Formation and Antibacterial Activity of AlOOH/Ag Composite Coating on Macroporous α-Al2O3 Ceramics
, Sergey O. Kazantsev, Olga V. Bakina, Maksim G. Krinitsyn and Aleksandr S. Lozhkomoev *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
English needs to be improved a lot. The application part needs more experiments. Please try to vary the quantity of Al and Ag and optimize the percentage which can be best suited. XRD results have no value.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We also thank the reviewer for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Major points are highlighted in the text.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
English needs to be improved a lot. The application part needs more experiments. Please try to vary the quantity of Al and Ag and optimize the percentage which can be best suited. XRD results have no value.
Response
- We have made an effort to improve use of English.
- We have added more experimental data to the manuscript.
- In our previous works we reported the use of the nanoparticles with high silver content. This content is excessive, so in the present work we used nanoparticles with the lowest Ag content that we can get so far. We strive to reduce the content of silver in the nanoparticles even further, but so far it is difficult. In our study we have demonstrated a new approach to create nanostructured antimicrobial coatings on the surface of porous ceramics. The influence of the silver/aluminum ratio on the reactivity of the particles and the characteristics of the oxidation products by water could be the subject of the further publication.
- In general, we agree that the XRD results have no value. However, we believe that if we do not present the XRD data on ceramics before and after the modification, other reviewers will demand them anyway. Therefore, in addition to the XRD data, we also have tried to explain the obtained result.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Your work it very interesting. Bun in order to improve your paper the following points should be added:
Please add the results of the quantitative EDS studies. Also please provide the particles size obtained by XRD studies. What ICDD PDF card did you use for the XRD results?
Please see and refer to:https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-7-324; https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-6-613
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We also thank the reviewer for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Major points are highlighted in the text.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
Your work it very interesting. Bun in order to improve your paper the following points should be added:
Please add the results of the quantitative EDS studies.
Response: We add the results of the quantitative EDS studies
Also please provide the particles size obtained by XRD studies. What ICDD PDF card did you use for the XRD results?
Response: The particle size from the XRD data was determined using the Williamson-Hall plot. For macroporous ceramics before and after modification the crystallite sizes are the same being 80 nm. We also presented the XRD data of Al and Al/Ag nanoparticles and ICDD PDF cards used to analyze the diffractograms.
Please see and refer to:https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-7-324; https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-6-613
Response: We reviewed these works and have included them in the literature review.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer comments to authors:
The manuscript entitled “Formation and antibacterial activity of AlOOH/Ag composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics” have efforts from the author regarding the AlOOH/Ag composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics preparation and its antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. I wish to point out only some modifications to shape the manuscript.
1. The abstract of the manuscript is required to be upgraded. Include the details of antibacterial activity of the composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics.
2. Keywords should be used as more informative words, not abbreviations. Maximum six informative words. Remove unwanted keywords.
3. The literature review is week.
4. The authors should cite the proper citation for forming a composite AlOOH/Ag coating on the surface of α-Al2O3 ceramics and cite it in the antibacterial assay.
5. Need more discussion with recent references.
6. The authors should be uniformed the units and symbols according to the journal format.
7. The authors should check the reference section.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer for the constructive criticism. We also thank the reviewer for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Major points are highlighted in the text.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled “Formation and antibacterial activity of AlOOH/Ag composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics” have efforts from the author regarding the AlOOH/Ag composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics preparation and its antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus. I wish to point out only some modifications to shape the manuscript.
- The abstract of the manuscript is required to be upgraded. Include the details of antibacterial activity of the composite coating on macroporous α-Al2O3 ceramics.
Response: We have added the results on the antibacterial activity of the samples in Abstract.
- Keywords should be used as more informative words, not abbreviations. Maximum six informative words. Remove unwanted keywords.
Response: Keywords have been revised.
- The literature review is week.
Response: Literature review has been revised and improved.
- The authors should cite the proper citation for forming a composite AlOOH/Ag coating on the surface of α-Al2O3 ceramics and cite it in the antibacterial assay.
Response: The formation of composite AlOOH/Ag coatings on the surface of α-Al2O3 ceramics has not been previously considered. We could not find relevant publications. Our group dealt with the modification of polymer fibers with AlOOH/Ag nanostructures; corrersponding references to published works are given in the manuscript, including the discussion of the results obtained.
- Need more discussion with recent references.
Response: We have expanded section Results and Discussion when describing the and interpretation of the results obtained.
- The authors should be uniformed the units and symbols according to the journal format.
Response: We have tried to unify the units and symbols according to the Journal format.
- The authors should check the reference section.
Response: Reference section has been checked.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
can be accepted from my side. Some language polishing is still required. But, no nee for reviewing again.
