Sensitive Fingerprint Detection Using Biocompatible Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle Coating on Non-Porous Surfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper has some novelty and can be considered in Coatings after addressing following issues:

-I think the abstract I too lengthy and can be summarized

-please add biosensor to the keywords

-there are many interesting papers about the application of nanosensors in different fields, it is suggested to discuss the following refs and compare them with yours: https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.465640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.132922, https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13111834

- almost all Figures have a low resolution.

-how samples were prepared for TEM? There are no methods in the paper!

-the conclusion should be more specific and present the real conclusion of this paper

-please check with the abbreviation and explain them first

 

 

Author Response

Response to the comment of the Editor

Comment: Improvement in writing is required.

Author Response:  According to the comment of the honourable editor, whole manuscript has been rechecked and has been edited and corrected for scientific language and grammatical errors using the services of professional scientific editing service (SCI Editing Global / scieditglobal.com).

Editing/proof-reading certificate provided by the company has also been submitted.

 

Response to Reviewer # 1

General Remark: I think the paper has some novelty and can be considered in Coatings after addressing following issues:

Comment 1:- I think the abstract is too lengthy and can be summarized

Response- As per reviewer suggestion, the abstract has been made more specific and shorter (Kindly see in page 1, line 13-27)

Comment 2:- Please add biosensor to the keywords

Response- As per reviewer’s comment, modification has been made in the revised manuscript and concerned keyword has been incorporated in the Keyword section (Kindly see on page 1, line 28).

Comment 3:- There are many interesting papers about the application of nanosensors in different fields, it is suggested to discuss the following refs and compare them with yours: https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.465640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2022.132922, https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13111834

Response - As per reviewer’s comment, the suggested references have been included in the revised manuscript (Kindle see in reference section, page 13).

Comment 4:-  Almost all Figures have a low resolution.

Response - As per suggestion, figures has been modified with high resolutions. Hope this will be acceptable.

Comment 5:- How samples were prepared for TEM? There are no methods in the paper!

Response - As per suggestion methods for sample preparation of TEM has been included in the revised manuscript (Kindly see on page 4, line 149-158).

Comment 6:- The conclusion should be more specific and present the real conclusion of this paper

Response - As per reviewer suggestion, conclusion section has been made more specific by highlighting the application of these coated silica nanoparticles on different surfaces focusing the main theme of the paper that it would be helpful for detecting the crime fingerprints in food packaging surfaces (Kindly see in conclusion section, page 11).

Comment 7:- Please check with the abbreviation and explain them first

Response - As per the reviewer’s comment, modifications have been made in the revised manuscript thoroughly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is devoted to synthesize of biocompatible silica nanoparticles which can be used to detect a latent fingerprints on a non-porous surface. Much attention is paid to the characterization and study of cytotoxicity of silica nanoparticles. However, I have some comments and questions.

1.      It needs to be clarified if the HeLa (HELA, Hela) cells are normal epithelial cells as you claim.

2.      The paper does not mention Figure 1, nor Table 1 and Table 2.

3.      What are the advantages of the silica nanoparticles obtained by the authors in comparison with other used powders? This is especially true for hard-to-identify fingerprints.

4.  Change the captions on the figure 2 so that they are not blurry or difficult to read. It is difficult to estimate the nanoparticle size.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer # 2

Comment 1:- It needs to be clarified if the HeLa (HELA, Hela) cells are normal epithelial cells as you claim.

Response - Here authors have noticed that they have used lung epithelial cells of human origin (beas-2) and found error in naming the cell line used for the cytotoxicity evaluations. Apologies for this error and confusion. Necessary corrections have been made in the revised manuscript accordingly (Kindly see on page 4, line 165).

Comment 2:- The paper does not mention Figure 1, nor Table 1 and Table 2.

Response- As per reviewer’s comment, figures and tables have been cited now in the revised manuscript properly (Kindly see on page 5, line 196; page 9 line 301 and 314).

Comment 3:- What are the advantages of the silica nanoparticles obtained by the authors in comparison with other used powders? This is especially true for hard-to-identify fingerprints.

Response - The information related to advantages of silica nanoparticles over other powders has been included in the revised version of the manuscript (Kindly see on page 10-11).

Comment 4:- Change the captions on the figure 2 so that they are not blurry or difficult to read. It is difficult to estimate the nanoparticle size.

Response - As per suggestion, figure caption has been modified with high resolutions. Hope this will of consideration to the honourable reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form