Green Surface Engineering of Spun-Bonded Nonwovens Using Polyphenol-Rich Berry Extracts for Bioactive and Functional Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract: "In response to the growing demand for environmentally friendly, sustainable, and high-performance textile materials, this study addresses key limitations in conventional bio-based textiles, such as insufficient functionality and limited added value. A novel strategy is proposed through the integration of natural colorants and bioactive compounds derived from Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L. into a thermoplastic starch-based nonwoven matrix (BIOPLAST®). The core innovation lies in the development of a multifunctional, fully bio-based material system that combines sustainable processing with inherent functional properties—such as antioxidant activity and uniform dyeability—demonstrating significant potential for eco-conscious applications in technical textiles and disposable products."

2. In the "Materials and Methods" section, it is recommended to include a dedicated "Materials" subsection to systematically present all raw materials, including their sources, compositions, and selection rationale. Alternatively, the introduction of key materials such as BIOPLAST® should be contextualized in the "Introduction" by explaining their relevance to sustainability goals and compatibility with natural extract incorporation.

3. Section 3.1, "Spun-bonded matrix," currently provides an extensive evaluation of the nonwoven substrate and process validation. While essential for reproducibility, this content is overly detailed and disrupts the narrative flow. To enhance clarity and emphasize innovation, this section should be streamlined and integrated with Section 3.2, "Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L. extracts," to present a cohesive account of how the structural integrity of the matrix enables effective functionalization with plant-derived compounds.

4. The "Discussion" section should provide a concise synthesis of the major findings, interpret the results in relation to existing literature, and explicitly restate the study’s scientific and technological contributions. Given its current length and redundancy, it is recommended to condense the discussion by eliminating repetitive observations and focusing on mechanistic insights, performance implications, and scalability prospects.

5. Overall, the manuscript would benefit from improved structural coherence and a sharper emphasis on its innovative aspects. The conclusion includes multiple application examples but lacks prioritization or alignment with the study’s primary objective. It is advised to clearly define the intended purpose of the developed fabrication process—particularly the dual advantage of sustainability and functionality—and highlight the central achievement: the successful creation of a renewable, naturally functionalized textile material. Revising the paper’s organization to reflect this focus will strengthen its impact and readiness for resubmission.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we express our sincere gratitude to the Reviewer for the insightful and valuable comments provided during the evaluation of our manuscript. The constructive remarks and substantive suggestions have contributed significantly to improving the clarity, scientific quality, and overall value of the work. We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our study, as well as the opportunity to revise and strengthen the manuscript. In response to the comments in the review, we provide a point-by-point response below. 

Comments 1: Abstract: "In response to the growing demand for environmentally friendly, sustainable, and high-performance textile materials, this study addresses key limitations in conventional bio-based textiles, such as insufficient functionality and limited added value. A novel strategy is proposed through the integration of natural colorants and bioactive compounds derived from Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L. into a thermoplastic starch-based nonwoven matrix (BIOPLAST®). The core innovation lies in the development of a multifunctional, fully bio-based material system that combines sustainable processing with inherent functional properties—such as antioxidant activity and uniform dyeability—demonstrating significant potential for eco-conscious applications in technical textiles and disposable products." 

Response 1: The abstract has been revised to provide a more comprehensive and informative overview of the study. 

Comments 2: In the "Materials and Methods" section, it is recommended to include a dedicated "Materials" subsection to systematically present all raw materials, including their sources, compositions, and selection rationale. Alternatively, the introduction of key materials such as BIOPLAST® should be contextualized in the "Introduction" by explaining their relevance to sustainability goals and compatibility with natural extract incorporation. 

Response 2: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment regarding Section 3.1. We agree that some of the process-validation details can be presented more concisely. At the same time, we consider a dedicated subsection on the spun-bonded matrix to be important, because obtaining a uniform BIOPLAST® spunbond nonwoven and establishing its basic mechanical and morphological characteristics are prerequisites for the subsequent surface functionalisation and, in themselves, represent a contribution of the work. In response to the suggestion, we have (i) streamlined the description of fibre-diameter statistics in Section 3.1 by replacing the detailed listing of normality tests and numerical parameters with a concise summary focusing on matrix uniformity, and (ii) added linking sentences at the end of Section 3.1 and at the beginning of Section 3.2 to emphasise how the structural integrity of the matrix enables effective functionalisation with berry extracts. We hope that these modifications improve the narrative flow while preserving a clear separation between matrix characterisation and extract characterisation. 

Comments 3: Section 3.1, "Spun-bonded matrix," currently provides an extensive evaluation of the nonwoven substrate and process validation. While essential for reproducibility, this content is overly detailed and disrupts the narrative flow. To enhance clarity and emphasize innovation, this section should be streamlined and integrated with Section 3.2, "Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L. extracts," to present a cohesive account of how the structural integrity of the matrix enables effective functionalization with plant-derived compounds. 

Response 3: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment regarding Section 3.1. While we agree that certain process-validation details can be presented more concisely, we consider a dedicated subsection on the spun-bonded matrix essential. Achieving a uniform BIOPLAST® spunbond nonwoven and establishing its mechanical and morphological characteristics are prerequisites for subsequent surface functionalization and constitute a contribution of the work. In response, we have (i) streamlined the description of fibre-diameter statistics in Section 3.1 by summarizing matrix uniformity, and (ii) added linking sentences at the end of Section 3.1 and the beginning of Section 3.2 to emphasize how the matrix’s structural integrity enables effective functionalization with berry extracts. We hope these modifications improve the narrative flow while maintaining a clear distinction between matrix and extract characterization. 

Comments 4: The "Discussion" section should provide a concise synthesis of the major findings, interpret the results in relation to existing literature, and explicitly restate the study’s scientific and technological contributions. Given its current length and redundancy, it is recommended to condense the discussion by eliminating repetitive observations and focusing on mechanistic insights, performance implications, and scalability prospects. 

Response 4: The conclusion section has been added, and the discussion section has been reorganised in accordance with the recommendations. 

Comments 5: Overall, the manuscript would benefit from improved structural coherence and a sharper emphasis on its innovative aspects. The conclusion includes multiple application examples but lacks prioritization or alignment with the study’s primary objective. It is advised to clearly define the intended purpose of the developed fabrication process—particularly the dual advantage of sustainability and functionality—and highlight the central achievement: the successful creation of a renewable, naturally functionalized textile material. Revising the paper’s organization to reflect this focus will strengthen its impact and readiness for resubmission. 

Response 5: Thank you for the comment. Other reviewers also noted this aspect, and the manuscript has been revised in several sections as suggested. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting and timely study exploring the surface functionalisation of BIOPLAST® spun-bonded nonwovens with polyphenol-rich extracts from blueberry and elderberry. The work fits well within current trends in sustainable materials, bioactive textiles, and green chemistry. The manuscript is generally well organised, and the authors provide extensive characterisation of the materials, including mechanical testing, GPC/SEC, DSC, FTIR-ATR, wetting, SEM, and release profiling. The combination of sustainability, biopolymers, and plant-based extracts is highly relevant.

The manuscript is overall solid and suitable for publication after revision.

Abstract

1. The claim that “the material demonstrated sustained release of active ingredients during use” would benefit from specifying the time scale described later (72 h).
2. It may help to explicitly mention that the extracts were physically adsorbed, not covalently attached.

Introduction

3. Several statements could be strengthened by clarifying the gaps in current research. For example, although BIOPLAST® is not commonly used for nonwovens, the authors could explicitly state why its processing is challenging and why this study is significant.
4. It would help to define early what differentiates this work from standard PLA or PCL nonwoven modifications, which are more widely documented.

Materials and Methods

5. Drying conditions are listed but no mention is made of whether extract stability was assessed after drying.
6. For contact angle measurements, the number of droplets averaged should be added.

Results

7. Table 1 reports tensile strength of 0.23 MPa, which is quite low; the authors could comment on whether this is typical for BIOPLAST® nonwovens.
8. Regarding the accelerating ageing: The manuscript would benefit from providing crystallinity values (from DSC) instead of only qualitative discussion. The increase in basis weight is surprising; it should be explained whether it reflects moisture uptake, contamination, or experimental variation. The Arrhenius parameters used to calculate ageing time equivalents are not shown.
9. Regarding hydrolysis section: It would be useful to include images of the hydrolysed samples to illustrate physical changes. Hydrolysis medium is not described in detail (distilled water? volume? renewal frequency?). Authors should clarify whether hydrolysis is surface-controlled or bulk-controlled based on mass loss data.
10. In surface engineering results: The mass increase after modification (4–5%) seems small for such a pronounced mechanical improvement, further discussion is recommended.

Discussion

11. The discussion of mechanical reinforcement by extract coating could be deepened; it currently remains speculative.

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we express our sincere gratitude to the Reviewer for the insightful and valuable comments provided during the evaluation of our manuscript. The constructive remarks and substantive suggestions have contributed significantly to improving the clarity, scientific quality, and overall value of the work. We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our study, as well as the opportunity to revise and strengthen the manuscript. In response to the comments in the review, we provide a point-by-point response below.

Abstract

Comments 1: The claim that “the material demonstrated sustained release of active ingredients during use” would benefit from specifying the time scale described later (72 h).

Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agree that specifying the time scale improves the clarity of the statement.

Comments 2: It may help to explicitly mention that the extracts were physically adsorbed, not covalently attached.

Response 2: Added to section 2.3 “The application of this technique enables the production of a nonwoven in which the extracts are physically adsorbed onto the fibre surface rather than covalently bonded. Such a system, based on physical interactions, facilitates the easy release of active compounds, making the nonwoven an effective matrix that functions as a controlled-release system.”

Introduction

Comments 3: Several statements could be strengthened by clarifying the gaps in current research. For example, although BIOPLAST® is not commonly used for nonwovens, the authors could explicitly state why its processing is challenging and why this study is significant.

Response 3: The introduction contains information about minor use in textiles: “Research has been conducted on the production of BIOPLAST® films using various processing methods [44–46], as well as on the fabrication of molded or extruded parts containing organic fillers [47–50]. The material can be employed both as a single-component polymer and in multicomponent systems that include other biopolymers or organic fillers. In textile applications, such as fibre, nonwoven, and fabric production, BIOPLAST® has not yet been widely used. Although the manufacturer lists such processing routes as potential applications, there is limited literature in this area. In melt-processing techniques, the addition of glycerol has been found necessary to facilitate fibre formation, as the polymer alone was complex to spin [51].” We added: “ BIOPLAST® is relatively new to the biopolymer market compared to PLA, PCL, or PBS. The manufacturer primarily recommended it for foils or extrusion techniques, outside the textile sector. The textile industry is beginning to be considered a potential field of application for this material, with the producer simultaneously introducing targeted modifications to support fibre-forming processes. However, developing an effective processing methodology for such a demanding technology as fibre production requires extensive research and optimisation efforts. Limited information is currently available on the applicability of this polymer in textile manufacturing, mainly due to challenges associated with its textile-processing behaviour.”

Comments 4: It would help to define early what differentiates this work from standard PLA or PCL nonwoven modifications, which are more widely documented.

Response 4: Added Section 5 - Conclusion: “Spun-bonded technology for polymers such as PLA, PCL and PBS is widely used for fibre production. Their processing is well established, and these materials are increasingly entering the commercial market. Nevertheless, there is still considerable scope for introducing new biopolymers, such as BIOPLAST®. However, their successful implementation requires comprehensive studies focused on processing behaviour and potential application areas.”

We are also preparing a publication on modifications to PBS spunbonded nonwovens, which will allow for a direct comparison between PBS and BIOPLAST® nonwovens as a reference. Both materials were produced using the same textile machine, facilitating a more accurate comparison of processing technologies. Although there is extensive literature on PBS nonwovens, minor differences in technological processes may complicate direct comparisons.

Materials and Methods

Comments 5: Drying conditions are listed but no mention is made of whether extract stability was assessed after drying.

Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for this pertinent comment. In the present study, we did not perform a dedicated analytical assessment of extract stability after drying on the nonwoven surface. The air-drying conditions (≈23 °C, 24 h) and the water/ethanol solvent system were deliberately selected as particularly mild, based on previous data on the photostability of similar berry extracts. The functionality of the dried coatings was verified indirectly through the release experiments presented in Section 3.4, which confirm that the nonwovens retain the ability to deliver polyphenol-containing extracts into the aqueous phase over 72 h. A comprehensive stability study of the individual phenolic constituents before and after drying would require a separate, dedicated experimental campaign and is therefore beyond the scope of this process-oriented work.

Comments 6: For contact angle measurements, the number of droplets averaged should be added.

Response 6: The description of the contact angle measurements has been updated in the Materials and Methods section.

Results

Comments 7: Table 1 reports tensile strength of 0.23 MPa, which is quite low; the authors could comment on whether this is typical for BIOPLAST® nonwovens.

Response 7: Added to sec. 3.1. Spun-bonded matrix:  “Overall, the material exhibited relatively low mechanical performance compared with spunbonded nonwovens produced from other biopolymers, such as PBS or PLA (Table 1) [62–64], which is consistent with properties typically reported for materials produced using meltblown technology [52]. Nevertheless, the good elongation at break represents a notable advantage of this material.”

Comments 8: Regarding the accelerating ageing: The manuscript would benefit from providing crystallinity values (from DSC) instead of only qualitative discussion. The increase in basis weight is surprising; it should be explained whether it reflects moisture uptake, contamination, or experimental variation. The Arrhenius parameters used to calculate ageing time equivalents are not shown.

Response 8: To determine the degree of crystallinity, we must know the heat of fusion parameter for a fully crystalline polymer. Unfortunately, the real chemical composition of the BIOPLAST® EL350 polymer is unknown, as it is not provided by the industrial polymer supplier. Therefore, the degree of crystallinity cannot be determined. Based on our experience, we assume that the observed changes in physical-chemical properties may be associated with an increase in crystallinity. However, this interpretation should be regarded solely as a hypothesis. Our professional background informed this commentary, yet at this stage, we do not have the analytical tools to empirically verify this assumption.

The Arrhenius parameters were added to the methods section.

Comments 9: Regarding hydrolysis section: It would be useful to include images of the hydrolysed samples to illustrate physical changes. Hydrolysis medium is not described in detail (distilled water? volume? renewal frequency?). Authors should clarify whether hydrolysis is surface-controlled or bulk-controlled based on mass loss data.

Response 9: Added: “Degradation in the presence of water (hydrolysis) was conducted at 37 ± 1°C under static conditions for up to 10 weeks using a VD 23 vacuum dryer (Binder, Germany). Deionised water was used as the degradation medium (pH 6.2; 3,7µS/cm). Samples before and after degradation were dried to a constant weight in a VD 23 vacuum dryer (Binder, Germany) at 35 ± 1°C and 100 mbar to minimise thermal degradation and enable assessment of the degradation progress in the tested system. The proportion of 10 ± 0.01 g of material per 100 ± 0.01 g of extraction medium was used, as this amount of water entirely covered the material. After the degradation process, the physical-mechanical parameters, molar mass and infrared spectroscopy were investigated.”

Comments 10: In surface engineering results: The mass increase after modification (4–5%) seems small for such a pronounced mechanical improvement, further discussion is recommended.

Response 10: Additional explanation has been added in Section 3.3 and at the beginning of the Discussion (Section 4) to clarify how a 4–5% mass add-on can lead to a substantial improvement in tensile properties.

Discussion

Comments 11: The discussion of mechanical reinforcement by extract coating could be deepened; it currently remains speculative.

Response 11: We have expanded the discussion of mechanical reinforcement in Section 3.3 and Section 4 by elaborating on the role of fibre–fibre contacts and the distribution of the extract coating within the fibrous network.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the surface modification of a bio-based nonwoven material composed of a thermoplastic starch blend is carried out by means of a spray coating with fruit extracts. The morphology, accelerated ageing, and hydrolysis of the nonwoven material are studied. Furthermore, The hydrophilic behavior of the treated nonwoven material and the release of active substances from this material are discussed. The interesting and valuable results are obtained. The manuscript is clearly organized in terms of background, experiments, and results and discussion. The conclusions are supported by the data. After minor revision, this manuscript can be accepted for publishing.

 

Suggestions for revision:

 

Keywords:

“spun-bonded” should be revised to “spun-bonded nonwovens” or “nonwovens”

 

Abstract:

It would be better if the length of the abstract can be shortened properly.

 

References and their citations:

The total number of references is 106. The references are excessively cited. In addition, all citations should be carefully checked. For example:

Lines 132-133: 2.2. Preparation of extracts from Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L.

The preparation of the extracts followed the general procedure outlined in the authors’ earlier research [56]. ------ Clearly, the Sequence Number of this reference is not correct.

[55] Kopyciński, B.; Duda, A.; Langer, E.; Kamińska-Bach, G. Color Photostability Assessment of Ultrasound-Assisted Extracts From European Blueberry (Vaccinium Myrtillus L.) Obtained with The Use of Non-Toxic Solvents, Drewno 2024, 67. (https://doi.org/10.53502/wood-187625.

[56] PN-EN ISO 139:2006; Textile — Normal climates for acclimatization and research., Poland, 2006.

 

Materials and Methods Section:

Lines 138-139: “a solvent mixture of equal volumes of deionised water and 96% ethanol (v/v) was chosen for its favourable effect on the photostability of the prepared solutions”: I do not think that the reason for the solvent mixture of water and ethanol is its favorable effect on the photostability of natural dyes. The efficiency of extraction should be a more important reason. It would be better if “for its favourable effect on the photostability of the prepared solutions” is deleted.

 

Fig. 1B and Fig. 1D are not mentioned in the text.

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we express our sincere gratitude to the Reviewer for the insightful and valuable comments provided during the evaluation of our manuscript. The constructive remarks and substantive suggestions have contributed significantly to improving the clarity, scientific quality, and overall value of the work. We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our study, as well as the opportunity to revise and strengthen the manuscript. In response to the comments in the review, we provide a point-by-point response below.

Keywords:

Comments 1: “spun-bonded” should be revised to “spun-bonded nonwovens” or “nonwovens”

Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. The keyword “spun-bonded” has been updated to “spun-bonded nonwovens” in the keyword list.

Abstract:

Comments 2: It would be better if the length of the abstract can be shortened properly.

Response 2: The abstract has been revised to enhance conciseness while retaining the study’s primary objectives, methodology, and main findings.

References and their citations:

Comments 3: The total number of references is 106. The references are excessively cited. In addition, all citations should be carefully checked. For example:

Lines 132-133: 2.2. Preparation of extracts from Vaccinium myrtillus L. and Sambucus nigra L.

The preparation of the extracts followed the general procedure outlined in the authors’ earlier research [56]. ------ Clearly, the Sequence Number of this reference is not correct.

[55] Kopyciński, B.; Duda, A.; Langer, E.; Kamińska-Bach, G. Color Photostability Assessment of Ultrasound-Assisted Extracts From European Blueberry (Vaccinium Myrtillus L.) Obtained with The Use of Non-Toxic Solvents, Drewno 2024, 67. (https://doi.org/10.53502/wood-187625.

[56] PN-EN ISO 139:2006; Textile — Normal climates for acclimatization and research., Poland, 2006.

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. All in-text citations and the reference list have been thoroughly reviewed and corrected as needed. Given the multidisciplinary scope of the study, including nonwoven processing, biopolymer degradation, and plant-extract characterisation, we consider the current number of references necessary to adequately document the methodological basis and the state of the art.

 

Materials and Methods Section:

Comments 4: Lines 138-139: “a solvent mixture of equal volumes of deionised water and 96% ethanol (v/v) was chosen for its favourable effect on the photostability of the prepared solutions”: I do not think that the reason for the solvent mixture of water and ethanol is its favorable effect on the photostability of natural dyes. The efficiency of extraction should be a more important reason. It would be better if “for its favourable effect on the photostability of the prepared solutions” is deleted.

Response 4: The sentence in Section 2.2 has been revised as recommended; the phrase “for its favourable effect on the photostability of the prepared solutions” has been removed.

Comments 5: Fig. 1B and Fig. 1D are not mentioned in the text.

Response 5: References to Figures 1B and 1D have been added to the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and addresses very important topics, but the presentation of results lacks order and consistency. Therefore, the writing needs to be revised and improved.

1. The abstract discusses the type of material obtained and some of its best results. I feel it needs to further highlight the novelty of the research and mention specific industrial applications and the benefits of these materials. (Advantages and disadvantages)

2. The introduction needs to elaborate on the benefits of technical textiles and the functionalities they can achieve by modifying their surface or adding additives. 
3. In the experimental section, it is unclear what was varied. Even in the results section, it states that the data was entered into a simulation of the accelerated aging process. This should be clarified in the materials and methods section.
4. In Figure 3, the DSC X-axis shows "Temperature" in capital letters, while the FTIR X-axis shows "Wavenumber" (also in Figures 4 and 5). The DSC scales are also very small in the graph.
5. Review the terminology and writing style of all the presented graphs, including their X and Y axes.
6. The FTIR data in Figure 4 ranges from 1800 to 600 cm⁻¹ wavenumber, Figure 4 from 3200 to 1200 cm⁻¹, and Figure 5 from 4000 to 400 cm⁻¹. All data should be standardized to 4000 to 400 cm⁻¹.

7. The manuscript has no conclusion.

8. In the section on Hydrolysis of spun-bonded steel, the data for the simulation of the accelerated aging process are different from the other tests. There is no justification for this.

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we express our sincere gratitude to the Reviewer for the insightful and valuable comments provided during the evaluation of our manuscript. The constructive remarks and substantive suggestions have contributed significantly to improving the clarity, scientific quality, and overall value of the work. We appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our study, as well as the opportunity to revise and strengthen the manuscript. In response to the comments in the review, we provide a point-by-point response below.

Comment 1: The abstract discusses the type of material obtained and some of its best results. I feel it needs to further highlight the novelty of the research and mention specific industrial applications and the benefits of these materials. (Advantages and disadvantages)

Response 1: The abstract has been revised for greater conciseness, ensuring that the study's primary aims, methodologies, and main findings are clearly presented.

Comments 2: The introduction needs to elaborate on the benefits of technical textiles and the functionalities they can achieve by modifying their surface or adding additives. 

Response 2: Added to Sec. Introduction: “The nonwoven industry is one of the most innovative and rapidly developing sectors within the global fibre market. Spun-bonded and melt-blown technologies enable the production of technical textiles with uniform fibre diameters and strong mechanical performance, supporting applications in filtration, hygiene, medical, construction, and packaging. A significant advantage of technical textiles is their capacity for functional enhancement through surface modification or the addition of active additives, which allows tailoring properties such as wettability, antimicrobial activity, biocompatibility, or controlled release of substances to meet advanced performance requirements [37].”

Comments 3: In the experimental section, it is unclear what was varied. Even in the results section, it states that the data was entered into a simulation of the accelerated aging process. This should be clarified in the materials and methods section.

Response 3: The accelerated ageing simulation, along with a discussion of the Arrhenius equation, is described in detail in the methods section.

Comments 4: In Figure 3, the DSC X-axis shows "Temperature" in capital letters, while the FTIR X-axis shows "Wavenumber" (also in Figures 4 and 5). The DSC scales are also very small in the graph.

Response 4: The formatting and labelling  have been corrected.

Comments 5:  Review the terminology and writing style of all the presented graphs, including their X and Y axes.

Response 5: All figures have been reviewed and harmonised.

Comments 6: The FTIR data in Figure 4 ranges from 1800 to 600 cm⁻¹ wavenumber, Figure 4 from 3200 to 1200 cm⁻¹, and Figure 5 from 4000 to 400 cm⁻¹. All data should be standardized to 4000 to 400 cm⁻¹.

Response 6: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. All FTIR-ATR spectra were recorded over the full 4000–400 cm⁻¹ range. In the main-text figures, only selected wavenumber regions are displayed in order to magnify the diagnostically relevant bands and make subtle differences between samples easier to see.

Comments 7: The manuscript has no conclusion.

Response 7: A concise “Conclusions” section has been added at the end of the manuscript to summarise the main findings and implications of the study.

Comments 8: In the section on Hydrolysis of spun-bonded steel, the data for the simulation of the accelerated aging process are different from the other tests. There is no justification for this.

Response 8: The description of the accelerated ageing conditions has been harmonised throughout the manuscript. All references now consistently use the same standard, and additional information has been added to justify the selected temperature and exposure times for the accelerated ageing simulations. Moreover, the hydrolysis experiment has been explicitly included in the Materials and Methods section and is now clearly described as a separate test, distinct from the accelerated ageing study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Maybe use a clearer version for Figure 1—the current one’s a bit blurry. For Figure 1(B), could you add a simple legend to explain the extraction steps? Also, it’d be great to briefly mention what the key compounds are in the extract.

2. How about changing the title at Line 257 to “3. Results and Discussion” and merging the Results and Discussion sections? It might help the flow.

3.Figures 2(A) to (D) look fuzzy too—would it be possible to upgrade the resolution for these and all the other images in the paper?

4.The Conclusion could be tightened up a bit. Try to sum up the main findings and wrap things up by highlighting why this work matters and where it could be useful in the future.

5.You’ve done a nice job testing contact angle, FTIR, and mechanical strength on the treated samples, but it feels like something’s missing—maybe a direct look at how well they actually perform? For example, does the plant extract make the material antibacterial, or improve other key properties? Adding that could really strengthen the paper.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of the manuscript and for the valuable and constructive comments. All remarks have been carefully analyzed and taken into account. In response to the Reviewer’s suggestions, appropriate revisions and additions have been introduced, which, in our opinion, have contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Detailed responses to each comment are provided below.

 K.Gzyra-Jagieła 

Comment 1: Maybe use a clearer version for Figure 1—the current one’s a bit blurry. For Figure 1(B), could you add a simple legend to explain the extraction steps? Also, it’d be great to briefly mention what the key compounds are in the extract.

Response 1:e have replaced Figure 1 with a higher-resolution, clearer version to improve readability. Figure 1B presents the four steps involved in preparing the extracts. The components of the extract have already been included in the figure, and we believe that adding an additional legend would diminish its clarity. A detailed description of the extract preparation process can be found in the caption beneath the figure. 

Comment 2: How about changing the title at Line 257 to “3. Results and Discussion” and merging the Results and Discussion sections? It might help the flow.

Response 2: According to the author guidelines, the Research Manuscript Sections include separate sections for Results and Discussion. Section "results" provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation. The "Discussion" section provide a concise synthesis of the major findings, interpret the results and explicitly restate the study’s scientific and technological contributions. We propose to keep the manuscript in its current version.

Comment 3: .Figures 2(A) to (D) look fuzzy too—would it be possible to upgrade the resolution for these and all the other images in the paper?

Rsponse 3: We have upgraded the resolution of all images. 

Comment 4: The Conclusion could be tightened up a bit. Try to sum up the main findings and wrap things up by highlighting why this work matters and where it could be useful in the future

Response 4: “Conclusions” section has been reviewed. 

Comment 5: .You’ve done a nice job testing contact angle, FTIR, and mechanical strength on the treated samples, but it feels like something’s missing—maybe a direct look at how well they actually perform? For example, does the plant extract make the material antibacterial, or improve other key properties? Adding that could really strengthen the paper.

Response 5: All investigations performed within the scope of this study have been fully reported in the manuscript. The evaluation of antibacterial properties constitutes a promising research direction and will be addressed in future work. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in its current form

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of the manuscript and for the valuable and constructive comments. All remarks have been carefully analyzed and taken into account. In response to the Reviewer’s suggestions, appropriate revisions and additions have been introduced, which, in our opinion, have contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

K.Gzyra-Jagieła