, so we did not add more information on nanoparticles inclusion in nanofibers.
- The details of the used electrospinning equipment are missing.
The preliminary tests were conducted in a homemade electrospinning device. The final membranes were prepared in the electrospinning device Fluidnatek LE-500 (Bioinicia, Valencia, Spain). All information was included in item 2.2.
- Lines 244, 344, 386 contain some text in Chinese. Please check the text carefully.
The manuscript was double-checked, and any tapping errors were removed.
- It will be nice to have a paragraph discussing the proposed crosslinking routes, chemical reactions and their yield and conversion degree.
It was not possible to assess a quantification of the rate of esterification of PVOH neither by titration nor by FTIR (see the FTIR section). Other authors who electrospun PVOH and polycarboylic acids only reported qualitative characterization of the conversion, but not quantitative of the esterification.
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the excellent suggestions that enhanced the quality of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Greetings, Editor thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the article. I reviewed the article with title = Self-decontaminating electrospun poly(vinyl alcohol) nanofibers loaded with benzalkonium chloride for the confection of antiviral and antibacterial masks. Overall, the article structure and content are suitable for the Nanomaterials journal. I am pleased to send you moderate level comments. Please consider these suggestions as listed below.
- The title seems ok but its better if author concise it. Its too long.
- The abstract seems to be good. Please add one more introductory line of your objective in beginning of abstract.
- Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the future research work.
- Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed.
- The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.
- What is the main challenge?
- In introduction Page 1 Line 39 need another reference please cite this article here with existing reference 1- Recent advances in metal decorated nanomaterials and their various biological applications: a review.
- Please check the abbreviations of words throughout the article. All should be consistent.
- What is problem statement?
- The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.
- Please include all chemical/instrumentation brand name and other important specification.
- Please provide space between number and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs on several spots in the paper.
- Overall result section is well explained.
- Regarding the replications, authors confirmed that replications of experiment were carried out. However, these results are not shown in the manuscript, how many replicated were carried out by experiment? Results seem to be related to a unique experiment. Please, clarify whether the results of this document are from a single experiment or from an average resulting from replications. If replicated were carried out, the use of average data is required as well as the standard deviation in the results and figures shown throughout the manuscript. In case of showing only one replicate explain why only one is shown and include the standard deviations.
- Please add a comparative discussion section. It would be more better for reader.
- Conclusion and Future perspectives should be added in section 5. Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings, highlight relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect.
- To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, minor level English language should be thoroughly checked. Please revise your paper accordingly since several language issue occurs on several spots in the paper.
- Reference formatting need carefully revision. All must be consistent in one formate. Please follow the journal guidelines.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
Greetings, Editor thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the article. I reviewed the article with title = Self-decontaminating electrospun poly(vinyl alcohol) nanofibers loaded with benzalkonium chloride for the confection of antiviral and antibacterial masks. Overall, the article structure and content are suitable for the Nanomaterials journal. I am pleased to send you moderate level comments. Please consider these suggestions as listed below.
- The title seems ok but its better if author concise it. Its too long.
Title has been changed and shortened : Electrospun filtering membrane designed as component of self-decontaminating protective masks
- The abstract seems to be good. Please add one more introductory line of your objective in beginning of abstract.
Indeed, the objective has benn more clearly expressed in the introduction :
The Coronavirus 2019 disease outbreak and worsening air pollution have triggered the search for the confection of effective protective face masks preventing both particulate matter and biohazard absorption through the respiratory tract. Therefore, the design of advanced filtering textiles combining efficient physical barrier properties with antimicrobial properties is more newsworthy than ever. The objective of this work was to produce a filtering electrospun membrane incorporating a biocidal agent that would offer both optimal filtration efficiency and fast deactivation of entrapped virus and bacteria
- Research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the future research work.
The introduction has been modified in this way, the objectives and challenges have been emphasized, as well as the
- Introduction section must be written on more quality way, i.e., more up-to-date references addressed.
The introduction has been modified in this way
- The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare previous research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.
- What is the main challenge?
Indeed, the end part of the introduction has been developed in order to detail the objectives, the challenges tackled for each objective, and the methods used.
- In introduction Page 1 Line 39 need another reference please cite this article here with existing reference 1- Recent advances in metal decorated nanomaterials and their various biological applications: a review.
The authors included the suggested reference.
- Please check the abbreviations of words throughout the article. All should be consistent.
The manuscript was double-checked, and all abbreviations are consistent.
- What is a problem statement?
This term was changed
- The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.
The authors rewrote the main objective of the research.
- Please include all chemical/instrumentation brand name and other important specification.
This was corrected
- Please provide space between number and units. Please revise your paper accordingly since some issue occurs on several spots in the paper.
The manuscript was double-checked, and errors were removed.
- Overall result section is well explained.
- Regarding the replications, authors confirmed that replications of experiment were carried out. However, these results are not shown in the manuscript, how many replicated were carried out by experiment? Results seem to be related to a unique experiment. Please, clarify whether the results of this document are from a single experiment or from an average resulting from replications. If replicated were carried out, the use of average data is required as well as the standard deviation in the results and figures shown throughout the manuscript. In case of showing only one replicate explain why only one is shown and include the standard deviations.
The authors included the number of replicates concerning the filtration tests (item 2.3.4): “Six sample measurements were performed to ensure data reproducibility for basis weight values. Three samples were measured to determine the filtration efficiency and pressure drop of the membranes”. The authors also included the mean values and standard deviation in the manuscript and figures.
- Please add a comparative discussion section. It would be more better for reader.
As many features have been clarified in the revised paper, we did the choice not to separate results and discussion. We hope referee will consider this as acceptable.
- Conclusion and Future perspectives should be added in section 5. Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings, highlight relevance of the work with respect to the field aspect.
The conclusion has been thoroughly revised to respond to these recomandations
- To avoid grammar and linguistic mistakes, minor level English language should be thoroughly checked. Please revise your paper accordingly since several language issue occurs on several spots in the paper.
A professional service has revised the manuscript for language revision
- Reference formatting need carefully revision. All must be consistent in one formate. Please follow the journal guidelines.
The authors revised all formatting references.
The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the excellent suggestions that enhanced the quality of the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is ready for publication. I have no more questions. Thank you
