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.
Both of the original reviewers are satisfied with the revised manuscript and recommend acceptance.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The article meets the PeerJ criteria regarding basic reporting, study design and validity of findings. The article should be accepted as is.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 1 has requested that you cite specific references. You may add them if you believe they are especially relevant. However, I do not expect you 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 #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The review paper presented intends to demonstrate the prospects and challenges of graphene-based face masks in preventing COVID-19 Pandemic. This is a very timely review and significant study since highly infectious COVID-19 has become a global public health concern. Graphene-enhanced face masks have demonstrated some hopeful results due to the incredible properties of graphene. However, there are health risks associated with the use of this graphene-enhanced face masks. This review paper has systematically reviewed recently published papers in relevant area and presented scientifically. However, it would be good to make few minor amendments:
Comment 1: Line 217: Check if the figure number is accurate.
Comment 2: It would be great to include some other relevant papers such as: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05537, https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202107407, https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.202100176
The topic is interesting and hot; however, the article needs significant modification.
no comments
no comments
1. How does the electrical and thermal conductivity of graphene reduce the virus transmission?
2. Techniques for the Incorporation of graphene into the polymer matrix should be highlighted. for example; electrospinning, 3D printing, coatings............etc
3. The possible environmental impacts associated with the use of graphene-based face masks should be covered.
4. Filtration process should be elaborated. Also, the benefits of using graphene in the face mask should be explained.
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.