The Influence of Diamond Nanoparticles on Fibroblast Cell Line L929, Cytotoxicity and Bacteriostaticity of Selected Pathogens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work does not contain sufficient novelty to qualify its publication in Coatings. The materials are poorly analyzed and the discussion is too superficial. In addition, the figures and tables are not properly designed for a scientific publication. e.g. no need to show Table 3,4,5 as these data have been provided in the figure. Besides, there are quite a lot of typos, grammar errors, poorly structured sentences throughout the manuscript. The language must be carefully improved prior to any publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your revision.

The manuscript were revised by a native Englishman. This person professionally deals with the linguistic proofreading of scientific texts. I enclose a confirmation of the correction of my publication by a native Englishman.

All the changes proposed by you have been incorporated and changed in the text I decided to remove the tables 3,4,5 in agreement with the co-authors.

A lot of changes in the text were introduced, the results of research, descriptions, discussions and literature were supplemented. I hope that these changes will allow for a positive assessment of the publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In the abstract, the % should be added at all values of viability.
2. "Nanodiamonds not only have all the features of a diamond, but also have all the features of powders, such as high entropy, good chemical activity and biological activity". This sentence is unclear, please re-write again.
3. The authours should explain what the clear zones shown in Figure 4a and 4 b are.
4. The manuscript is weak on discussion especially the part of cytotoxicity test and bacterial test.  The authours should add more discussion.
5. In overview of the whole manuscript, it is quite confused on the benefits of DND and MDP1 presented here. From the results, both of them have low toxicity and they do not have anti-bacterial property of 2 tested bacterial strains. The authours should add more details to explain why it is important to investigate cytotoxicity of DND and MDP1. And, the main goal of investigation antibacterial property of DNS and MDP1  must be included.
6. The number of percentage in Figure; for example, 95,14%  should change to 95.14%.
7. The manuscript should be edited by native English. There are a lot of grammatical errors and unclear sentences in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your revision.

The manuscript were revised by a native Englishman. This person professionally deals with the linguistic proofreading of scientific texts. I enclose a confirmation of the correction of my publication by native Englishman.

Answers for Comments and Suggestions:

1. Percentages were added at all viability values ​​in the summary.

2. The sentence "Nanodiamonds not only have all the features of a diamond, but also have all the features of powders, such as high entropy, good chemical activity and biological activity" has been corrected.

3. All explanations regarding Figure 4 have been included in the text and in Figure 4 and in Figure 5.

4. The discussion was expanded and references were added. In the descriptions of the test results, more detailed explanations regarding cytotoxicity and bacteriostaticities as well as images of fluorescence microscopy (Figure 3) were also added.

5. The manuscript has expanded the descriptions and explanations of the cytotoxicity tests and the purpose of the bacteriostatic tests has been explained

6. The number of percentage in Figure 2; 95,14% were changed to 95.14%

7. The manuscript was edited in the native language, grammatical errors and unclear sentences were corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reported the synthesis and biological evaluations of diamond nanoparticles in this manuscript. It was found that synthesized diamond nanoparticles had low cytotoxicity to cells and bacterial strains. It is an interesting work. However, there are some problems that should be addressed carefully.

Special comments:

1. The authors should re-organize the part of “Introduction”. The authors could separate this large paragraph to a few paragraphs. In addition, the novelty and significance of this work should be more clear.
2. In Part 2, it is necessary for the authors to provide the information of used materials and reagents.
3. It is suggested for the authors to combine the sections of 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 to one section “Characterization techniques”.
4. Figure 1 and 2 should be combined together. In addition, it is suggested for the authors to present the CLSM images of cells on the surface of DND, control, and MNP1 samples.
5. In Figure 4 and 5, it is hard to see the details. The authors should add the SEM images of sample surface to prove the anti-bacterial effects of DND.
6. From Figure 6, the DND can not be called nanoparticles. The size is in the microscale. The authors should provide more evidence to prove the prepared diamond is nanoparticle but not microparticles.
7. The baselines of Raman spectra in Figure 8 should be adjusted. In Figure 8, the x-axis should be “Wave number (cm-1)”.
8. The English of this manuscript is really weak, which should be improved greatly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your revision.

The manuscript were revised by a native Englishman. This person professionally deals with the linguistic proofreading of scientific texts. I enclose a confirmation of the correction of my publication by native Englishman.

Answers for Comments and Suggestions:

1. The part of “Introduction” has been reorganized and supplemented to mark the novelty and meaning of this work. Your comments were also taken into account and therefore the discussion was also supplemented in order to further explain the assumptions and purpose of the work.
2. Information on materials and reagents has been supplemented.

3. The methodology was described according to the formula that requires particular research methods. For this reason, the names of the chapters have not been changed.
4. Figures 1 and 2 have been combined into one drawing - Figure 1.
5. SEM images show the surface morphology of the tested carbon nanomaterials. Antibacterial properties cannot be visualized with this method. Antibacterial properties were determined by bacteriostatic tests. At your request, photos from fluorescence microscopy have also been added – Figure 3, to illustrate the interaction of nanodiamonds with fibroblasts.
6. Detonation diamond nanoparticles are purchased commercial material with a single grain size from 2-4 nm (Adamas NanotechnologieCompany). They are carbon nanomaterials, but due to their 3-D crystallographic structure and the hybridization of sigma? sp³ carbon atoms, they form agglomerates with micrometric sizes. However, it is a nanocrystalline material, because it is clearly visible in the SEM images that the agglomerates are made of small nanoparticles. According to the overview of literature, we call them nanomaterials. In connection with your comment, slight changes have been made to the SEM description in order to increase the precision of this text.
7. The baselines in Figure 8ab have been corrected. Table 3 was also added to clarify the description, and reference number [29] was added, which confirms the correctness of the interpretation of the test results.
8. The description of the results of Raman spectroscopy in the manucript was also added.The English language has been revised by a native Englishman.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

For the scientific aspects, the authours have  covered as suggested. However, the manuscript still have some parts of grammatical errors. I would suggest authours carefully spending more time to brush up this. 

Reviewer 3 Report

In this revised version, the authors made great improvement according to the comments of the referee. I am satisfied with these changes and therefore recommend the publication of this manuscript at the current version.