Active Carbon-Based Nanomaterials in Food Packaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see attached comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors optimized the size of individual grains and conglomerates of pure detonated nanodiamond (DND), modified nanodiamond particles, and graphene oxide (GO) in order to compare their bacteriostatic activity against food pathogens. Further, fluorescent microscopy and ATP determination methods were used to assess the antibacterial activity of bioactive polymers obtained by modification of food wrapping foil using various carbon-based nanomaterials. This report provided some valuable information and the content is very significant in this field. However, I recommended a minor revision of the article from its present form before it can be published in coatings. Some specific comments are as follows:

1. The abstract and conclusion sections should be a specific and scientific approach.
2. The authors should explain the novelty of the present report?
3. There are still a lot of connectivity problems in the introduction. The authors should revise the introduction part and rewrite them in a better way.
4. The authors should provide a schematic representation of the formation mechanism.
5. What is the pH of the reaction solution? The pH of the solution normally varies from precursor to precursor. The authors must justify the selection of pH, temperature, and time.
6. The authors should check the abbreviations in the text, and tags and scales in the graphs.
7. In the current state, there are more typographical errors and the language should be improved. Therefore, the authors are advised to recheck the whole manuscript for improving the language and structure carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript has provided many data, but some of them raise more questions than they answer, and more control experiments are needed to support their conclusions. So I suggest the authors to reorganize their data and do a major revision. Some of the problems are listed as follows.

1. The introduction section has taken more than four pages and two figures, which may be ok for a literature review but not good for a research article. Please shorten this section to less than two page and one figure, and add more reference to nondiamond regarding its effects on living cells.
2. The images in Figure 4 can not prove the structures of those carbon allotropes. The authors should determine the structures of those particles by their electron diffraction patterns.
3. Why did the authors say “Positive potentials, maximum value 46.3 mV for diamond powders modified by hydroxyl groups (MDCHPOH), may form friendly environment for Gram-negative bacteria, similarly negative potentials, minimum value of -34.95 mV for amorphous carbon powders obtained by Radio Frequency Plasma Activated Chemical Vapor Deposition Method may create friendly environment for Gram positive bacteria”? Any reference or just guessing?
4. I don’t know why the authors arrange the images in Figure 12, 13, 14, and 15 in that way, but those figures are very confusing, need to compare them in a more logic way. How did the authors calculate the cell viability? How many petri dishes did the authors test? I didn’t see error bars in Figure 16.
5. There are some format and language problems, such as page 8, line 300, “concentration of 106 CFU / ml”. More careful proof reading is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Frankly speaking, I don't think the authors directly respond to my question regarding Figure 4, and I am not convinced that the crystalline form can be simply determined by those images shown in Figure 4. I hope the authors can take it seriously and measure the electron diffraction patterns or use other technique to show the real structural information.

For the series of images shown from Figure 12 to Figure 15, the authors said they have 240 original images, then I suggest them to do some texture analysis and provide some quantitative data/plots. At least they can calculate the surface coverage value in all of those images and sort the numbers in some plots.

Overall, additional revision must be done before it can be published.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

This revised version is much better, with more quantitative analysis and better organization. It can be published after careful proof reading.