Fungi-Templated Silver Nanoparticle Composite: Synthesis, Characterization, and Its Applications
and Suresh Babu Naidu Krishna 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors reported the biotemplating of silver nanoparticles on fungal hyphae to obtain fungal-nanoparticle composite with enhanced antibacterial properties and degradation of methylene blue dye. I find this manuscript of interest, but I have some concerns that make me consider this manuscript for publication after major revision.
o Page 4, section 2.4. “10 mmol of AgNO3 solution was taken in a round bottom flask” Is it a water solution?
o Page 5, section 2.7. “Spread plate method was used to inoculate on MH media.” Please, previously include the definition of any contraction. Does it refers to Muller Hilton?
o Page , section 3. “Fungal mycelium based composite materials pose significant advantages considering their environmental benign nature and the notable functional properties which can be efficiently utilized for several applications.” Ginve that this is the result section, this statement does not correlate any result so far showed in this study. Either include this paragraph t the introduction or include some references justifying that issue.
o There are some typos or grammar erros throughout the manuscript. Please revise it.
o Page 6, section 3.1. Once again, the first paragraph of this section seems to be mre appropriate foor the introduction. Please, reorganise it accordingly.
o Page 8, section 3.2. Again, the first paragraph just repeat was was already indicated in the introduction. Please devote the results section only to show and to analyse the results, oavoiding such repetitions.
o Page 9, first paragraph “…degradation of MB.” Please include previously the meaning of that contraction (methylene blue I suppose).
o Page 9, “The possible mechanism for the photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue by FH-Ag composite occurs via a series of photochemical reactions.”. I would recommend the authors to include the chemical route followed by such photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue, in order to properly understand the proposed photodegradation process.
o Page 9, “The synthesized composite material possesses combined properties of both the fungi and the nanoparticle, thereby exhibiting an enhanced catalytic activity when compared to activity exhibited when they are present individually.” Have the authors conducted the same degradation process in presence of silver nanoparticles, instead of by using those nanocomposites? That would be required to evaluate whether there is a real enhancement in this catalytic process.
o Page 11, section 4. If the authors stated that “The developed strategy offers varying versatility wherein the methodology can be extended to other microorganisms…” and taking into consideration the relatively short analysis presented in this manuscript why did not they carry out the same antibacterial test considering other microorganisms?
o In general, the major concern is that I have the feeling of have read a short communication instead of a research article. This manuscript include consistent results, showed in a coherent way (and very well written, by the way). However, it seems to be a short communication.
Author Response
Fungi templated silver nanoparticle composite: Synthesis, Characterization, and its Applications
Manuscript ID: applsci-2071571
Authors response to Reviewer 1
General Comment: In this manuscript, the authors reported the biotemplating of silver nanoparticles on fungal hyphae to obtain fungal-nanoparticle composite with enhanced antibacterial properties and degradation of methylene blue dye. I find this manuscript of interest, but I have some concerns that make me consider this manuscript for publication after major revision.
Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comment. Congruent to the comments of the reviewer, we believe that the rationale of the work we presented here is justified adequately and the content presented here is in good alignment with the scope of this journal. We have revised and addressed to all specific comments which are now highlighted in revised manuscript and concerns as follows.
Comment 1: Page 4, section 2.4. “10 mmol of AgNO3 solution was taken in a round bottom flask” Is it a water solution?
Response: The solution of 10 mmol of an aqueous AgNO3 is prepared in water. As per the suggestion changes are made in the revised manuscript (Page 4).
Comment 2: Page 5, section 2.7. “Spread plate method was used to inoculate on MH media.” Please, previously include the definition of any contraction. Does it refer to Muller Hilton?
Response: Yes, MH refers to “Muller Hilton”. As per the suggestion changes are made in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: Page, section 3. “Fungal mycelium based composite materials pose significant advantages considering their environmental benign nature and the notable functional properties which can be efficiently utilized for several applications.” Given that this is the result section; this statement does not correlate any result so far showed in this study. Either include this paragraph in the introduction or include some references justifying that issue.
Response: We agree with reviewer suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the paragraph is moved to Introduction and appropriate references are now added in the mentioned section justifying the issue.
Comment 4: There are some typos or grammar errors throughout the manuscript. Please revise it.
Response: As recommended by the reviewer, the manuscript is proofread again for checking typographic and grammatical errors.
Comment 5: Page 6, section 3.1. Once again, the first paragraph of this section seems to be more appropriate for the introduction. Please, reorganise it accordingly.
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, the paragraphs were rearranged in the revised manuscript to Introduction section.
Comment 6: Page 8, section 3.2. Again, the first paragraph just repeat was already indicated in the introduction. Please devote the results section only to show and to analyse the results, avoiding such repetitions.
Response: Yes, as recommended by the reviewer the paragraph was removed from the section 3.2.
Comment 7: Page 9, first paragraph “…degradation of MB.” Please include previously the meaning of that contraction (methylene blue I suppose).
Response: As recommended by the reviewer, the meaning of the contraction is now mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment 8: Page 9, “The possible mechanism for the photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue by FH-Ag composite occurs via a series of photochemical reactions.”. I would recommend the authors to include the chemical route followed by such photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue, in order to properly understand the proposed photodegradation process.
Response: As recommended by the reviewer, the chemical route of the photocatalytic degradation of methylene blue is now included in the revised manuscript (Page 10).
Comment 9: Page 9, “The synthesised composite material possesses combined properties of both the fungi and the nanoparticle, thereby exhibiting an enhanced catalytic activity when compared to activity exhibited when they are present individually.” Have the authors conducted the same degradation process in presence of silver nanoparticles, instead of by using those nanocomposites? That would be required to evaluate whether there is a real enhancement in this catalytic process.
Response: Yes, we appreciate the comment made by reviewer. As suggested by the reviewer, a control experiment was effectuated to study comparatively the degradation efficiency of AgNPs and FH-AgNPs. For AgNPs a percentage degradation of 40.2 % was obtained which was found to be less when compared to FH-AgNPs wherein a percentage degradation of 67.86% was obtained in 60 min. This in turn proves the enhanced catalytic activity of FH-Ag NPs over Ag NPs. The results are now included in the revised manuscript (Page 10).
Comment 10: Page 11, section 4. If the authors stated that “The developed strategy offers varying versatility wherein the methodology can be extended to other microorganisms…” and taking into consideration the relatively short analysis presented in this manuscript why did not they carry out the same antibacterial test considering other microorganisms?
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, the antibacterial studies were carried out for Gram positive (Staphylococcus aureus) and Gram negative (Escherichia coli) bacteria to prove the varying versatility of the methodology developed which can be extended to other microorganisms. The results are now included in the revised manuscript.
Comment 11: In general, the major concern is that I have the feeling of have read a short communication instead of a research article. This manuscript includes consistent results, showed in a coherent way (and very well written, by the way). However, it seems to be a short communication.
Response: The revised manuscript provides a detailed explanation of the synthesis and characterisation of the composite prepared and its applications which include dye degradation and antibacterial activities. We believe that in the present revised form the manuscript can be considered as a complete research article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
title must be revised to clearly identify the manuscript objetives.
it is better not to use abbreviations in the title.
revise Ag NP to AgNPs
more sem images are required.
TEM images and XRD data of AgNPs must be explored.
Author Response
Authors response to reviewer 2
Comment 1: TEM and XRD data?
Response: The XRD data for the AgNPs and the composite is provided in the manuscript. TEM analysis was not carried out because ample information regarding the formation of AgNPs and the composite was derived from XRD data and elemental analysis. Moreover, for the synthesis of AgNPs a previously reported method was adopted.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, a fungi silver nanoparticle composite was synthesized and characterized. The composite could catalyze the degradation of methylene blue and had an antibacterial property against E. coli. The manuscript has well-structure. However, there is lack of table in the paper. Can the authors name the other composites for the degradations of industrial dyes and compare them in a table? Also, compare the antibacterial effect of other nanoparticles in another table.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: Did you compare with other composites for degradation studies of dyes? If yes/no provide the information in response to reviewer 3.
Response: A comparative study for dye degradation was carried out for AgNPs and the composite is found to be more efficient in comparison to AgNPs.
Comment 2: Picture of antimicrobial AgNPs with E coli from which you measured the zone of inhibition.
Response: As recommended by the reviewer, the picture of antimicrobial FH-AgNPs with E coli. The results are presented in Table 3 in revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Joy et. al. have submitted the article 'Fungi templated Ag-NP composite: Synthesis, Characterization and its applications.' Authors have synthesized fungal based silver nanoparticle for antimicrobial study. Authors have found the the FH-AgNPs showed the antimicrobial activity against gram negative bacteria, E. coli.
Authors have nicely designed the synthesis of FH-AgNPs and did the characterization study. Authors should show the picture of zone of inhibition of E.coli. Authors should also provide the data and picture of antimicrobial activity of only Ag-Nps against E. coli.
Author Response
Reviewer comment: Authors should provide data and picture of antimicrobial activity of only against AgNPs against E. coli
Authors: Yes, as per reviewer recommendation we have presented the data in Table 1(revised manuscript-track changes) and find attached the picture of antimicrobial activity
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still have some concerns regarding the whole content of the manuscript, more appropriate for a short communication (apart from the comments the authors reported had implemented, when it is not the case).
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
