ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians provides a fair ground for all

Understanding the growth kinetics of polydopamine nanoparticles as a function of the temperature and the type of alcohol used as solvent media in their polymerization

Authors: C. Alonso,C. Nieto,J.C. Vargas,M.A. Vega,E.M. Martín del Valle
Journal: Chemical Engineering Journal Advances
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Publish date: 2024-11
ISSN: 2666-8211 DOI: 10.1016/j.ceja.2024.100638
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

The study effectively addresses the scalability of PDA NP production, but a few aspects caught my attention:

The proposed mathematical model shows excellent correlation with experimental data. However, the results at 15°C deviate from predictions. Could the authors clarify if the maturity of PDA NPs at this temperature impacts the model’s accuracy, or are there other contributing factors such as solubility variations not captured in the model?
The study highlights differences in Fe³⁺ adsorption capacity based on the type of alcohol used during synthesis. Were any structural analyses, such as porosity or surface functional group density, conducted to confirm how these differences arise?
Given the biomedical focus, the study confirms that PDA NPs synthesized at higher temperatures retain antitumor activity. Could the authors elaborate on whether smaller NPs (e.g., <100 nm) demonstrated superior internalization or biodistribution properties compared to larger counterparts?

All Replies

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

1 year, 8 months ago

The reported antitumor activity and Fe³⁺ adsorption capacities lack sufficient discussion on the underlying mechanisms. For instance, were specific molecular interactions between Fe³⁺ and PDA functional groups characterized to explain the adsorption trends? Moreover, the observed selective cytotoxicity of smaller NPs toward tumor cells could be further elaborated, particularly in relation to their uptake efficiency and intracellular localization.

11 hours, 3 minutes ago

1. Eq. (4): ΔT=TR−273.15 is described as the difference from 25 °C “i.e., 273.15 K,” but 25 °C = 298.15 K. Also, Eq. (1) as printed uses [NH4​OH]2 and exp⁡(−kT∗), although x, n, and reaction time t are defined in the text. Please provide the correct equation and parameter definitions.
2. Fe³⁺ loading: Methods 2.6 states a 30 mg/L FeCl₃ solution, while Results 3.4 states 30 mg/mL—a 1000-fold discrepancy. Which concentration was used, and were the q values calculated with the correct Fe³⁺ mass?
3. MTT conditions: Section 3.5 says NPs were synthesized at 15 and 50 °C and tested at 0.029, 0.045, and 0.042 mg/mL, but Fig. 7 and Methods 2.7 use 25 and 50 °C and 0.029, 0.035, and 0.042 mg/mL. Please reconcile the text, figure legend, and methods.
4. Fe³⁺ adsorption ranking: Section 3.4 states that 2-PrOH NPs had the highest Fe³⁺ adsorption capacity, but later states that PDA(Mix) NPs had the greatest capacity (q=101 mg/g at 25 °C and 80 mg/g at 50 °C). Please correct this contradiction and report the actual q values/statistics.
5. Model validation: Data at 25 °C with varied NH₄OH concentration and 24 h polymerization were “included in the fitting procedure” to validate the model; this is not independent validation. Please clearly separate training and validation datasets and report model error at 15 °C separately.

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.