Magnetic Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery Approaches for Preventing and Treating Biofilms in Cystic Fibrosis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My main concern with this review is the deviation from the title and aims in the "approaches for prevention and treatment" which is the bulk of this review. Why carriers such as gold, silver, and polymers were added?
The review should focus purely on mangetite nanoparticles (Predominantly Fe2O3 nanoparticles).
Also I am not clear on how magnetite nanoparticles are great for disrupting the biofilms structures, authors should include a Table or a section summarizing possible mechanism
There are other points suggested for the authors to consider:
- It requires extensive language revision, please correct "have become increasing popular"...etc.
- MNPs have not been used commercially as imaging contrast agents, maybe in research studies only, same goes to delivery of drugs.
- Fig 1 may not be realistic as the bacteria often mixed with the mucus. Also it would be unusual for the biofilm to be directly adsorbed to the surface, surely there should be a mucus layer.
- The following sentence is not clear in terms of impact of drug half life "The failure of present strategies to treat biofilm infections necessitates the development of alternative methods including improved drug delivery systems to avoid problems associated with short half-lives, low bioavailability or systemic toxicity."
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The review by Tan et al. summarizes advances in the use of magnetic nanoparticles in the treatment of biofilms with a focus on cystic fibrosis.
The topic is surely of relevance, yet the review should be emended before it is publishable. In particular, the focus of the review is lost in teh middle, where a long and unnecessary excursus on non-magnetic nanoparticles (e.g. gold, silver) is provided. Either the review is on nanostructured approaches to biofilm treatment (and the title, and possibly the journal, should be changed), or it is focused on magnetic nanoparticles (and these sections should be removed). furthermore, what is missing is a reliable conclusive and perspective section where distinct advantages of nanomagnetic delivery are summarized and compared with traditional strategies, and a layout of future development is reported.
Finally, I am not sure that a dissertation without DOI (e.g. ref 41) is a citeable item.
if the authors can modify the review according to these suggestions I think it would be a fairly good addition to Magnetochemistry.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see them attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to attachment (same as for reviewer 1).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some of the feedback comments were not addressed hence the authors need to address those comments before their MS can be published.
Author Response
Please see attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I agree with the corrections.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted corrections made by authors
