Nano-Encapsulated Ebastine Niosomal Transdermal Nanogel: QBD Model for Allergy Treatment and Evaluationâ€
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The Figures are not well drawn and the images have very poor magnification.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
mentioned in comment
Author Response
Respected Editor and Reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate your feedback and recommendations, which allowed us to revise the work. We want to address every problem identified in the revised manuscript (MS). We address all of the reviewers' queries in this paper. Comments are shown in Microsoft Word track changes made in the corrected manuscript which indicate all the queries were answered.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, Congratulations on the study developed. Below are my suggestions.
1. The study is about the encapsulation of a molecule for allergy treatment, however, no study was performed analyzing the potential inhibition of the allergic process by ebastine. Unlike the objective of the study, an antibacterial activity test was performed. It would be interesting to change the objective to include ebastine in a possible reallocation of the antiallergic class to antimicrobials. Or focus only on the development of the formulation as a model, however, it would be important to prove that this model works.
2. The introduction needs to provide more information about allergic processes and how a transdermal model would be essential. Are there other studies that address the transdermal route for this application?
3. Why are the authors encapsulating this molecule? Does it have any limitations? Couldn't it be transported in a hydrogel? It needs to be included in the introduction.
4. There is no methodology for FTIR characterizations, particle size characterizations, surface charge, pH, gel properties, antibacterial activity, and ex vivo permeation studies. Include all of these methodologies.
5. Organize the methodology logically: The box, niosome characterization, gel production, niosome incorporation, niosomal gel characterization, gel stability, permeation, and antibacterial activity.
6. The results of the Behnken Box design should be discussed.
7. I suggest removing Figure 6.
8. I suggest making a table with particle size, polydispersity index, encapsulation efficiency, pH to compile the niosome characteristics without the need for Figures 6 and 8.
9. The authors characterize the nanogels and compare the formulations, but do not discuss or report the ideal characteristics of a hydrogel for the desired application. It is necessary to discuss these results.
10. Why does niosome gel enhance antibacterial action? And what is the mechanism of action of EBT? Are there any reports of its antibacterial potential?
11. In the conclusion, it cannot be stated that it has potential for the treatment of urticaria and allergies if it has not been tested for this purpose. Review the conclusion.
12. Insert references from 2023 and 2024.
Author Response
Respected Editor and Reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate your feedback and recommendations, which allowed us to revise the work. We want to address every problem identified in the revised manuscript (MS). We address all of the reviewers' queries in this paper. Comments are shown in Microsoft Word track changes made in the corrected manuscript which indicate all the queries were answered.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction does not provide the necessary elements to justify the research's development. In addition, the article's objective is not clear.
The material and methods section does not describe the methodologies used to obtain the results presented. It is necessary to describe how the TEM, IR, stability studies, mathematical adjustment of the release kinetics, etc. were performed.
The formulations in Table 1 are not presented in the results, so what is the reason for presenting this table?
In the development of the Box Behnken design (BBD) experiment, what software was used?
In the results section, the words "nano gel" and "gel" are mentioned interchangeably. Authors must clearly establish whether the material is a nano gel or a gel. If it is a nano gel, the procedure for this should be described in the methods section.
The IR spectrum is not decisive in concluding whether there is incompatibility. Why is it assured that there is no incompatibility?
The statistical design lacks support. The results and the most detailed analysis indicate that only one factor is statistically significant, so a BB model does not adequately justify it. Input factors were not appropriately chosen.
The lack of fit test is designed to determine whether the selected model is suitable for describing the data. Since the P-value for the lack of fit in the ANOVA table is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant lack of fit with a 95.0% confidence level. This means that the model thus fitted does not adequately represent the data. Therefore, the graphs presented have no justification.
How was the EE performed?
How was the microscopy performed?
In the DLS, how do you justify a PDI value of> 0.4? PDI values greater than 0.4 are considered highly polydisperse.
Kinetic studies are not shown. How does it justify its fit with the Korsmeyer-Peppas model?
Author Response
Respected Editor and Reviewers,
We sincerely appreciate your feedback and recommendations, which allowed us to revise the work. We want to address every problem identified in the revised manuscript (MS). We address all of the reviewers' queries in this paper. Comments are shown in Microsoft Word track changes made in the corrected manuscript which indicate all the queries were answered.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsConsider for the publication, please
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageImproved
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors.
The authors responded and made the suggested changes. I congratulate the authors on their work.
Regards
