Multifunctional Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Oral Drug Delivery
, Manish Philip 3,†, Sivadas Swathi Krishna 3, Vidya Viswanad 3,*, Ram Kumar Sahu 4, Predeepkumar Narayanappa Shiroorkar 5, Afzal Haq Aasif 6, Santosh Fattepur 7,*, Syed Mohammed Basheeruddin Asdaq 8, Anroop B. Nair 1, Mahesh Attimarad 1 and Katharigatta N. Venugopala 1,9
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the subject of this review is very interesting, the manuscript is barely readable, poorly organized and misleading regarding some specific points. Furthermore the quotation of only 74 references reflects a major lack of understanding of the authors on the available literature regarding the interaction forces between silica and biomolecules. For example, in Figure 4 a lipid monolayer covers the hydrophilic silica nanoparticle with the apolar hydrocarbon chains interacting with the hydrophilic surface. The authros have to perform a proper bibligraphic search in order to improve this review.
Certainly, this manuscript cannot be published as it is.
Some suggestions for improvement:
1)Title suggestion: Multifunctional mesoporous silica nanoparticles for oral drug delivery
2)Line 30, replace "These"by "They".
3)Line 36, replace "pause"by "pose".
4)Line 37, eliminate ïnevitable".
5)Line 42, replace "... system cognizance that..."by "show".
6)Lines 42-55, please rephrase and make shorter sentences for clarity.
7)Lines 57-58, replace ït"by "they"and correct grammar.
8)Line 62, eliminate "which is undesirable".
9)Line 71, eliminate "a while back".
10) Lines 73-75, please, rephrase for clarity.
11)Line 81, "replace "vivo"by ïn vivo".
12)Line 103, define "DDS".
13)Lines 111-113, sentence needs rephrasing for clarity.
14)Lines 115-117, eliminate "particle size"and "specific surface area". Even better would be eliminating the entire sentence.
15)Provide electron micrographs for the MSN types on Figure 2. This figure does not give the reader a good idea of the different MSN types.
16)LIne 153, eliminate this subtitle.
17)Lines 159-160, explain what is meant, it is impossible to understand.
18)Line 164, correct the unities.
19)Organize the subtitle for section 2.
20)Lines 192-193, rephrase for clarity.
21)Lines 210-233, not clear how pores improve drug dissolution.
22)Lines 232-233, rephrase.
23) What is mesitylene?
24)Line 240, replace "of" by "by".
25)Provide a better subtitle 3.
26)Lines 428-451, no references were provided for l;ipid coated silica. Improve search on this topic.
27)Figure 4 is wrong since a lipid monolayer covers the silica particle. Silica is hydrophilic and the literature has been showing coverage of silica with lipid bilayer.
28) Improve the search on supported lipid bilayers on silica.
29) In general, important references are missing from this review.
30)Figure 5 is difficult to understand. What are the yellow elements?
15)
Author Response
the corrections are uploaded using the word file attached below
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work by SreeHarsha Nagaraja et al. reported an interesting review based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles for oral drug delivery. I recommended that this paper can be accepted for publication in Coatings after minor revision.
Comments to the Author:
- The authors may try to compare silica-based oral carriers with other oral nanocarriers so that the reader can understand the information more clearly.
- It could be better if a brief comment (challenges and future prospects) is added at the end of the conclusion.
- Also, the authors could have tried to compare the difference between oral carriers and delivery methods so that the reader would have a clearer understanding of the information.
- Background descriptions for oral insulin delivery can be strengthened by citing 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00875; 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b02879.
- There are some formatting errors in the article. For example, spelling of references must be checked to meet the journal style like References 36. Please check carefully and use it properly.
Author Response
the corrections are uploaded using the word file attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Introduction section need to improve. In introduction you have to write sufficient background information, and the purpose of the article is clearly defined at the end of the introduction part
Author Response
for corrections please see the word file attached below
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The present manuscript is an interesting study, well written and relevant for the scientific community.
Some minor recommandations:
The figures are proprietary? the authors should cite the sources, or "adapted from".
Figure 9 is nice but as it is in the format of presentation might be not open by any reader, would be good to insert it as JPEG.
Line 922 and Table 2 - what do you mean by recent? and if recent means in the last 10 years, only 8 patents identified?
Author Response
please see the file attached below for corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The basis for a good review article lies on a good search for bibliography and appropriate selection of foundamental work plus good explanations of most basic concepts.
In my opinion , the manuscript does not meet these criteria and should be rejected.
