All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for addressing all the revisions and corrections requested. Now your manuscript is accepted in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Glynn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The point about the critical micelle concentration (CMC) is important. At a minimum, this should be mentioned in the discussion. Please explain in more detail in the discussion even if the authors have not addressed this experimentally the CMC.
Unfortunately, one major concern of one of the reviewers is still unanswered, and it is critical for the discussion of micelles.
"In section lines 465-468, please indicates the following: The CMC (concentration micellar critical) for the Kolliphor p188. Is this CMC rebased under the preparation conditions? If micelles are formed, why is the irregular morphology obtained? Please explain how the polymer and TFL could be distributed in the prepared systems.
Answer: Authors raised a good query, Unfortunately, we did not perform the CMC experiment. "
According to their answer, authors can not talk about micelles and justify their discussion about micelles formation, assuring the micelles' presence, if they do not know the CMC of their preparations and that CMC is exceeded during experiments.
Therefore, the presence of micelles can not be mentioned in the discussion about it.
Please address this thoroughly in your response letter.
.
.
.
.
Meets expectations
Meets expectations
Meets expectations
The authors have answered all the queries satisfactorily.
I recommend the manuscript to be accepted in this journal.
Please provide a comprehensively revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter.
Reviewer 3 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
The manuscript "Application of hydrophilic polymers for the preparation of Tadalafil solid dispersions:
Micromeritics properties, release and erectile dysfunction studies in male rats (#68972)" is very well written with strong scientific pieces of evidence. I recommend acceptance for publication as is.
In all the manuscript, english grammar and sentences must be reviewed. For example:
Page 7, line 59. Please correct “Entity (NCE) entities...”
Page 7. Please correct sentences from line 64 to line 68.
Page 7. Indeed, choice PDE5 or PDE5I
In line 75, please write empirical formula correctly, with the numbers adequately.
In line 93, please indicate the tadalafil aqueous solubility.
In section 2.1. Please indicate the weight (in mg) of drug and polymer for each preparation. Insert a sample table with the preparation conditions, if necessary.
In section 2.3 Why the solution needs to be filtered? Are you sure that all the weighed drug is solubilized? Contrary, it could be generated a concentration error!
In section 2.6 Please indicate correctly the heating flow. And, it was only one scan?
In 2.10.1. The 5mg/Kg of TFL, it was also oral administered? Please specify.
In lines 115-117. Please justify the advantages of using their preparation method compared with the enlisted.
According to the described in lines 118 to 135, please justify very well the novelty of this study.
In all results and discussion sections, please indicate specifically the results related with each study. In section 3.1, please indicate the figure or table number.
The described in lines 385-387: It is not desirable the sticky SDS in the wall of equipment-glassware. In order to solve that, the glass surface must to be modified or another surfactant agent must to be added. This problem affects the stability and polydispersity of systems.
Please indicate the possible administration route of the prepared systems and justify why the 2-5 micrometer of particle size, irregularities and polydispersity could not affect.
For Figure 2, from section 3.3 must be improved. Please indicate the characteristics bands in all the FTIR spectra. Indeed, add the FTIR spectra off all polymers without TFDL.
In figure 3, endo and exo legends are too small.
In section lines 465-468, please indicates the following: The CMC (concentration micellar critical) for the Kolliphor p188. Is this CMC rebased under the preparation conditions? If micelles are formed, why the irregular morphology obtained? Please explain how the polymer and TFL could be distributed in the prepared systems.
All the related comments are in the additional comments box
All the related comments are in the additional comments box
All the related comments are in the additional comments box
1. Authors have not mentioned the ratio of all the polymers in the abstract (Koliphore 188, Kollidon® VA64, and Kollidon® 30 polymers in a 1:1 ratio). There are three polymers but the ratio is mentioned for only two polymers (unknown).
2. Authors needed to perform HPLC for the estimation of Tadalafil from the formulation. The results from the UV spectrometer are not authentic most of the times because of interactions.
3. How was the EE calculated? Was it a direct or indirect method? Please mention.
4. USFDA has approved Tadalafil for oral use only, how could authors compare drug efficacy when given parenterally?
5. Authors have not done optimization for the formulation to find the appropriate ration of drug and polymers.
6. Authors need to add more relevant references e.g. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.07.022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2018.02.091, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2015.03.003, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10717544.2015.1105323; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.11.081; DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2020.31.005129
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.