Influence of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles as Antimicrobial Additives Embedded in Waterborne Coating Binders Based on Self-Crosslinking Acrylic Latex
, Andréa Kalendová 1, Jana Machotová 1, Petr Knotek 2, Petr Humpolíček 3, Jan Vajdák 3, Stanislav Slang 4, Anna Krejčová 5, Ludvík Beneš 6 and Felipe Wolff-Fabris 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the Influence of metal oxide nanoparticles as antimicrobial additives embedded in waterborne coating binders based on self-crosslinking acrylic latex. The main of the work was to discusses self cross linking acrylate latexes that meet current requirements for environmentally friendly high performance binder coatings.
The work is very interesting. Undoubtedly, the manuscript is prepared very carefully and fits into the Coating journal. The research design is appropriate, English is fine and quality of presentation is high.
However, before the publication, the manuscript should be improved. For this purpose, please, see the comments below:
1. The introduction provide sufficient background, however, more papers published in recent years should be cited.
2. The novelty of the presented work should be emphasized.
3. The results obtained should be compared more thoroughly with those available in the literature.
Best regards.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for a very favorable review. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We tried to incorporate them into our manuscript as best as we could.
Point 1: The introduction provide sufficient background, however, more papers published in recent years should be cited.
Reply: Relevant references were added.
Point 2: The novelty of the presented work should be emphasized.
Reply: We have presented and highlighted the novelty of our study in the introduction part.
Point 3: The results obtained should be compared more thoroughly with those available in the literature.
Reply: We compared the results with the relevant literature.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a unique dataset using cutting edge methodology. The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings regarding some data analyses and text, and I feel this unique dataset has not been utilized to its full extent. In several instances, I also suggested to cite more relevant and recent literature. Furthermore, I made additional suggestions for more in-depth analyses of the data.
Key critical points are as follows:
1. introduction part is too lengthy. Make it concise that cover the whole idea current work.
2. I think the introduction section needs more effort to present the novelty of your study compared to the other recent studies in this field.
3. Author should add more literature background about the synthesis of nanoparticles.
4. There is a lack of the literature regarding antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity study in the introduction sections. It must be improved.
5. It is better to compare your antibacterial result with previously published papers.
6. The material section: add more description on antibacterial activity.
7. Table 2 is irrelevant better to move in supplementary file.
8. It is advisable to provide HR-TEM for better resolution of images.
9. Fig 5 very poor resolution.
10. Table 10 antibacterial results: very confusing and exhausted data. Better to provide in chart/graph form and also show the present inhibition after and before coating.
11. Conclusion should be very specific and precise with future prospective. Therefore, authors should write sentence about the advantages and future application of present work
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We tried to incorporate them into our manuscript as best as we could. More relevant and newer literature according to recommendations was added and older ones changed. Please find it marked in yellow in the text and references.
Point 1: Introduction part is too lengthy. Make it concise that cover the whole idea current work.
Reply: We have shortened the introduction part to a lesser extent.
Point 2: I think the introduction section needs more effort to present the novelty of your study compared to the other recent studies in this field.
Reply: We have added the information about the novelty of the study including a brief comparison with recently published literature.
Point 3: Author should add more literature background about the synthesis of nanoparticles.
Reply: We apologize, but we have decided not to comply with this comment. The intention of this paper is the application of commercially available nano oxides in latex coatings, not the investigation of their synthesis/modification/properties achieved by a specific synthetic route. Therefore, in our opinion, the synthesis of nanoparticles is not the essential subject of this study and we decided not to extend the theoretical background (introduction part).
Point 4: There is a lack of the literature regarding antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity study in the introduction sections. It must be improved.
Reply: In the introduction, the literature regarding antimicrobial activity was supplemented. Cytotoxicity was also added and cited.
Point 5: It is better to compare your antibacterial result with previously published papers. Reply: We compared the antibacterial results with the relevant literature.
Point 6: The material section: add more description on antibacterial activity.
Reply: The antibacterial activity methodology was expanded for better understanding, and for the modified ISO 22196, an image of the sorting imprinted on agar was added to the Supplementary material for better visualization.
Point 7: Table 2 is irrelevant better to move in supplementary file.
Reply: Table 2 has been removed to the Supplementary material.
Point 8: It is advisable to provide HR-TEM for better resolution of image.
Reply: We apologize, but we do not have HR-TEM available and are unable to provide this measurement.
Point 9: Fig 5 very poor resolution.
Reply: Fig. 5 has been uploaded in a larger version, for better visualization.
Point 10: able 10 antibacterial results: very confusing and exhausted data. Better to provide in chart/graph form and also show the present inhibition after and before coating.
Reply: We do not believe that graphs would be useful in this case, but for better visualization, photographic documentation has been provided for all antimicrobial testing in the Supplementary material. Furthermore, testing was not performed without and with coating. Our main goal was to determine whether nanoparticles incorporated into the coating provide antimicrobial protection, and therefore a coating without nanoparticles (blank) was also prepared.
Point 11: Conclusion should be very specific and precise with future prospective. Therefore, authors should write sentence about the advantages and future application of present work.
Reply: We have added the suggested sentence with the future prospects and application of the novel materials.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the Authors:
In the manuscript entitled “Influence of metal oxide nanoparticles as antimicrobial additives embedded in waterborne coating binders based on self-crosslinking acrylic latex” Denisa Steinerová et al. describe in their manuscript the obtention of acrylate latexes containing metallic nanoparticles. The materials were characterized by techniques such as X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy, among others. Although, the results are very well written, in general, the manuscript needs to be revised considering IUPAC's nomenclature. In my opinion, this article could be considered for publication in Coatings Journal, but only after a medium revision of the contents, taking into account the following comments:
1- Some words in the keywords are similar to the title. Please change it. Different words enhance the search field.
2- In lines 60-63, it must be referenced. Please check it.
3- The affirmation in lines 63-64 must be referenced. Please check it.
4- Please standardize the words "waterborne" and "water-borne", "La2O3" and "La2O3", "minute" and "min", "hour" and "h", "Figure" and "Fig.", overwritten units (in general)
5- The affirmation in lines 88-86 must be referenced. Please check it.
6- In line 185, there is an extra comma. Please check it.
7- Equation 8 must be chemically balanced. Please check it.
8- The title of Table 6 is confusing: "Table 6. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.". Please check it.
9-Please provide the AFM images in tridimensional (3D). Tridimensional images can be presented in the supplementary material. Additionally, the authors must present the rough mean square (Rq) parameter. The Rq parameter is very good and can help to discuss the bacteria and fungi adhesion.
10- The resolution of Figure 5 must be improved. In its current form, the Figure is hard to visualize. Please check it.
11- Line 716 is unclear to me, is "La2O-based" or "La2O3-based"?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We tried to incorporate them into our manuscript as best as we could. We have also adjusted the units according to IUPAC.
Point 1: Some words in the keywords are similar to the title. Please change it. Different words enhance the search field.
Reply: The keyword “self-crosslinking acrylate latex” was substituted for “keto-hydrazide crosslinking” and “metal oxide nanoparticle” was substituted for “nanostructured magnesium oxide, zinc oxide and lanthanum oxide”.
Point 2: In lines 60-63, it must be referenced. Please check it.
Reply: Lines were referenced.
Point 3: The affirmation in lines 63-64 must be referenced. Please check it.
Reply: Lines were referenced.
Point 4: Please standardize the words "waterborne" and "water-borne", "La2O3" and "La2O3", "minute" and "min", "hour" and "h", "Figure" and "Fig.", overwritten units (in general).
Reply: Standardization was performed on (i) waterborne, (ii) La2O3 (subscripts), (iii) LMeO (subscripts), (iv) min for minute(s), (v) h for hour(s), (vi) Fig. (in the text), (vii) wt.%, (viii) La2O2CO3 (subscripts), (ix) units and formulas have been subscripted or superscripted and (x) microorganism names have been italicized.
Point 5: The affirmation in lines 88-86 must be referenced. Please check it.
Reply: Lines were referenced.
Point 6: In line 185, there is an extra comma. Please check it.
Reply: The extra comma was removed.
Point 7: Equation 8 must be chemically balanced. Please check it.
Reply: Equation 8 was chemically balanced (4ZnO + H2SO4 + 2H2O → ZnSO4.3Zn(OH)2).
Point 8: The title of Table 6 is confusing: "Table 6. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.". Please check it.
Reply: Thank you very much for your correction. Table 6 has been renamed.
Point 9: Please provide the AFM images in tridimensional (3D). Tridimensional images can be presented in the supplementary material. Additionally, the authors must present the rough mean square (Rq) parameter. The Rq parameter is very good and can help to discuss the bacteria and fungi adhesion.
Reply: As suggested, AFM images in three-dimensional (3D) and rough mean square parameters (Rq) have been added to the Supplementary material.
Point 10: The resolution of Figure 5 must be improved. In its current form, the Figure is hard to visualize. Please check it.
Reply: Figure 5 has been uploaded in a larger version, for better visualization.
Point 11: Line 716 is unclear to me, is "La2O-based" or "La2O3-based"?
Reply: Thank you very much for your correction. There was an error here that the 3 was omitted for La2O3. It was corrected in the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This revised version looks better but still needs improvements. The section on statistics is too simple, the authors need to describe how many replicates were conducted for each treatment in every experiment. It needs to add the information and results of ANOVA, i.e. significant difference between means for all the quantitative data in figures and tables. Importantly, the abstract and the section on results must be described according to statistics.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your further revision and comments. We have added the information regarding the number of replicates in the revised version and we also provided the missing standard deviations to the means in relevant cases. Regarding the results of ANOVA, we have provided the statistics only in the case of antimicrobial testing (Table S3 in Supplementary material). For the other experimental results, we decided not to expand the data. We share your opinion that the statistics would give a more precise image of the effect of the concertation and the type of inserted nanoparticles. On the other hand, the number of results presented in the manuscript is quite extensive and we hope that the way of presenting results in the form of the means with standard deviations, (the way we have encountered so far in similar papers) will be sufficient.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors satisfactorily answered the questions and doubts. Some corrections in English grammar are required, although they do not compromise the quality of the manuscript. In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication in the Coatings journal in its present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for the positive response. As for English grammar, the article was checked by a person who lived in England for 5 years. So we'll leave the judgment to the editor.
