Next Article in Journal
The Effect of In Situ Laser-Assisted Plasma Spraying on the Plasma Etching Resistance of Yttrium Oxide Coating
Previous Article in Journal
Resistance to Electrical Corrosion of Au-Cu Alloy Coatings for Electronic Contacts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Shrouding Gas Plasma Deposition Technique for Developing Low-Friction, Wear-Resistant WS2-Zn Thin Films on Unfilled PEEK: The Relationship Between Process and Coating Properties
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Coupling APS/SPS Techniques for Cu-TiO2 Antibacterial Coating Deposition: Application to Water Treatment

Coatings 2024, 14(11), 1426; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14111426
by Laurène Youssef 1,2,*, Audrey Prorot 2,3,*, Laurène Gnodé 1,3,4, Pierre Th’Madiou Verdieu 1,3,5, Armelle Vardelle 1,2, Vincent Rat 1 and Alain Denoirjean 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Coatings 2024, 14(11), 1426; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14111426
Submission received: 29 September 2024 / Revised: 3 November 2024 / Accepted: 5 November 2024 / Published: 9 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Thermal Spray Coatings: Technologies and Applications)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be interested by readers, but there are few limitations.  Especially, antibacterial activity assays for.the materials was not designed very well. The name of bacteria should be corrected. Also, the should provide images of plate count assays. Also, they study only E.coli. why did they choose only gram-negative? 

All in all, there are scientific lacks in the manuscript,  it should be revised  completley.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. Kindly find the answers/modifications in the PDF attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Please add SEM images of Cu and TiO2 powders in relatively high magnification to highlight the geometry of the used powders. You may comment how the geometry and the size distribution affects the coatings microstructure.

2) SEM images of the cross sections of the coatings in the as deposited configuration are required to show the interface between the substrate and the coating, any intermediate layers formed due to reaction etc.

3) Why did you employ APS to deposit the coating rather than a process with a lower thermal input like HVOF?

4) What was the porosity of the different studied coatings?

5) How do the antibacterial properties of the coating compare to other similar coatings?

6) Conclusions are too extensive, try to shorten it.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. Kindly find the answers/modifications in the PDF attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. How about the effect of Gram-positive bacteria the membrane performance? Please add the data. The authors can use Staphylococcus aureus.

2. Please add SEM cross section images of (a) Cu coating, (b) TiO2 coating and (c) Cu-TiO2 241 coating deposited on on stainless steel substrates.

3. Please corroborate about ”wastewater”, where was it taken from (location, city, province), the characteristics of the wastewater (COD, BOD, TSS, DO, TOC, color, microbiological colony forming unit per mL (CFU mL-1), etc

4. Please add the surface roughness value of the coated substrate 

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. Kindly find the answers/modifications in the PDF attachement. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop