Study on Corrosion Resistance and Biological Properties of the Double Glow Plasma Nb-Zr Biological Implantation Alloying Layers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks

The paper is interesting, the authors used different complementary techniques to show how is possible to improve the quality of a stainless steel to make it more appropriate for the use as biomaterial. In spite of the results got by several techniques the paper needs some completions.

It is necessary to point out clearly what is the real novelty in the results the authors demonstrated in this paper and in those ones that were referenced as achieved results by other authors earlier.

Special remarks

Page 1 line 41: mistyped: „improtant”

Please, rephrase these sentences:

Page 2 line 95: “In the vacuum glow discharge chamber, two cathodes are provided, a source and a cathode”. Pl

Page 3 line 114: “Apply a cathode voltage of 400 V-500 V to preheat for 10 min.”

Page 4 line 151: “Immerse the samples in RPMI-1640 medium, using 1 mL of cell culture medium for each 0.25 cm2 sample.”

Page 4 line 157: “PBS,” page 4 line a65: “DAPI “ page 11 Table 3: “PE “When an abbreviation first time is mentioned, it is necessary to add the meaning of it, even in the case, when people are familiar with the subject.

Page 10 line 331. „…inhibits the intrusion of Cl- ions in the corrosion solution…” It sounds more precisely: “…inhibits the intrusion of Cl- ions of the corosive solution…”

Page 10 line 343: “a more stable passive oxide film…”

Page 13 line 435í. “The passivation film of the Nb-Zr alloying layer is a corrosion-resistant oxide of Nb and Zr, which may be the reason for its excellent corrosion resistance.”

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have responded to your comment.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, surface treatment is always a very interesting topic. Improving the performance of medical materials is a constant challenge for researchers. Therefore I congratulate you on the chosen topic.

the abstract could be improved. It is not clear to readers. It should be structured by inserting a clearly described aim, materials and methods, results and conclusions. As presented, it does not allow us to understand which experiments were carried out, for what purpose and the main conclusions drawn.

The introduction is well written. It presents the topic and the problem well.

The abbreviations must be put for extended the first time they appear.

I recommend inserting a clearer and more concise aim. And a null hypothesis.

Materials and methods need review. Before describing the applied procedures it would be appropriate to describe the study design. How many samples were processed? What were the groups?

Was a statistical analysis of the tests carried out?

A table could help to understand the study design, the different pressures tested etc.

The results should be reviewed after setting up a correct statistical analysis. They could also be summarized. The amount of information is too large. The reader cannot focus on the most interesting points.

There is no discussion. Some parts where the results are discussed are incorporated into the results themselves.

I recommend a thorough review where the results and the discussion are well structured.

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have responded to your comment.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Study on Corrosion Resistance and Biological Properties of the Double-glow Plasma Nb-Zr Biological Implantation Alloying Layers

Reviewer Comments:

Author reports the coating of niobium zirconium alloy on 316L stainless steel and the study of corrosion resistance with biological tests. The study of Double-glow Plasma is innovative. The paper is suggested for acceptance unless the author incorporate these changes.

1. Author should incorporate adhesion test to check the adhesion developed coatings.

2. What is significance of XRD in this paper? Author should cite more review papers (biological implants)

3. Researchers have used Nb-Zr in different compositions. Why are you choosing the specified compositions? Brief and cite some more papers.

4. Double-glow plasma coatings and different biological materials. A comparison

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have responded to your comment.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors. Surely the work was improved. Thank you for having received the comments made. However, I suggest some useful things for the purpose of publication:

Abstract must be edited and structured according to the guidelines of the journal. For example, the purpose of the study is missing. The materials and methods are not clearly displayed.

Again, a clear purpose and null hypothesis of the study is missing in the introduction.

Materials and methods have been improved. A specific paragraph on statistical analysis is still missing. What tests have been done? How was the sample calculated?

Again the results need revisions. Some of the comments posted and compare results from other studies. This is pertinent to the discussion. Not results. Therefore the results are still partially confused. the results are not yet organized according to the statistical analysis.

The discussion was partially improved. At the same time, however, it does not relate the results to what has already been studied in the literature. The aim of the discussion is precisely to interpret and describe the meaning of your discoveries in relation to what is already known.

Therefore, further important revisions are required before publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have responded to your comment.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors. The changes made have improved the paper. However, there still remains a doubt regarding the statistical analysis. It is not clear what type of analysis was done, the analysis of the sample size. The software used. If the samples verify the tests for normality. statistical analysis still represents a weak point of the work and the greatest criticality present. I recommend a review by a statistician.

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have responded to your comment.
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx