Physical Vapor Deposition Technology in Personal Protective Equipment Production: Improved Antibacterial and Hydrophobic Character of Textiles
, Isabel Carvalho 2,3, Sandra Carvalho 1,4, Fábio Ferreira 1,4 and Sandra M. A. Cruz 1,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 1 is not clear enough to support the content. Careless in the correct writing of microorganisms (lines 189, 190, 287, 288, 294).
The bibliography must be revised considering that identification errors appear (lines 215, 219, 240, 259, 274, 285, 293)
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the manuscript is well written, coherent, and the results are well described; however, it is suggested that the analysis of the results be expanded to focus on the explanation of the phenomenon and not just on the result as such.
To begin with, it is recommended to authors that once the manuscript is uploaded to the journal's website, they should check that citations and hyperlinks are well presented, among other things.
In the abstract, the results are expressed in a descriptive form; quantitative results are not given, which is what the reader expects to find in this section.
It is recommended that quotations be cited as follows: [3-4].
Some acronyms such as TNT are not explained the first time they are mentioned.
In the item "characterization analysis", specifically in the cytotoxicity assays, these assays are related to allergy, but the cytotoxicity results cannot be associated with allergy, it is recommended to reconstruct this sentence.
Links to figures or tables are presented as errors.
In the figures it is recommended to improve the titles, to be much more descriptive, to take into account the techniques, the equipment used and the conditions under which they were obtained.
Some claims are made such as: "As the silver content increases, the coated textiles are more efficient at repelling water", which are not entirely true, see the case of jersey. It is recommended to modify these sentences.
The name of the two pathogenic strains should be italicized to their scientific name.
It is recommended to make an "analysis of results" not only to report the results.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Figure 2, what criteria did the authors follow to measure the toxicity of the material? The direct contact method or the indirect contact method?
2. Figure 3, the author can mark the antibacterial diameter so that readers can know the antibacterial effect more clearly.
3. Background for different antibacterial strategies can be strengthened by citing 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100264; 10.1016/j.cej.2022.135691; 10.1021/acsami.1c25014.
4. Figure 4, in the SEM photographs of samples Jersey and TNT, the diameters and sizes of S. aureus appear to be different.
5. There are some formatting errors in the article. For example, it is better not to have abbreviations (PVD) in the title unless they are some very common and common abbreviations (like DNA and RNA). Please check carefully and use it properly.
6. What are the advantages of the physical vapor deposition technology in this paper compared to other methods? The comparison and the advantages can be added to the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
