Hydrophilic Antimicrobial Coatings for Medical Leathers from Silica-Dendritic Polymer-Silver Nanoparticle Composite Xerogels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have prepared dendritic polymer-silica xerogels containing Ag-Nps as antibacterial leather coatings by two biomimetic reactions. The xerogels have been characterized by IR, EDS, and SEM to confirm their structural and optical properties. Antibacterial activities of PEI Ag Nps have been evaluated with Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. Overall, this work can inspire more material design ideas of polymer-silver Nps for antibacterial application. Therefore, I would like to recommend this work to publish in Textiles. Below are some comments for the authors.
1. For FTIR spectra of Figure 3d, the characteristic peaks of samples should be labeled to make for easier reading.
2. The distribution of Ag Nps is not easy to identify in the xerogels. The authors should provide energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) mapping of Ag Nps as shown in Figure 4d.
3. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectra should provide elemental percentages of samples as shown in Figure 5a, 5b, and 5c.
4. Usually, for a research paper, perspectives are not necessary. One sentence for the potential application of PEI Ag Nps is suitable.
5. For the introduction “Ag-Nps are well-known antibacterial agents...”, more references could be cited to broaden the introduction.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S328767
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article "Hydrophilic Antimicrobial Coatings for Medical Leathers from Silica-Dendritic Polymer-Silver Nanoparticle Composite Xerogels" describes the antibacterial activity of a leather coating based on silver nanoparticles trapped in a dendritic polymer. It is a valuable study that can be published after authors address the following problems:
The English language needs some minor polishing for style and typos. Correct the exponent (8) at row 421. Capital “C” at the sentence start at row 468. Solution with “s” at row 512.
Escherichia coli and all bacterial names must be written with italics (see rows 214 and 417).
Use uniform notation for measurement units (now for litre are used both l and L like at section 2.4.2 rows 160 and 163, or sections 2.5.-2.6. vs sections 2.7-2.8, but also elsewhere across the manuscript). Personally, I would recommend the use of L (as in figure 8). Also for uniformity change silver Np to Ag Nps at row 492.
Abbreviations must be explained at first use (WCA row 497).
In introduction a stronger recent literature survey is necessary, especially on previous literature reports on the silver antimicrobial activity. The author need to update the introduction by citing following doi: 10.3390/ijms23115982; doi: 10.3390/nano11092377
Figure 5d would have presented proper spectra if all measurements were recorded vs. water.
Regarding Figure 6 and Table 2 – as they are presenting same information is not recommendable to use both.
How is this system a better one? Conclusion section must be reworked to underline the novelty and advantages of this research, with actual numbers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Very interesting work. An antibacterial leather coating was synthesized and its antibacterial ability against bacteria and viruses was tested. I think this work can be accepted for publication after a minor revision.
1. Authors need to unify abbreviations, such as AG-NPS and Ag Nps.
2. I don't think Figure 2 needs to be included in the article. The content it presents only needs to be expressed in words.
3. The author needs to check the language. Some formatting errors have appeared in the article.
4. The analysis of IR SPCTRA needs corresponding literature support.
5. I could not see the existence of Ag Nps from SEM.
6. The scientific names of the bacteria in Figure 6 require italics.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all issues raised by the reviewers. Therefore, I would like to recommend this manuscript to publish in Textiles as its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded to my comments and have addressed all my concerns, substantially improving the manuscript, therefore, I suggest publishing the paper in the current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version can be accepted.