The Influence of Low-Pressure Plasma and Ozone Pretreatment on the Stability of Polyester/Chitosan Structure in the Washing Process—Part 1

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Polyester fabrics of different densities and weaving methods (such as twill and satin) account for a certain proportion in practical applications, and there may be differences in fiber shedding during the washing process. The text mentions that white standard polyester fabrics from a Dutch supplier were used for the experiments. Can these samples fully represent the common types of polyester fabrics on the market?
2. The impact of different pretreatment times on the surface structure and properties of polyester fabrics may have a nonlinear relationship. Both too short and too long treatment times may fail to achieve the best modification effects. The time settings for plasma and ozone pretreatment (such as 10 minutes for argon plasma treatment, 5 minutes for oxygen plasma treatment, and 30 and 60 minutes for ozone treatment) should be justified to enhance the scientific and rational basis of the study.
3. Chitosan is a natural linear polysaccharide with excellent biological and physicochemical properties and is widely used in various fields. The discussion on chitosan is insufficient. For more information, see International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2025, 309, 142834. Relevant supplements can help improve the breadth and depth of the paper.
4. Low power density may lead to insufficient plasma energy, which fails to effectively activate the surface of polyester fabrics. Electrode spacing that is either too large or too small may affect the uniformity of the plasma, resulting in non-uniform surface modification of the fabric. The key parameters of plasma, such as power density and electrode spacing, should be provided to enable other researchers to more accurately reproduce the experimental results.
5. How to ensure the uniform distribution of chitosan on the surface of polyester fabric during the process of coating chitosan solution onto the fabric?
6. How do the surface microstructural changes caused by plasma pretreatment affect the mechanical properties of the fabric, and what are the specific mechanisms of the interaction between chitosan and polyester fibers that influence mechanical properties?
7. In addition to considering mechanical properties and structural stability, a comprehensive assessment of different pretreatment methods should be conducted from multiple perspectives, including environmental friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and the impact on the original properties of the fabric. This will provide a more comprehensive reference for selecting appropriate pretreatment technologies in actual industrial production.

Author Response

The responses for the 1st Reviewer

 The authors would like to thank all reviewers who have read, reviewed and commented on all parts of the paper.

We accept all comments and have included them in the revised version of the paper.

We hope that we answer all questions correctly, and would be acceptable for Reviewer.

With kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript requires substantial revision to ensure scientific clarity and reproducibility. Below are detailed comments:

1. Plasma and Ozone Treatment:

   • It is unclear whether ozone was applied as gas-phase ozone (generated in air) or dissolved in water. Based on the experimental context, gas-phase ozone seems more likely. This must be clearly specified in the methodology.

   • The specific plasma or ozone parameters (power, duration, gas flow rates, treatment distance, etc.) are missing, particularly for the samples listed in Table 3. These details are essential for reproducibility and should be explicitly added.

2. Sample Designations:

   • The abbreviations used in Table 3 (e.g., "CH") are not defined anywhere in the manuscript. This significantly limits interpretability. All sample codes must be explained in a dedicated table or figure legend, and a consistent nomenclature should be used throughout the manuscript.

   • Figure captions (e.g., Figures 1 and 2) also use abbreviations that are not self-explanatory. Sample labels should be defined in each figure legend or directly next to the figure for clarity.

3. Analytical Methods and Data Interpretation:

   • After washing, mechanical testing, thickness measurements, and gravimetric analysis were performed. However, the precision and resolution of the scale are not discussed. Given that the observed mass differences are less than 1%, the sensitivity and error margin of the weighing method must be reported to judge significance.

   • Spectroscopic color changes are reported, but it remains unclear whether these correlate with chitosan retention. The authors should discuss if specific spectroscopic signatures of chitosan were evaluated or if the analysis is qualitative only.

   • The "surface appearance" scale (values from 1–5) is neither defined nor justified. Is this based on subjective visual inspection or an objective method (e.g., image analysis, gloss measurement)? A detailed description of this assessment method is required.

4. Electron Microscopy (SEM):

   • Figures 4 and 5 lack scale bars, which are standard in SEM imaging. Please include scale bars.

   • Figures 6 and 7 suggest the presence of the chitosan coating, but higher magnification (zoom-in) images would be helpful to verify morphology and surface coverage. Why was no detailed surface analysis performed here?

5. Structure of Results and Discussion:

   • The current "Results" section includes elements of interpretation typically reserved for the "Discussion." Consider either separating these two sections or renaming the section to "Results and Discussion" if integrated.

   • A standalone "Discussion" section appears to be missing. The implications of the findings, limitations, and relevance to broader applications (e.g., microplastic reduction) should be systematically discussed.

6. References:

   • Reference formatting is inconsistent and needs complete revision.

   • Reference 5 lacks sufficient detail — it is unclear whether it refers to a book, article, or report.

   • Reference 15 is missing a period at the end.

   • Please ensure that all references follow the journal's prescribed format and are complete.

The manuscript presents an interesting approach to modifying polyester fabrics with functional coatings. However, the scientific content is currently obscured by missing methodological details, unclear sample labeling, and lack of structural clarity. Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be meaningfully evaluated in terms of scientific merit and impact.

Author Response

The responses for the 2nd Reviewer

 The authors would like to thank all reviewers who have read, reviewed and commented on all parts of the paper.

We accept all comments and have included them in the revised version of the paper.

We hope that we answer all questions correctly, and would be acceptable for Reviewer.

With kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an important topic regarding the use of environmentally friendly treatments (plasma and ozone) in stabilizing polyester/chitosan fabrics. However, several significant issues limit its suitability for publication in its current form. The manuscript lacks scientific clarity, methodological depth, and critical data interpretation. Moreover, there are structural, linguistic, and analytical gaps that must be addressed thoroughly before reconsideration.

The hypothesis is poorly articulated. There is no clear research question or clearly defined objectives beyond general exploration.

Interpretation of zeta potential data (Figures 1–3) lacks depth. The conclusion that plasma treatment with oxygen is more effective is not supported with statistical significance or robust surface chemistry discussion.

In introduction many paragraphs small paragraphs, merge into 3-4 paragraphs. Also, in whole manuscript. One or two sentence is not a paragraph.

The work lacks appropriate control samples beyond the untreated polyester (PES). Controls involving commercial or conventional pretreatments would provide better benchmarking.

The text contains numerous grammatical and typographical errors. For example, “polyes-ter” (line 21) and inconsistent use of spacing and punctuation (e.g., "ozonator" vs. "ozone generator").

Figures (especially Figure 5 and 6) lack proper scale bars, labels, and units. Image resolution and contrast are inconsistent.

Referencing is inconsistent. Some sources lack full citation details.

Tables are too densely packed and require better formatting for readability.

Use of acronyms such as PES, CH, WC should be standardized and explained in figure/table legends for accessibility.

 

 

Author Response

The responses for the 3rd Reviewer

 The authors would like to thank all reviewers who have read, reviewed and commented on all parts of the paper.

We accept all comments and have included them in the revised version of the paper.

We hope that we answer all questions correctly, and would be acceptable for Reviewer.

With kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the paper according to the review suggestions, and believed that the review paper had been improved, and there was no other problem.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the numerous improvements and corrections. The manuscript has now reached a solid state. I also appreciate all your responses. From my side, everything is in order.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors fail to address my major queries, and this study is not interesting and is a repetition of previous work.