Medicinal Plant Enriched Metal Nanoparticles and Nanoemulsion for Inflammation Treatment: A Narrative Review on Current Status and Future Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I checked the " Medicinal Plant Enriched Metal Nanoparticles and Nanoemulsion for Inflammation Treatment: A Narrative Review on Current Status and Future Perspective " file. It should say some comments that might be helpful to improve the article:

1-     Please be careful about the grammatical and typographical mistakes in the article; even now, there are multiple grammatical mistakes, and the structure of sentences must genuinely improve.

2-     There are multiple medicinal Plant enriched metal nanoparticles and nanoemulsions; please describe why you chose some of the existing studies.

3-     Please clarify the subheadings by altering the fonts

4-     Please format the manuscript based on the guidelines of the journal

5-     Please enlighten more about the limitation and future perspectives of your study.

 

6-     If there are any limitations or restrictions in your study, you should mention them in the conclusion and write much more about your clinical studies in the future perspective.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for your time and effort. Your comments have significantly helped us to increase the quality of the manuscript. Please find the attached response letter that includes a detailed response to the reviewer's comments. 

Sincerely yours

Authors' of the Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current article is focused on the anti-inflammatory properties of medicinal plant-based metal nanoparticles and nanoemulsions. The possible mechanisms are also discussed.

I have the following critical remarks for the authors:

 

1. A brief description of the manufacturing process should be included (eg. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10020292). A general structure of such nanoparticle should be added to Figure 1 (eg. the graphical abstract of the following article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120311).

2. Authors use the term “nanomedicine”, however, I recommend the use of the specific terms - “nanoparticles” or “nanoemulsions”. Nanomedicine is a more general term and could lead to misunderstanding in some parts of the manuscript (eg. line 48).

3. On page 7 (line 233) the authors state ”CuNPs attained maximum level albumin inhibition compared to 223 standard drug aspirin”. How is albumin inhibition related to the anti-inflammatory activity of a substance? 

4. Table 2 includes the anti-inflammatory activity of copper and zinc nanoparticles. However, for some of the nanoparticles, pro-inflammatory properties are included. For example inhibition of IL-10 (anti-inflammatory cytokine) and upregulation of IL-β (a pro-inflammatory cytokine). The same goes for induction of histamine, serotonin, and PGs, which are involved in the inflammatory reaction and also are used as substances to induce inflammation in some animal models. Other contradictions include protein denaturation. For Zn nanoparticles the following is written ”Inhibition of protein denaturation and stabilize the membrane potential” and for Copper nanoparticles “Denaturation of protein and stabilize the membrane 

”.

5. Table 3 should be corrected also. It should contain also information which is disperse phase and which is the disperse medium (which part is the oil phase and which is the water phase) and not only the plant source. The type of the emulsion also should be stated (if all NEs are O/W type, this could be mentioned in the title of the Table.

6. Generally, the whole manuscript should be checked again for misleading parts, related to the English language. For example, in line 47 the heading is “Nanomedicine Inflammatory Mechanism” and the authors describe the anti-inflammatory properties of the metal-based nanoparticles. Other unclear parts of the manuscript include lines 84-85 and lines 102-104. In lines 102-104 should be clarified what does “reducing” means: reducing as oxidation/reduction, or reduced absorption, or a smaller amount needed to produce an effect?

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for your time and effort. Your comments have significantly helped us to increase the quality of the manuscript. Please find the attached response letter that includes a detailed response to the reviewer's comments. 

Sincerely yours

Authors' of the Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, use “Track changes” or mark the changes you have made in a different color, so the corrections would be visible to the reviewers. You marked the newly added information in a different color, however, some of the changes were not marked.