Detection of Biofilm Formation on Material Surfaces by Ag⁺ Coating

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Detection of biofilm formation on material surfaces by Ag^{+ 2} coating" is well studied and has sufficient innovation. The study is interesting and provide useful information to the decision makers to industrial and medical settings for daily life. The manuscript cannot be accepted in current form. It is also suggestive to add the latest article in references. I think the following comments need to be addressed:

Specific Comments.

Abstract: It needs to be started with a small introduction and then a quantitative description of the paper and main emphasis on results. The last paragraph must be an outline of the complete study showing the needs and targets assumed in the paper.

Introduction: The authors should describe the importance of their research more clearly. The references cited lack articles from recent years. So, add more references (2014-2022) to support the author's points of view.

 Specific comments

1.       Line 19-21- Re-write the sentence.

2.       Line 35--- The use of subscript and superscript needs to be reviewed throughout the manuscript. --- replace AgNO3 by AgNO₃. Kindly check all and replace.

3.       Line 116— Kindly elaborate the caption for Figure 2. It is preferable to represent it schematically.

4.       How do you perform the Biofilm formation experiment analysis with respect to reference methodology?

5.       Some figure(s) are blur (Fig. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9). The X and Y axis could be enhanced for better vision. In addition, authors should either use a higher resolution figure(s) or redo them as vector graphics.

6.       The use of abbreviation after first appearance or full form should be given for any abbreviation in first appearance, for example, WAKO.

7.       Line 119--There should be spaces between numbers and units. Please check all or use same pattern throughout the manuscript.

8.       Some text must be added to discuss the future work or research opportunities. The future scope of this study can be added.

9.       The paper should be updated to include more recent references, preferably from the last 5 years.

10.      Line 265-267 What is this? “Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)”

11.      The authors should add a table that compares the key characteristics of prior work to highlight their differences and limitations. The authors may also consider adding a line in the table to describe the proposed solution.

 

12.      Result and discussion: This section is rather weak or not structured correctly. So, it needs further polishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your very valuable comments as a reviewer.
The details are in the word file.
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and presents an alternative method of testing the presence of biofilms on various substrates. In my opinion, the authors clearly explain the problems described in the paper. However, there are a few points that should be clearify.

Remarks

The research in the publication is based on the reduction of silver ions to silver by organic compounds containing functional groups with reducing properties. The reaction is similar to the silver mirror reaction. It is obvious that the reaction will depend on the type of reagents and their concentration in the biofilm. The authors (line 231) also wrote that "the Ag deposition behavior may be affected by the contents of the reducing materials in the biofilm." Therefore, it seems necessary to present the composition of the biofilm that was tested in the study or to provide additional information about the biofilm in the Materials and Methods section.

The experiments in the article are properly planned, conducted and described. However, there is no information whether the measurements were repeated? If so, how many times? If not why not? Why are there no measurement errors given in Figure 6?

Line 132

What does the information "pure water to aqueous ammonia weight ratio is 0: 100 to 0:95" mean? Is it 0 g of water and 100 g of ammonia? If so, both ratios are pure ammonia. In line 135, the Authors give a completely different ratio of distilled water and ammonia - 97: 3.

 

 

Line 182

"Ag deposition on bare glass (without biofilm) was confirmed following long immersion times." Please enter your immersion time.

Line 193

Please explain how the presence of NO3- can cause Ag precipitation? Could you please give appropriate reactions?

Line 198

Mistake in the numbering - no Figure 8

Line 227

Please mark on the Figere 10 which sample is polyethylene, glass and steel. Now you have to guess.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your very valuable comments as a reviewer.
The details are in the word file.
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Kogo et al Detection of biofilm formation on material surfaces by Ag+ 2 coating presented a good paper on detection of biofilms on materials using this coating which I feel is very promising and appealing towards scientific world. I would recommend this paper accepted for publication after some minor amendements. Which are listed as follow

1. Author  should precise the abstract 

2. There are many tropical and grammar mistakes with this its also very simple so author should remove all grammar mistakes as well as author should use extensive english

3. In introduction part author should do some litrature review which published recently. so cite lates reference regarding this study 

4. Why Author choose Ag?

5. What is novelity of this study?

6. Author should explain comparitive study which have been published on such research interest 

7. Author should explain future prospective of this study in conclusion 

8.  Why Soda lime glass plates used as substrate?

Author Response

Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your very valuable comments as a reviewer.
The details are in the word file.
Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to start my review by making it clear that I recognize the authors' efforts to improve the manuscript. Now, I am satisfied with the author's response to my concerns/issues raised in my initial review. I recommend that the revised paper be accepted in its current form.