Innovative Bioceramic Based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Possible Medical Applications
, José Adalberto Castillo-Robles 3, Eddie Nahúm Armendariz-Mireles 3, Carlos Adrián Calles-Arriaga 3 and Enrique Rocha-Rangel 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is " Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium 2 Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Medical Application ".
This article designed the bioceramic materials consisting of a bioactive hydroxyapatite-based matrix with Ti nanoparticles, and to evaluates the effect of Ti additions on the structural, electrochemical, and mechanical properties of the hydroxyapatite ceramic material. However, the current article needs more careful corrections and revisions.
Major comments
1. Figure 5 is too small to distinguish.
2. There is no obvious trend change in the mechanical properties of different concentrations of Ti added, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
3. Results and discussion of electrochemical tests are too lengthy and should be shortened to focus on the key points. There are many errors in the timing and should be re-examined.
4. In addition to physical property testing, biomedical materials should also be tested with cells to know their practicality.
5. As the author mentioned, microalgae does not have any advantages in the There are many incorrectly written units and symbols in the article, which need to be re-examined.
6. Are Figure 9 of Line 313 and Figures 10 and 11 of Line 336 correct?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
December 12, 2024
Manuscript ID: JMMP-3307774
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium
Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Medical Application
REPLY TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
We are thankful to the reviewers for their constructive and important comments. By taking in account of their suggestions, some sections of the manuscript have been modified for clarity (highlighting with yellow those parts that have been modified). Below, we give our rebuttal to their comment.
Reviewer 1
This article designed the bioceramic materials consisting of a bioactive hydroxyapatite-based matrix with Ti nanoparticles, and to evaluates the effect of Ti additions on the structural, electrochemical, and mechanical properties of the hydroxyapatite ceramic material. However, the current article needs more careful corrections and revisions.
Comment 1:
Figure 5 is too small to distinguish.
Response to comment 1:
Figure 5 was enlarged and given more quality.
Comment 2:
There is no obvious trend change in the mechanical properties of different concentrations of Ti added, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Response to comment 2
Effectively, perhaps the trend in mechanical properties as a function of titanium additions is not so significant. However, the sample containing 1% titanium was chosen as the best, since it is the one with the highest overall mechanical properties.
Comment 3:
Results and discussion of electrochemical tests are too lengthy and should be shortened to focus on the key points. There are many errors in the timing and should be re-examined.
Response to comment 3:
Dear reviewer, thanks for your observation and suggestions for this section. So, we work as hard as possible to shorten the electrochemical results and discussion as it could be possible; however, it is important to point out that this section is divided into two important categories; Potentiodynamic polarization curves (TAFEL) and Electrochemical impedance measurements (EIS). This section describes in detail the reaction mechanisms and physical interactions that occur in each test. This section is another of the expertise of this research work- team, especially in electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, and these results are our better contribution in electrochemical applied to Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium Nanoparticles as reinforcement, which is good desire to show-up our findings in this research article. It is important to note that there is not too much information about the EIS applied to these materials. In addition, it is important to note that there is not much information in the literature or other types of journals regarding the use of EIS applied to this type of material.
The suggestion that there are some errors in the timing and re-examined the manuscript, this suggestion is attended. All the corrosion test were re-examined, and it was determined that the immersion time ranged from 5 to 504h, as indicated in the experimental details and results sections. Meanwhile, the duration of the OCP test (Open Circuit Potential OCP vs time) was performed over 10,000 seconds, which represents 2.7h. This may have led to a misinterpretation of the data.
Comment 4:
In addition to physical property testing, biomedical materials should also be tested with cells to know their practicality.
Response to comment 4:
The objective of this study was first to determine the effect of titanium on the chemical and mechanical properties of the resulting composite. In a second work, its effectiveness in a biological system will be determined.
With this in mind, it was decided to change the title as follows:
Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Possible Medical Applications
Comment 5:
As the author mentioned, microalgae does not have any advantages in the There are many incorrectly written units and symbols in the article, which need to be re-examined.
Response to comment 5:
The units and symbols throughout the article were reviewed and corrected.
Comment 6:
Are Figure 9 of Line 313 and Figures 10 and 11 of Line 336 correct?.
Response to comment 6:
Line 313 indicates that; “Figure 9 focuses only on the electrochemical curves at OCP”. The word of Figure 9 (it is a typographical mistake) is changed for the word of Figure 11.
Line 336 indicates that; “which are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, respectively, for each immersion time of the”. The words of Figures 10 and 11 (it is a typographical mistake) is changed for the words of Figures 12 and 13.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
The review entitled “Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Medical Application” the authors aimed to study the bioactive hydroxyapatite-based matrix with Ti nanoparticles obtained by sintering process. Different tests were conducted to characterize the obtained materials like microstructure, X-ray diffraction, hardness and electrochemical behavior. This report is an interesting and well written manuscript that falls well within the scope of the journal. However, some adjustments can be made to the text and to the figure11 so that the work has a better presentation. Below are some notes that should be taken into consideration by the authors:
- Figure 8, the hardness unit is written incorrectly - replace Mpa with MPa
- The graph in figure 11 needs to be better represented, since the time axis goes up to 10,000 seconds, but it looks strange when placing all the times studied, 2.7 - 48 - 168 - 504 hours, since in fact the representation in time does not cover the entire period analyzed. One suggestion would be to represent the periods studied in separate graphs.
- The indication of the figures in the lines 313 and 336 is wrong.
- In the line 431 the correct way is figure 14 and not 12 as it is written.
- In the caption of figure 14 “EIS response in Bode form of a Bio-ceramic HPa/Ti1% sample during exposure in 0.9% NaCl solution at different periods of time, 5, 48, 168 y 504 h.” replace Y with and.
With these modifications, I believe that the review will be more presentable for publication in the journal.
Author Response
December 12, 2024
Manuscript ID: JMMP-3307774
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium
Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Medical Application
REPLY TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
We are thankful to the reviewers for their constructive and important comments. By taking in account of their suggestions, some sections of the manuscript have been modified for clarity (highlighting with yellow those parts that have been modified). Below, we give our rebuttal to their comment.
Reviewer 2
The review entitled “Innovative Bioceramic based on Hydroxyapatite with Titanium Nanoparticles as Reinforcement for Medical Application” the authors aimed to study the bioactive hydroxyapatite-based matrix with Ti nanoparticles obtained by sintering process. Different tests were conducted to characterize the obtained materials like microstructure, X-ray diffraction, hardness and electrochemical behavior. This report is an interesting and well written manuscript that falls well within the scope of the journal. However, some adjustments can be made to the text and to the figure11 so that the work has a better presentation. Below are some notes that should be taken into consideration by the authors:
Comment 1:
Figure 8, the hardness unit is written incorrectly - replace Mpa with MPa.
Response to comment 1:
Figure 8 was correted.
Comment 2:
The graph in figure 11 needs to be better represented, since the time axis goes up to 10,000 seconds, but it looks strange when placing all the times studied, 2.7 - 48 - 168 - 504 hours, since in fact the representation in time does not cover the entire period analyzed. One suggestion would be to represent the periods studied in separate graphs.
Response to comment 2
All the corrosion test were re-examined, and it was determined that the immersion time ranged from 5 to 504h, as indicated in the experimental details and results sections. Meanwhile, the duration of the OCP test (Open Circuit Potential OCP vs time) was performed over 10,000 seconds, which represents 2.7h. This may have led to a misinterpretation of the data.
Comment 3:
The indication of the figures in the lines 313 and 336 is wrong.
Response to comment 3:
Line 313 indicates that; “Figure 9 focuses only on the electrochemical curves at OCP”. The word of Figure 9 (it is a typographical mistake) is changed for the word of Figure 11.
Line 336 indicates that; “which are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11, respectively, for each immersion time of the”. The words of Figures 10 and 11 (it is a typographical mistake) is changed for the words of Figures 12 and 13.
Comment 4:
In the line 431 the correct way is figure 14 and not 12 as it is written.
Response to comment 4:
Line 431 indicates that; “Figure 12 allow us to understand and observe the mechanisms of charge transfer as a func-”. The word of Figure 12 (it is a typographical mistake) is changed for the word of Figure 14.
Comment 5:
In the caption of figure 14 “EIS response in Bode form of a Bio-ceramic HPa/Ti1% sample during exposure in 0.9% NaCl solution at different periods of time, 5, 48, 168 y 504 h.” replace Y with and.
Response to comment 5:
The caption was corrected.
Reviewer 2
With these modifications, I believe that the review will be more presentable for publication in the journal.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsprevious comments have been revised carefully
