Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 2;21(4):e0320280. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320280

Functionalized calcium carbonate microparticles in ethyl cellulose films: A vehicle for sustained amoxicillin release for medical applications

Petru Niga 1,*, Simone Sala 1, Jenny Rissler 1, Lina Nyström 1, Anna Fureby 1,2, Ulla Elofsson 1, Joachim Schoelkopf 3, Roger Roth 3, Patrick Gane 3,4,5
Editor: Mehnath Sivaraj6
PMCID: PMC13046161  PMID: 41926391

Abstract

The continuous quest for materials capable of providing sustained release of antimicrobial drugs is particularly important for indwelling medical applications. In this study, we utilized amoxicillin as a model active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to investigate the feasibility of using porous media – specifically, functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) microparticles – as a primary drug carrier embedded within an ethyl cellulose (EC) polymer film. Our main objective was to prolong and sustain the release of the API. The fabrication process of the microparticle containing film involved two key steps: loading the model API into the FCC particles and then embedding these loaded particles into the polymeric film. Amoxicillin was loaded into the FCC particles using a solvent evaporation method. Detailed characterization through Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), lab- and synchrotron-based XRD revealed that amoxicillin precipitated both inside and on the surface of the FCC particles, predominantly in an amorphous form. Additionally, ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) spectroscopic data demonstrated an increased release rate from the porous FCC compared to direct dissolution of pure amoxicillin powder. Embedding amoxicillin pre-loaded porous FCC particles in the EC film led to a more rational sustained release compared with powder amoxicillin embedded directly in the film, advantageously delivering the same amount of amoxicillin over a longer period; a result that may be relevant for indwelling medical devices such as urinary catheters, vascular access devices or wound drains.

Introduction

Sustained drug release offers several advantages over conventional drug delivery systems. In conventional delivery, the blood plasma concentration of a drug typically increases abruptly after administration, peaking above the maximum desired level, which may lead to adverse effects. Subsequently, the concentration drops below the minimum effective level, rendering the drug ineffective, and increasing the risk of developing bacterial resistance [1]. In contrast, sustained drug delivery requires a specific controlled release rate dependent on the loading level of active ingredient, and the dynamic of release from the porous medium. This approach is particularly beneficial for patients with low compliance [2].

Amoxicillin, a β-lactam penicillin derivative, discovered in 1958 by Doyle, Nayler and Smith [3], that can withstand the acidic environment of the stomach, is widely used to treat various bacterial infections and is one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in primary care settings [4]. However, the extensive use of antibiotics has led to the rise of antimicrobial resistance, which is one of the most pressing challenges in modern medicine [2]. To combat this, researchers are focusing on discovering new antibiotics and developing formulations that limit antimicrobial resistance. Sustained drug release systems are of particular interest because they can maintain drug levels above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), without increasing the total amount of drug released, thereby reducing the likelihood of resistance development.

Sustained release formulations of amoxicillin for oral delivery have been extensively studied. For instance, the mucoadhesive sustained release of amoxicillin from Eudragit RS100 microspheres demonstrated that the release profile depended on both the mucosa and the swelling ability of the polymer, sustained release for approximately 12 h [5]. Additionally, a 24 h sustained release was achieved by loading amoxicillin into composite hydrogels made of poly(acrylamide) and starch, where release kinetics were sensitive to both temperature and pH [6]. Sustained release has also been achieved by coating amoxicillin particles with ethyl cellulose (EC), with additional chitosan or chitosan-cyclodextrin coatings further prolonging the release up to 24 h [7]. Various porous carriers such as organically modified MCM-41 (Mobil Composition of Matter No. 41) silica [8] and magnesium-doped hydroxyapatite (Mg-HA) [9] have been shown to modulate amoxicillin release through diffusion-controlled mechanisms and surface interactions, yet their release duration is limited to hours or a few days. Additionally, inorganic hollow silica particles were also used as drug carriers. This nanospheres system demonstrated a three-stage amoxicillin release in simulated body fluid for about 25 h [10]. However, such systems typically lack long-term release potential, limiting their utility in applications requiring sustained antimicrobial action over weeks or months.

For indwelling applications, such as catheters and implants, sustained release must be controlled over longer periods to maintain therapeutic efficacy. For example, hydroxyapatite nanoparticles loaded with amoxicillin and coated with polyvinyl alcohol or sodium alginate achieved a sustained release over 30 days, which was explored for treating bone infections [11]. Additionally, for root tooth infections, a formulation of amoxicillin-loaded Eudragit S100 microparticles mixed in reparative cement was investigated. These results showed that this formulation effectively delayed the drug release, specifically after 96 hours only 16% of the amoxicillin was released [12].

Currently, significant efforts are directed at developing new indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) designed to prevent bacterial infections, a major healthcare and patient well-being concern. Despite advances in antifouling and antibacterial catheter coatings, translating these concepts into clinical practice remains challenging due to discrepancies in experimental evaluations. For a comprehensive review of materials and their effectiveness, readers are referred to Andersen and Flores-Mireles, 2020 [1316].

Recent advances in nanocomposite-based antimicrobial systems have highlighted the potential of natural halloysite nanotubes (HNTs) as biocompatible carriers for sustained antibiotic release. For instance, HNTs have been successfully used in combination with polymers such as chitosan or polycaprolactone to deliver antibiotics like norfloxacin, erythromycin, and diclofenac with prolonged antibacterial effects against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [1719]. These systems provide inspiration for developing similarly robust and sustained-release antibacterial platforms applicable to infection-prone environments such as urinary catheters.

The terms extended release and sustained release are sometimes used interchangeably, but they carry different meanings. Extended release refers broadly to any system that delays the release of a drug compared to immediate-release forms. Sustained release, by contrast, specifically describes systems designed to maintain a consistent therapeutic level of the drug over an extended duration. Here, we use the term sustained release to reflect the controlled and prolonged delivery of amoxicillin from the ethyl cellulose film matrix.

In this study, we explore the feasibility of using a polymeric matrix containing porous particles loaded with amoxicillin as a model antibiotic to form a platform to exemplify the sustained release of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), for use in catheter applications. This application would strongly benefit from sustained release, which cannot be achieved by simply mixing the active ingredient into the polymer matrix (also confirmed in this study). The porous particles used in this study are functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC). They are composed of calcium carbonate surrounded by an intertwined layer of calcium phosphate platelets, offering enhanced specific surface area and high interconnected porosity [2022].

Although amoxicillin sodium salt is readily water-soluble and does not typically exhibit dissolution issues related to hydrophobicity, the use of porous carriers remains highly relevant for applications requiring sustained therapeutic levels. In many cases, organic drugs tend to self-assemble into hydrophobic agglomerates at the air–liquid interface due to their molecular composition, which can hinder dissolution. By contrast, depositing a monomolecular layer onto a substrate can preclude this interfacial rearrangement, enabling rapid initial dissolution. As demonstrated in previous work on flavorings and nutraceuticals [21], this approach can be effective for otherwise hydrophobic compounds. The primary objective is not to improve dissolution but to retain a depot of amoxicillin in the porous matrix and support a continuous release above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to ensure persistent antibacterial activity over prolonged timeframes.

In the first step of this study, we investigated the loading and release profile of amoxicillin from the FCC particles. The state of the precipitated amoxicillin in the FCC was analyzed using SEM and lab- and synchrotron-based XRD. In the second step, the amoxicillin-loaded FCC particles were uniformly dispersed in ethyl cellulose (EC) and cast into a film. Additionally, the release profile of amoxicillin from this film in water was evaluated using UV-vis spectrometry.

Materials and methods

Materials

Amoxicillin was obtained from Sigma Aldrich with a purity higher than 99.9%. Absolute ethanol (≥99.8%), acetone (≥99.5%), methanol (≥99.8%), toluene (≥99.9%), and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (≥99.0%) were also sourced from Sigma Aldrich. The Milli-Q water (resistivity 18.2 MΩ·cm) was from a Milli-Q purification system (Millipore). Porous functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) particles were supplied by Omya International AG, Switzerland. Three types of functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) materials were used in this study: FCC fines, FCC granules, and the commercial Omyapharm FCC500-OG. These materials share identical chemical composition but differ in particle size, degree of structuration, and bulk density. Their key physicochemical parameters and experimental roles are summarized in Table 1. The granular material has been shown earlier to accelerate advantageously pharmaceutical tablet disintegration in aqueous medium, for example, as illustrated in these references [2325]. The context of exemplifying structuration of FCC in respect to release kinetic of amoxicillin is, therefore, undertaken here to establish if such structuration provides any release mechanistic advantages, stressing once again throughout that the particle structure and chemical nature of the particles remain intrinsically constant. Omyapharm FCC500-OG illustrates the current commercially available product from which the experimental fractions were similarly derived.

Table 1. Comparative overview of FCC materials used in this study.

Material Type Particle Size (µm) SSA* (BET**, m²/g) Bulk Density (g/cm³) Morphology/ Structural Features Experimental Use/ Rationale
FCC fines 0–180 43.4 Loose: 0.23; Tapped: 0.27 Individual microparticles with high surface area and open porosity Used to study the effect of smaller particle size and higher surface area on amoxicillin loading and release kinetics
FCC granules 180–710 40.8 Loose: 0.55; Tapped: 0.59 Aggregates of fines forming larger granules; inter-particle voids introduce additional macroporosity Used to assess how structuration of FCC particles into granules affects loading and release (mass transport in inter-particle pores).
Omyapharm (FCC 500-OG) d₅₀ = 6.6 (median) 53.0 Apparent: 0.13 Commercial FCC material – identical chemistry to fines/granules FCC source for film preparation with EC; selected for commercial reproducibility and representative FCC family structure

*) Specific Surface Area

**) Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (a surface area analysis method)

Particles were dried at 200 °C for 2 h before processing. Ethyl Cellulose N100 (Ethoxyl grade 48–49.5%) was generously provided by IMCD Group. Water was sourced from a MilliPore RiOs-8 system. Reference amorphous amoxicillin used in synchrotron experiments was prepared by solvent evaporation method in a rotary evaporator. Amoxicillin was loaded into porous particles at 15% and 30% w/w (weight percent, calculated as mass of amoxicillin relative to the total mass of the loaded sample). Ethyl cellulose (EC) and functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) are recognized as biocompatible materials commonly used in pharmaceutical and biomedical applications.

Particle loading

To load amoxicillin into the porous FCC particles, the amoxicillin must first be dissolved in a solvent with a low boiling point and associated high vapor pressure. This solution is then mixed with the FCC particles, as present in all structural forms used in the study, namely FCC fines, granules and commercial Omyapharm, and the solvent is allowed to evaporate. During evaporation, amoxicillin precipitates both within the pores and on the surface of the FCC particles. The FCC particle structure is known to be stable when exposed to organic solvents [26].

In this study, a 3 g/L solution of amoxicillin in an ethanol/acetone mixture was prepared. This solvent system was selected due to the low boiling points of both components, which allow efficient solvent removal under mild conditions. This solution was then added to a predefined amount of particles (for 30 w/w% and 15 w/w% loading – 7 g FCC and 8.5 g FCC, respectively, per 1 L solution) and the solvent was evaporated using a rotary evaporator (30 °C and 400−150 mbar). It is recognized that the distribution of amoxicillin in the case of the granulated structure will include loading between particles, and not only on the surface, and within the pores of the individual particles. Given the nature of the granule concept, material between the particles, to a first approximation, is likely to behave similarly to that associated with the exterior of the particles, though it should be recognized that access of liquid to the interior of a granule may be hindered to reduced permeability. Further optimization will be considered in the future.

Film preparation and fabrication

Ethyl cellulose (EC) was selected as the film-forming polymer due to its excellent biocompatibility, film-forming ability, and widespread use in controlled drug release applications [27]. As a non-biodegradable yet biodurable cellulose derivative, EC provides a robust barrier for drug release, as its physicochemical properties, such as solubility and viscosity, can be tailored by adjusting the degree of etherification. These properties make EC a suitable matrix for long-term drug delivery systems.

Film preparation was carried out using organic solvent evaporation to avoid high-temperature curing, which could degrade the thermally sensitive amoxicillin [28]. To minimize the dissolution of the active ingredient into the film matrix, an organic solvent mix (toluene: ethanol) was selected that dissolves ethyl cellulose (EC) efficiently while offering minimal solubility for amoxicillin.

For film production, Omyapharm particles, the starting material for FCC fines and granules, (which retains the structural and chemical properties of FCC particles family) were loaded with 30 w/w% amoxicillin using a solvent evaporation process with a MEK/methanol mixture. For the polymer solution, 5 g of EC-N100 grade polymer was dissolved in 100 mL of an 80:20 w/w% toluene: ethanol mixture, resulting in a clear, viscous solution. Upon adding the amoxicillin-loaded Omyapharm particles, a white dispersion was obtained, as illustrated in Fig 1 A. This suspension did not show any signs of agglomeration or sedimentation for more than 1 h, which was sufficient to produce the films. The films were applied onto a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) substrate using a hand coater (Erichsen – Germany) with a 200 μm indenture. Note that the final dried film thickness was not measured; throughout this paper, we refer to film thickness in relation to the size of the edge indenture (e.g., 200 μm).

Fig 1. A) 30 w/w% amoxicillin-loaded Omyapharm suspended in a solution of EC-N100 dissolved in toluene: ethanol mixture, and B) a film coated on a LDPE substrate.

Fig 1

The maximum particle content (Omyapharm) within the total solid content used in the dispersion formulation was defined as the value at which the resulting film adhered well to the substrate over time without peeling. This maximum was found to be 10 w/w% of total solid content for all film thickness tested. Additionally, it was visually observed that the distribution of Omyapharm particles throughout the film were uniform at this concentration. Fig 1 shows 30 w/w% amoxicillin-loaded Omyapharm particles suspended in a solution of EC-N100 (Fig 1A), and the final film coated on the LDPE substrate (Fig 1B).

Experimental setup for release studies

All release experiments were carried out in Milli-Q water at a starting pH of 6.99 and a temperature of 22 °C. For the release from particles, the weight of the samples was chosen to maintain sink conditions throughout the duration of the experiments. Particles and pure amoxicillin were placed in a beaker, containing 75 mL of Milli-Q water and stirred at 100 min−1 (RPM – revolutions per minute). The dissolution media was circulated via a peristaltic pump into the UV-spectrometer and returned back into the beaker. Absorbance was measured at 272 nm. The concentration was calculated using a linear calibration curve (shown in Supporting Information) which was similar to previous literature records) [6].

For the experiments testing release from the film, 200 μm thick films containing 10 w/w% of particles loaded with amoxicillin were used. The measurements were carried out in 5 mL vials and samples (1 mL) were manually withdrawn at specified time intervals and returned after UV-vis measurement. The film samples were not agitated.

To adjust the surface area exposed to water, a special configuration of the film was employed, such that the film was perforated with a pin and a wire passed through the holes to keep the adjacent film roll apart and allow water to penetrate, as seen in Fig 2. The film surface area exposed to water in this way was calculated to be 5.4 cm2/mL. Therefore, drug-release experiments were performed under non-sink conditions (using a fixed volume of Milli-Q water without medium renewal), in order to mimic the limited fluid exchange surrounding indwelling medical devices such as catheters. A concise summary of key experimental parameters, including sink/non-sink conditions, release medium volume, temperature, agitation, and exposed surface area, is provided in S2 Table (Supporting Information) to facilitate reproducibility.

Fig 2. Configuration of the FCC–ethyl cellulose film sample used for release testing.

Fig 2

The film was perforated with pin-sized holes to facilitate uniform contact with the release medium. A stainless-steel wire was threaded through the perforations to hold the film in a coiled geometry during immersion in the release beaker, ensuring stable positioning and full exposure to the aqueous medium.

Material characterization and techniques

Loading Level and Release Studies.

The loading level and extent of amoxicillin release in water were determined using a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA 2 Stare System, Mettler Toledo, Columbus, OH, USA) with a STARe System software. The system was heated from 25–800 °C at a rate of 20 °C/min. The amount of amoxicillin in the FCC particles was measured by analyzing the material’s weight loss as it was heated. The rationale [29,30] for using TGA is as follows.

TGA measures weight changes in a sample as it is heated, allowing for the detection of components that volatilize at different temperatures. In our context:

  1. Organic Material in Inorganic Matrix: Amoxicillin, an organic compound, decomposes at a lower temperature compared to the inorganic FCC matrix. This difference enables the quantification of amoxicillin content based on weight loss observed during TGA.

  2. Post-Release Analysis: After the release study, the FCC particles were separated by centrifugation, and the collected FCC cake was analyzed using TGA. The weight loss corresponding to the decomposition of amoxicillin provided an estimate of the drug retained in the particles, thereby allowing us to infer the amount released into the aqueous medium.

Imaging and spectroscopic analysis

Imaging was performed using a Quanta™ FEG 250 Scanning Electron Microscopy SEM (FEI Instruments, Hillsboro, OR., USA). The concentration of amoxicillin in water was measured using a Lambda™ 650 UV-vis spectrometer (PerkinElmer, Shelton, CT, USA) by recording absorbance at 272 nm, with concentration determined by interpolation from a calibration curve. It is important to note that FCC does not absorb at 272 nm, the wavelength specific to amoxicillin, and thus does not contribute to the UV-Vis signal in the release studies.

Crystal structure

To investigate the crystal structure of amoxicillin, two X-ray diffraction (XRD) instruments were employed:

  • i

    Lab Bench X-Ray Diffractometer: An X’Pert PRO diffractometer (Malvern Panalytical, Malvern, UK) was used under the following conditions: temperature at 26.5 °C, a 1 mm thick compacted powder sample, Bragg reflection geometry, spinning sample holder, and a zero-background holder with a Si wafer. Use of the Cu anode’s Kα emission line resulted in an incident photon energy of 8.05 keV. The resulting diffractograms were indexed and fits were refined using the standard software HighScore (Malvern Panalytical).

  • ii

    Synchrotron Hard X-Ray Nanoprobe Beamline: Measurements were conducted at the NanoMAX beamline at MAX IV, Sweden [31,32]. The incident photon energy was set to 15 keV and the XRD signal was collected using the Pilatus3 X 1M detector (Dectris, Baden, Switzerland), with 981 × 1043 pixels, each measuring 172 μm. To achieve a higher photon flux (1.1 × 10¹⁰ photons/s), the beamline’s slits were slightly opened, resulting in a partial loss of coherence and a focused X-ray beam of 80 nm × 80 nm. Two-dimensional (2D) XRD measurements were carried out by scanning the sample through the nano-focused X-ray beam with a step size of 80 nm, matching the focal spot size. This generated 2D maps with a lateral resolution of 80 nm and for which a diffraction pattern is available at every pixel. Simultaneous detection of the characteristic X-ray fluorescence (XRF) emission from sulfur was carried out using the beamline’s single-element silicon drift detector (SDD) (RaySpec, High Wycombe, UK). As amoxicillin was the only compound containing sulfur within the investigated samples, sulfur distribution was used as proxy for amoxicillin distribution. For the experiments, single particles were deposited by electrostatic precipitation from air on thin Si3N4 membranes (1 µm thick). We note that the nanoscale XRD measurements provide qualitative structural contrast only, as the limited probed area and low scattering intensity do not permit quantitative refinement of crystalline parameters.

Results and discussion

Drug-load in porous particles

Amoxicillin, the model API, was loaded into the porous particles using the solvent evaporation method. Loading levels were quantified via TGA, as shown in Table 2. The measured loading levels were slightly lower than the calculated values, likely due to amoxicillin precipitating on the walls of the rotary evaporator during solvent evaporation.

Table 2. Calculated and measured amoxicillin loading values in porous particles by TGA.

Method Amoxicillin concentration in
FCC fines/ w/w% FCC granules/ w/w%
Calculated 15 30 15 30
Measured 13 22.5 12 27

As shown in Fig 3, the release profile exhibited a two-stage pattern: an initial rapid release within the first 2–3 min, followed by a slower release over the next 30 min, approaching (but not reaching) a plateau. After 30 min, the 30 w/w% and 15 w/w% amoxicillin-loaded FCC fines reached concentrations of 99 w/w% and 94 w/w% of the total amount, respectively. After 24 h, all of the loaded amoxicillin was released into the solution, as confirmed by TGA (see Supporting Information). The release behavior from FCC granules followed a similar trend (also recorded in the Supporting Information). Even though in both cases the amoxicillin was fully released in water, the release curves of the two samples show different trends. That may be because the amoxicillin on the outer part of the particles is released more easily (which is assumed to be more in the 30 w/w% case) while amoxicillin adsorbed in the inner part, close to the pore wall surface, is released more slowly.

Fig 3. The amoxicillin release curves in water from 15 w/w% (red circles) and 30 w/w% (blue squares) amoxicillin loaded FCC fines.

Fig 3

To assess the benefits of loading amoxicillin into porous media (specifically FCC granules), a comparative experiment was conducted. In this experiment, the release profile of 30w/w% amoxicillin-loaded FCC granules was compared to that of amoxicillin powder (as purchased) under identical conditions. For both forms, the quantity of amoxicillin added to the beaker was calculated to be below the solubility limit (1 mg/mL) if fully released. As illustrated in Fig 4 during the initial rapid release phase (from 3 to 3.6 min), the slope of the fitted release curve was slightly higher for the amoxicillin released from FCC granules (1.22 w/w%/min) compared to the powder form (1.083 w/w%/min). Additionally, while all the amoxicillin loaded in FCC granules was released within the experiment’s duration, only 95 w/w% of the as-purchased powder form dissolved. These findings indicate that amoxicillin loaded in FCC granules not only releases more quickly but also more completely in water compared to the powder form. This suggests an enhanced dissolution rate, which is not typically observed for crystalline amoxicillin.

Fig 4. Amoxicillin release in water from 30w/w% amoxicillin-loaded FCC granules (blue squares) compared to pure amoxicillin powder (black circles).

Fig 4

The red line is the fitting curve from 3 to 3.6 min. Data shown corresponds to one representative experiment.

These release curves, in Fig 3 and Fig 4, represent single representative experiments; although the measurements were repeated, variations in water volume and hydrodynamic conditions prevented calculation of meaningful average data.

XRD experiments

To understand the underlying mechanisms influencing amoxicillin release, the structural characteristics of the loaded amoxicillin were examined using both lab bench and synchrotron-based XRD (2D-mapping).

Lab bench XRD experiments

For the XRD analysis, three samples were investigated: (i) amoxicillin powder, (ii) amoxicillin loaded into FCC fines, and (iii) FCC fines as a reference. The crystal cell parameters of the amoxicillin powder were determined as follows: unit cell volume = 1781.47 ų, with parameters a = 14.76 Å, b = 20.85 Å, c = 5.79 Å, and β = 92.53°. These values – albeit obtained from powder diffraction data – closely align with the orthorhombic single crystals reported in the literature [3335].

The diffraction pattern of amoxicillin powder, shown in Fig 5, exhibits numerous peaks in the q = 7–46 nm-1 range, indicating a highly crystalline phase. The recorded intensities, reaching up to 400k counts, exceed those reported in previous studies due to the extended data collection time employed in this work [7]. In contrast, the diffraction patterns of the FCC fines reference material and amoxicillin-loaded FCC fines display only 15–20 significant peaks in this region, suggesting a lower degree of crystallinity.

Fig 5. Diffraction pattern for amoxicillin loaded in FCC fines (continuous red curve), amoxicillin powder (continuous black curve) and FCC fines reference (dashed black curve).

Fig 5

Curves have been offset by a constant value for easier visualization.

In fact, most of the features above 15 nm-1 are associated with the FCC fines reference material, while the features below 15 nm-1, about 5–6 minor peaks, are associated with the loaded amoxicillin. This indicates that the amoxicillin loaded onto the particles has very limited long range crystalline order [36]. Generally, amorphous materials have no peaks in diffraction patterns. However, it must be remembered that the material mass and electron density of amoxicillin in comparison to FCC is on average considerably less. The intensity of the visible features may, nonetheless, help elucidate whether the loaded amoxicillin is amorphous or manifesting an alternative structure, such a nanocrystals or a liquid crystal mesophase. Both amorphous and nanocrystalline phases contain no long-range order, meaning that there are no coherent multiple regular crystalline planes to diffract X-rays. For amorphous materials the incident X-rays are scattered isotropically and there are no sharp peaks in the diffraction pattern. In other words, long range ordered crystalline parts give sharp narrow diffraction peaks and a truly amorphous component would give a broad background contribution [36], which is usually termed a “halo”. The lack of sharp crystalline peaks or a significant amorphous halo cannot be attributed to an exceedingly weak interaction of X-rays with the samples. Thus, it might be more appropriate to consider the lack of an amorphous background in the spectrum in this case as an indication rather of nanocrystallites (lacking longer range order, with exceptionally high surface area) or a mesophase state exhibiting order in only one (nematic) or maximally two dimensions (smectic). These more complex structures could account for both the lack of diffraction peaks and the absence of amorphous background together with a high rate of solubility related to either the extremely high nanocrystalline or mesophase surface area.

The significant loss of crystallinity is evidenced by the 25-fold reduction in peak intensity when amoxicillin is loaded into the pores and onto the surfaces of FCC fines. Given that the total amount of the amoxicillin exposed in the two experiments was the same (pure amoxicillin and amoxicillin loaded into the FCC fines) and the fact that the signal intensity is proportional to the amount of crystalline material, a 30 w/w% decrease in material should result in only a one-third reduction in signal intensity, not a 25-fold decrease [37,38]. This stark reduction indicates a substantial loss of long-range crystallinity. Similar reductions in crystallinity were observed in other samples, including FCC fines loaded with 15 w/w% and 30 w/w% amoxicillin and FCC granules loaded with 15 w/w% amoxicillin, respectively (data available in the Supporting Information).

Given that the XRD diffractogram of the loaded amoxicillin did not display the characteristic amorphous “halo” but a significant reduction in peak intensity compared to pure amoxicillin, the structural state of the amoxicillin within the porous material could not be conclusively determined. To investigate further whether the loaded amoxicillin in the confined space of the porous FCC material is amorphous, nanocrystalline or mesophase, we conducted experiments with higher sensitivity and spatial resolution using the hard X-ray nanoprobe beamline, NanoMAX, at MAX IV in Lund, Sweden.

Synchrotron-based XRD experiment

For the synchrotron-based XRD experiments, four different samples were analyzed: (i) amoxicillin powder, (ii) amoxicillin loaded into FCC fines (30 w/w%), (iii) unloaded FCC fines, and (iv) reference amoxicillin precipitated by solvent evaporation. As expected, the diffractogram of the pure amoxicillin powder (continuous black line in Fig 6A) exhibits intense peaks, characteristic of its crystalline structure. Conversely, the amoxicillin precipitated by solvent evaporation (dashed red line in Fig 6A displays no discernible peaks, confirming a long-range disordered state. To facilitate comparison, each diffractogram was rescaled by dividing it by its average intensity within the low q range (9–13 nm−1) preceding the region featuring diffraction peaks. This normalization enables a clearer comparison of the structural features between the samples.

Fig 6. Normalized diffractograms of pure amoxicillin as compared to amoxicillin precipitated by solvent evaporation (A) and loaded in FCC fines (B); diffractograms in (B) have been offset by a constant value for easier visualization. High resolution map of the amoxicillin loaded in FCC fines (C): bright pixels indicate the presence of amoxicillin. The diffractograms displayed in (B) are extracted from the points annotated in (C).

Fig 6

The diffractograms from amoxicillin loaded in FCC fines exhibited significantly lower intensity features and only for a few scanning positions (see points 1–4 in Fig 6B-C). This suggests a predominant loss of crystallinity in the amoxicillin loaded into the particles. The bright regions from Fig 6C correspond to S-rich regions and therefore indicate the presence of amoxicillin: an inhomogeneous distribution with clusters of variable size is apparent. Interestingly, most pixels revealing a significant presence of amoxicillin – of which only 8 selected examples are displayed in Fig 6B – correspond to diffractograms without visible diffraction peaks thus indicating that the majority of the amoxicillin present in this sample is in an amorphous state.

Scanning Electron Microscopy

The SEM images presented in Fig 7 provide further support for the findings from the amoxicillin release studies and the X-ray experiments. The pure amoxicillin exhibits elongated, rod-like crystalline formations, which resemble elongated prismatic shapes. In contrast, the amoxicillin precipitated within the pores or on the surface of the FCC fines displays a distinct snowflake-like structure.

Fig 7. SEM images of a) FCC fines, b) 15 w/w% amoxicillin-loaded FCC fines, and c) powder amoxicillin.

Fig 7

The SEM images in Fig 7 illustrate distinct precipitation morphologies: pure amoxicillin shows elongated crystalline rods (Fig 7C), whereas amoxicillin loaded into FCC fines (Fig 7B) forms irregular, sheet-like domains both within and on the surface of the porous matrix. This suggests that confinement within the particle pores restricts long-range crystal growth, consistent with the pseudo-amorphous state observed by XRD. The coexistence of intra-pore amorphous deposits and surface nanocrystals likely governs the biphasic release behavior: rapid dissolution of surface-deposited amoxicillin accounts for the initial burst, while the confined, less soluble amorphous fraction contributes to the sustained release over months. Because amorphous material generally exhibits higher apparent solubility and faster dissolution than crystalline drug, the intrapore amorphous fraction is expected to dissolve readily once water penetrates the FCC pores, whereas the pre-existing surface nanocrystals dissolve more slowly. This structural heterogeneity therefore provides a straightforward explanation for the biphasic release observed.

This morphological difference suggests that the amoxicillin, when loaded into the FCC fines during the solvent evaporation process, precipitates in an amorphous or 2D nanocrystallite-composite sheet state. This altered structural state is likely a key factor contributing to the observed enhanced dissolution rate of the drug. We can speculate that the driving mechanism for nanocrystal formation could be related to a sorption effect of molecules in contact with a surface which could provide a nanoscale molecular orientation effect, a conformation that prevents the lowest energy intermolecular structure, namely preventing crystal formation. Because the FCC particles contain a high fraction of nanoscale pores, the amoxicillin can only adopt a locally stable, size-restricted crystal form; nanoscale confinement therefore limits crystal growth and stabilizes nanocrystals even though the bulk crystalline state would represent the global thermodynamic minimum.

Release of amoxicillin from the EC films in water

From the wide range of polymers suitable for a polymer matrix, we selected ethyl cellulose (EC), a non-biodegradable, biocompatible polymer that is one of the most studied encapsulating materials for controlled drug release [13,3942]. Although cellulose and its derivatives are environmentally friendly and actively degradable by various bacteria and fungi, Marston et al. demonstrated that cellulose is a biodurable material when implanted in animal and human tissues, as resorption does not occur due to the absence of cellulase synthesis in cells [4345]. Please note that for these experiments we used the Omyapharm particles – which are the starting material for the FCC fines and granules.

Depending on the intended application, the amoxicillin release can be adjusted in various ways: by tuning the amoxicillin loading level in the porous particles, changing the amount of particles in the EC solution formulation, as well as by inclusion of additives. In this proof of concept experiments we show the release of amoxicillin at a specific surface to water exposure. The release studies from the Omyapharm–EC films were performed under non-sink conditions, intentionally chosen to better represent diffusion-limited environments relevant to indwelling medical devices, such as catheter surfaces. In such applications, fluid exchange is restricted and local concentration gradients develop over time, making the non-sink setup a more realistic analogue of the in-use situation.

In this case a rolled EC film was immersed in water where the surface to water exposure was set to 5.4 cm2/mL, as described in the Materials section. To evaluate the advantage of loading amoxicillin in porous particles and the influence of an additional loading step, the EC film was compared to a reference EC film containing a physical mixture of amoxicillin and Omyapharm particles where the amoxicillin and Omyapharm were added separately into the polymer solution, as seen in Fig 8. As mentioned in Materials section Omyapharm particles are known to have the same structural and chemical properties as FCC fines and granules. Note that the ratio of all components was kept identical.

Fig 8. Amoxicillin release over time from the following films: Omyapharm particles loaded with amoxicillin (blue), Omyapharm particles and amoxicillin mixture (green) – as a reference.

Fig 8

Data shown represents a single representative experiment for each film.

In the release experiments, the amoxicillin concentrations were measured after 2 h, 1 day and 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks 4 weeks and then monthly up to 5 months. As shown in Fig 9, both release profiles show burst behavior over the first approximately 15 days reaching 85% for unloaded amoxicillin (physical mixture) and 39% for loaded amoxicillin, respectively. After approximately 1 month, both profiles show similar behavior with a slight monotonous increase in kinetics. At the end of the experiment (5 months), unloaded amoxicillin was almost completely released (96%) whereas films with loaded amoxicillin had only released 46% of the amoxicillin. Please note that this long-term release studies reported here were performed on single representative samples and statistical replication was not feasible for this multi-month proof of concept experiment. Future work will include replicated experiments to provide statistical validation and kinetic model fitting.

Fig 9. The differential release profile of the films made from amoxicillin loaded in Omyapharm particles (blue) and Omyapharm particles and amoxicillin mixture (green) for A) month 1 and B) month 2-5.

Fig 9

By closely looking at the release rate, it can be noted that in the second phase of the release (month 2–5) amoxicillin loaded into Omyapharm is released at a higher rate than the unloaded part. During the initial burst phase (month 1), the estimated release rate is 13%/month for the loaded amoxicillin and 19%/month for the unloaded amoxicillin, respectively. During the second phase (month 2–5), the estimated release rate is 0.032%/month for the loaded amoxicillin and 0.023%/month for the unloaded amoxicillin, respectively. In other words, the sustained release appears to be a result of a reduced burst rather than a slower diffusion of amoxicillin through the EC film. Loading actives into porous Omyapharm particles prior to the integration into a polymer matrix might therefore be a viable approach to mitigate extensive burst of actives from thin films. Although we cannot exclude minor recrystallization during the multi-month release experiment, the observed long-term profile is most consistently explained by the pre-existing coexistence of surface nanocrystals and intrapore amorphous amoxicillin. The confined pore geometry strongly limits any significant crystal growth during dissolution, making crystallization during release unlikely to be a major contributor.

Albeit a different dosage form, this time frame is also much longer compared to the Singh et al. study [5], where release of amoxicillin from microspheres was sustained by/through a mucoadhesive device. Their best formulation, based on a combination of HPMC K4M as mucoadhesive and Eudragit RS 100 as polymer matrix, showed a continuous release over a maximum of 12 h only in-vitro, with the release profile reaching 96.15 w/w% of the total amount in that relatively short period. Additionally, Vafayi et al. [10] showed that porous hollow silica nanospheres ZnS@SiO2 loaded with amoxicillin showed a delayed release pattern in simulated body fluid with 84% of the total amoxicillin released over a 24 h period. Also, compared to the MCM-41 [8] and Mg-HA carriers systems [9], which in best cases achieved up to 13% amoxicillin release within 24 hours, and 89% within 40 hours, respectively; our FCC–ethyl cellulose composite films demonstrate a markedly prolonged release.

Similarly, Torres-Figueroa et al. [6] have studied the effectiveness of composite hydrogels – poly(acrylamide) and starch – as a platform for controlled release of amoxicillin, however the hydrogel reported released 48.6 w/w% of the amoxicillin load within the first 24 h. This behavior was attributed to the hydrophilic character of the starch and the swelling rate of the hydrogel affecting the kinetics of the drug release. Also, Bohns et al. investigated the incorporation of amoxicillin-loaded polymeric microspheres into mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) cement formulations for dental applications. Their best formulation achieved a release of 16% amoxicillin within 96 h. The longest sustained drug release we found in the literature was obtained by Prasanna et al. [11], who studied the release of amoxicillin from a hydroxyapatite layer-by-layer coated with polyvinyl alcohol and sodium alginate. Apart from a good antibacterial activity they showed a sustained release of amoxicillin for about 30 days. In none of these studies did the loading/impregnation of amoxicillin change the physical state from the original crystalline form, in contrast to where we see the loading of Omyapharm particles resulting in a change from long range crystalline to a pseudo-amorphous state.

The amoxicillin release depends on the hydrophilic character of the used polymer. HPMC [5], poly(acrylamide), starch [6] or polyvinyl alcohol [11] have been reported examples. In our case, although EC is not water soluble, it is nonetheless hydrophilic. In spite of the insolubility of EC, the amoxicillin finds its way out to the surface along hydrophilic fissures, most likely formed during the initial step of solvent evaporation that takes place during film formation. Relying on such fissures would not be a guarantee for successful delivery.

Another more likely possibility is that water molecules, under osmotic pressure, can diffuse into the molecular-sized spaces of EC polymer and reach amoxicillin loaded particles. Thus, the amoxicillin solution formed within the film can diffuse out under the resulting concentration gradient. Even though the amoxicillin loaded in the porous particles have a higher water solubility (dissolution rate) as compared to pure amoxicillin, the results of the tempered release rate of the loaded amoxicillin can be mainly explained by the significantly reduced initial burst. However, additional contribution may come from other factors such as: i) additional tortuosity provided by the particle; ii) sedimentation of the loaded particles (higher density provided by the porous particles) during film production and hence longer diffusion pathway through the EC matrix; iii) easier access to the more homogeneously distributed and smaller pure amoxicillin particles as compared to more concentrated amoxicillin – porous particles loaded domains, which, in turn, can be more effectively encapsulated by the EC.

To sum up, compared to previously reported amoxicillin carriers such as MCM-41 mesoporous silica (13% release within 24 h), Eudragit S100 microparticles (16% within 96 h), and Mg–HA porous ceramics (89% within 40 h), the FCC–EC composite films developed in this study exhibit a uniquely sustained release profile spanning several months. The combination of FCC’s hierarchical porosity with the diffusion-modulating ethyl cellulose matrix provides a synergistic route to long-term antibiotic delivery, not previously reported for amoxicillin formulations.

The results obtained in this study suggest that a more efficient system in terms of controlled delivery can be obtained by loading amoxicillin into porous microparticles – functionalized calcium carbonate – instead of mixing it directly into a polymer matrix; and then homogeneously distributing these particles within a polymer matrix. Reducing initial burst avoids unnecessarily high concentrations and allows for more judicious release rates over a prolonged period of time. It should be noted that this work represents a proof-of-concept demonstration focused on the sustained release performance of FCC–EC films rather than on their mechanical or interfacial characterization. For future development toward indwelling medical applications, complementary evaluation of tensile strength, swelling behavior, and mucoadhesive properties are essential and it will be considered in the future.

The observed release concentration of amoxicillin (above 0.1 mg/mL) exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for E. coli, which is 0.008 mg/mL [46,47]. Eventually, the release rates of amoxicillin from ethyl cellulose films can be tailored by manipulating the preparation method, film thickness, and the inclusion of specific additives in order to achieve relevant performance as drug delivery systems in catheter and indwelling applications. This comparison is intended as contextual guidance only and does not imply predictive relevance for in vivo antimicrobial efficacy.

Conclusions

Since bacterial resistance to antibiotics is recognized currently as a major threat to global health, it is desirable to change the way antibiotics are used, crucially supporting their judicious application. Today, already established infections can only be treated with selected antibiotics, and it is important to use as little as possible to minimize antimicrobial resistance, but the key point is that this controlled small amount must be maintained for long periods above the minimum inhibition concentration (MIC). Therefore, sustained release systems are regarded as a viable solution to maintaining microbial-free treatment and, hence, reducing the chance of antimicrobial resistance.

Within this work, a model drug – amoxicillin, was successfully loaded into porous functionalized calcium carbonate particles using a solvent evaporation method achieving drug loads of 30 w/w%. Dissolution of loaded amoxicillin was faster compared to pure amoxicillin as demonstrated by UV-vis spectrometry. This can be explained by the inhibition of crystal formation during the loading process as supported by XRD and SEM measurements. Structural analysis reveals the presence of a pseudo-amorphous, nanocrystalline or molecularly surface oriented mesophase layer form. However, a total area of only 2880 µm2 was investigated by nanoscale XRD within this study, therefore the reported observations are only qualitative interpretations. Further measurements of larger areas and on more samples could produce more statistics, thus leading to quantitative results, such as the relative abundance of nanocrystalline or mesophase areas with respect to amorphous ones as well as the average size of nanocrystals or mesophase layers.

If this essentially non-crystalline material is embedded in a biocompatible polymer, such as ethyl cellulose (EC) – a flexible water insoluble film that can be easily manipulated, could be produced. With this film construct we have shown that the amoxicillin release can be sustained for more than 5 months. The release through the EC matrix of amoxicillin from loaded particles may effectively mitigate the issue of burst release by minimizing the initial surge and ensures a sustained release of the active ingredient over a prolonged period, reducing wastage during the early phase. In other words, the same amount of amoxicillin can be delivered over a much longer period of time, rendering this film well suited, for example, in catheter/indwelling applications.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Calibration curve of the released amoxicillin in water obtained by using the UV-vis absorbance at 272 nm.

(TIF)

pone.0320280.s001.tif (157.8KB, tif)
S2 Fig. The amoxicillin release curves in water from 30% amoxicillin loaded FCC granules.

(TIF)

pone.0320280.s002.tif (143.6KB, tif)
S1 Table. Residual Amoxicillin loaded in FCC fines measured with TGA (up to 600*C) after release in water.

(DOCX)

pone.0320280.s003.docx (20.7KB, docx)
S3 Fig. UV–Vis absorbance spectra of FCC fines, FCC granules, and Omyapharm in water, showing no absorbance near 272 nm (Spectra were corrected for pure water absorbance).

(TIF)

pone.0320280.s004.tif (674.1KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Amoxicillin release profiles for Omyapharm-loaded ethyl cellulose (EC) films of different thicknesses (200 µm and 160 µm).

The thinner film (160 µm) exhibits a comparable biphasic release pattern—an initial burst followed by a slower sustained phase—demonstrating reproducibility of the release behavior.

(TIF)

pone.0320280.s005.tif (674.1KB, tif)
S2 Table. Summary of experimental conditions for particle and film release studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0320280.s006.docx (21.5KB, docx)
S1 Text. Applicability of classical kinetic models.

(DOCX)

pone.0320280.s007.docx (20.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Ulf Johansson is gratefully acknowledged for support during the XRD experiment at NanoMAX.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Omya International AG and RISE Research Institute of Sweden. We acknowledge MAX IV Laboratory for time on Beamline NanoMAX under Proposal 20230043. Research conducted at MAX IV, a Swedish national user facility, is supported by the Swedish Research council under contract 2018-07152, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems under contract 2018-04969, and Formas under contract 2019-02496. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders (Omya International AG and RISE Research Institutes of Sweden) participated in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.van der Horst MA, Schuurmans JM, Smid MC, Koenders BB, ter Kuile BH. De novo acquisition of resistance to three antibiotics by Escherichia coli. Microb Drug Resist. 2011;17(2):141–7. doi: 10.1089/mdr.2010.0101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gao P, Nie X, Zou M, Shi Y, Cheng G. Recent advances in materials for extended-release antibiotic delivery system. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2011;64(9):625–34. doi: 10.1038/ja.2011.58 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Smith FPDJHCNH. Inventor; Beecham Research Laboratories Ltd, assignee. Improvements in or relating to penicillin derivatives. UK1958. 1958.
  • 4.Akhavan BJ, Vijhani P. Amoxicillin in StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2021. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Singh S, Chidrawar V, Ushir Y, Vadalia K, Sheth N, Shukla SHN. Pharmaceutical characterization of amoxicillin trihydrate as mucoadhesive microspheres in management of H. pylori. International J PharmTech Res. 2003;:348–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Torres-Figueroa AV, del Castillo-Castro T, Bolado-Martínez E, Corella-Madueño MAG, García-Alegría AM, Lara-Ceniceros TE, et al. Composite hydrogel of poly(acrylamide) and starch as potential system for controlled release of amoxicillin and inhibition of bacterial growth. J Chemistry. 2020;2020:14. doi: 10.1155/2020/5860487 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Songsurang K, Pakdeebumrung J, Praphairaksit N, Muangsin N. Sustained release of amoxicillin from ethyl cellulose-coated amoxicillin/chitosan-cyclodextrin-based tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2011;12(1):35–45. doi: 10.1208/s12249-010-9555-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Li Z, Su K, Cheng B, Deng Y. Organically modified MCM-type material preparation and its usage in controlled amoxicillin delivery. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2010;342(2):607–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2009.10.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang L-L, Liu X-X, Zhou Y-M, Wang X-F. Preparation of ordered porous Mg-HA and drug sustained-release performance. Materials and Manufacturing Processes. 2021;37(13):1500–5. doi: 10.1080/10426914.2021.2016824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vafayi L, Gharibe S. Investigation of In Vitro Drug Release from Porous Hollow Silica Nanospheres Prepared of ZnS@SiO 2 Core-Shell. Bioinorg Chem Appl. 2013;2013:541030. doi: 10.1155/2013/541030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Prasanna APS, Venkatasubbu GD. Sustained release of amoxicillin from hydroxyapatite nanocomposite for bone infections. Prog Biomater. 2018;7(4):289–96. doi: 10.1007/s40204-018-0103-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bohns FR, Leitune VCB, Garcia IM, Genari B, Dornelles NB, Guterres SS, et al. Incorporation of amoxicillin-loaded microspheres in mineral trioxide aggregate cement: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod. 2020;45(4):e50. doi: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Andersen MJ, Flores-Mireles AL. Urinary Catheter Coating Modifications: The Race against Catheter-Associated Infections. Coatings. 2019;10(1):23. doi: 10.3390/coatings10010023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gahlot R, Nigam C, Kumar V, Yadav G, Anupurba S. Catheter-related bloodstream infections. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014;4(2):162–7. doi: 10.4103/2229-5151.134184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cortese YJ, Wagner VE, Tierney M, Devine D, Fogarty A. Review of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections and In Vitro Urinary Tract Models. J Healthc Eng. 2018;2018:2986742.doi: 10.1155/2018/2986742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Patel PK, Advani SD, Kofman AD, Lo E, Maragakis LL, Pegues DA, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44(8):1209–31. doi: 10.1017/ice.2023.137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Paul A, Augustine R, Hasan A, Zahid AA, Thomas S, Agatemor C, et al. Halloysite nanotube and chitosan polymer composites: Physicochemical and drug delivery properties. Journal of Drug Delivery Sci Technol. 2022;72:103380. doi: 10.1016/j.jddst.2022.103380 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khunová V, Kováčová M, Olejniková P, Ondreáš F, Špitalský Z, Ghosal K, et al. Antibacterial Electrospun Polycaprolactone Nanofibers Reinforced by Halloysite Nanotubes for Tissue Engineering. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(4):746. doi: 10.3390/polym14040746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Barman M, Mahmood S, Augustine R, Hasan A, Thomas S, Ghosal K. Natural halloysite nanotubes /chitosan based bio-nanocomposite for delivering norfloxacin, an anti-microbial agent in sustained release manner. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;162:1849–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Merchant J, Müllertz A, Rades T, Bannow J. Functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) as a novel carrier to solidify supersaturated self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (super-SNEDDS). Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2023;193:198–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2023.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lundin Johnson M, Noreland D, Gane P, Schoelkopf J, Ridgway C, Millqvist Fureby A. Porous calcium carbonate as a carrier material to increase the dissolution rate of poorly soluble flavouring compounds. Food Funct. 2017;8(4):1627–40. doi: 10.1039/c6fo01579d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Levy CL. Nanoporous calcium carbonate-based substrates for the controlled delivery of functional materials. Plymouth: University of Plymouth. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Preisig D, Haid D, Varum FJO, Bravo R, Alles R, Huwyler J, et al. Drug loading into porous calcium carbonate microparticles by solvent evaporation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014;87(3):548–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2014.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Stirnimann T, Atria S, Schoelkopf J, Gane PAC, Alles R, Huwyler J, et al. Compaction of functionalized calcium carbonate, a porous and crystalline microparticulate material with a lamellar surface. Int J Pharm. 2014;466(1–2):266–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.03.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stirnimann T, Di Maiuta N, Gerard DE, Alles R, Huwyler J, Puchkov M. Functionalized calcium carbonate as a novel pharmaceutical excipient for the preparation of orally dispersible tablets. Pharm Res. 2013;30(7):1915–25. doi: 10.1007/s11095-013-1034-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Preisig D, Haid D, Varum FJO, Bravo R, Alles R, Huwyler J, et al. Drug loading into porous calcium carbonate microparticles by solvent evaporation. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2014;87(3):548–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2014.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wasilewska K, Winnicka K. Ethylcellulose–A Pharmaceutical Excipient with Multidirectional Application in Drug Dosage Forms Development. Materials. 2019;12(20):3386. doi: 10.3390/ma12203386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Björklund OSE. Thermal stability assessment of antibiotics in moderate temperature and subcritical water using a pressurized dynamic flow-through system. International J Innovation Applied Studies. 2015;11(4):872–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Saez V, Cerruti R, Ramón JA, Santos ERF, Silva DZ, Pinto JC, et al. Quantification of Oxaliplatin Encapsulated into PLGA Microspheres by TGA. Macromolecular Symposia. 2016;368(1):116–21. doi: 10.1002/masy.201500181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bariana M, Aw MS, Kurkuri M, Losic D. Tuning drug loading and release properties of diatom silica microparticles by surface modifications. Int J Pharm. 2013;443(1–2):230–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.12.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Johansson U, Carbone D, Kalbfleisch S, Björling A, Kahnt M, Sala S, et al. NanoMAX: the hard X-ray nanoprobe beamline at the MAX IV Laboratory. J Synchrotron Radiat. 2021;28(Pt 6):1935–47. doi: 10.1107/S1600577521008213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Robert A, Cerenius Y, Tavares PF, Hultin Stigenberg A, Karis O, Lloyd Whelan A-C, et al. The European Physical Journal Plus. 2023;138(6):495. doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04018-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Boles MO, Girven RJ, Gane PAC. The structure of amoxycillin trihydrate and a comparison with the structures of ampicillin. Acta Crystallogr B Struct Sci. 1978;34(2):461–6. doi: 10.1107/s0567740878003350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bird AE. Amoxicillin. In: Brittain HG, editor. Analytical Profiles of Drug Substances and Excipients. Academic Press. 1994. p. 1–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Product Information Report: Amoxicillin. Rockville, Maryland: Pharmacopeial Convention U.S. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rowe MC, Brewer BJ. AMORPH: A statistical program for characterizing amorphous materials by X-ray diffraction. Computers & Geosciences. 2018;120:21–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2018.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chung FH. Unified Theory for Decoding the Signals from X-Ray Florescence and X-Ray Diffraction of Mixtures. Appl Spectrosc. 2017;71(5):1060–8. doi: 10.1177/0003702816664105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jenkins R. X-Ray Techniques: Overview. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sánchez-Lafuente C, Teresa Faucci M, Fernández-Arévalo M, Alvarez-Fuentes J, Rabasco AM, Mura P. Development of sustained release matrix tablets of didanosine containing methacrylic and ethylcellulose polymers. Int J Pharm. 2002;234(1–2):213–21. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5173(01)00962-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wasilewska K, Winnicka K. Ethylcellulose-a pharmaceutical excipient with multidirectional application in drug dosage forms development. Mater. 2019;12(20):3386. doi: 10.3390/ma12203386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Notario-Pérez F, Cazorla-Luna R, Martín-Illana A, Galante J, Ruiz-Caro R, das Neves J, et al. Design, fabrication and characterisation of drug-loaded vaginal films: State-of-the-art. J Control Release. 2020;327:477–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.08.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Murtaza G. Ethylcellulose microparticles: a review. Acta Pol Pharm. 2012;69(1):11–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sannino A, Demitri C, Madaghiele M. Biodegradable cellulose-based hydrogels: design and applications. Materials. 2009;2(2):353–73. doi: 10.3390/ma2020353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Elçin AE. In vitro and in vivo degradation of oxidized acetyl- and ethyl-cellulose sponges. Artificial Cells, Blood Substitutes, and Biotechnol. 2006;34(4):407–18. doi: 10.1080/10731190600769701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Märtson M, Viljanto J, Hurme T, Laippala P, Saukko P. Is cellulose sponge degradable or stable as implantation material? An in vivo subcutaneous study in the rat. Biomaterials. 1999;20(21):1989–95. doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00094-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Stohr JJJM, Kluytmans-van den Bergh MFQ, Verhulst CJMM, Rossen JWA, Kluytmans JAJW. Development of amoxicillin resistance in Escherichia coli after exposure to remnants of a non-related phagemid-containing E. coli: an exploratory study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s13756-020-00708-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Eucast E. Antimicrobial wild type distributions of microorganisms. https://mic.eucast.org/search/. 2021. Accessed 2021. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mahmood Ahmed

7 Apr 2025

Dear Dr. Niga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

One or more of the reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. Members of the editorial team have determined that the works referenced are not directly related to the submitted manuscript. As such, please note that it is not necessary or expected to cite the works requested by the reviewer

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mahmood Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

[This work was supported by Omya International AG and RISE Research Institute of Sweden. We acknowledge MAX IV Laboratory for time on Beamline NanoMAX under Proposal 20230043. Research conducted at MAX IV, a Swedish national user facility, is supported by the Swedish Research council under contract 2018-07152, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems under contract 2018-04969, and Formas under contract 2019-02496.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

The research work is quite interesting with well problem statement but authors have designed the experiment for verifying material properties of amoxicillin loaded FCC not in a good manner and not thorough study to clearly understand the characteristic of the loaded FCCs. It is very difficult to follow mentioned experimental results step by step. It is very regret to recommend for rejection due to the quality of presented experimental data especially in the part of material characterization. For example:

1. To study the releasement of amoxicillin from FCC, FCC fines and FCC granules were used as carrier but to study the releasement of the amoxicillin from the Ethyl cellulose film, Omyapharm FCC500-OG was used instead without notifying the solid support to convince the possibility. Only particle size ranges of FCC fines and FCC granules were provided but not BET specific area not bulk density.

2. The content of amoxicillin is not informed for releasement study from the loaded FCC granules (Figure 4) but from the loaded FCC fines, the releasement results is presented both from 15% and 30% amoxicillin loading. The releasement of neat FCC is not comparatively studied.

3. XRD diffraction pattern of precipitated amoxicillin is presented but its SEM micrograph is not shown, to verify different morphology.

4. In the material characterization results from loaded FCC, the finding are rarely compared to other similar finding and made discussion.

Reviewer #2: The study presents an interesting approach utilizing functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) microparticles embedded in ethyl cellulose (EC) films for sustained antimicrobial drug release. This research is particularly relevant for indwelling medical applications, addressing the need for prolonged drug release in such devices.

1. Please explain the novelty compared to published work in this field. Pure drug used or its salt used?

2. The introduction can be improve with recent work in this filed, like, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12668-024-01722-3, https://doi.org/10.2174/0115748855274979231228103038, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1655-9_6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105489, https://journals.lww.com/jpbs/toc/2012/04001 etc

4. No clarity on how formulation optimized?

5. How , XRD, To understand the underlying mechanisms influencing amoxicillin release, give this understanding?

6. How author is sure that during casting in organic solvent, microparticle not dissolve/break?

7. Why HPMC K4m and HPMC K4M and Eudragit RS 100 selected as film former?

8. The characterization of film like, Muco adhesion, tensile strength, swelling etc should be compiled.

Reviewer #3: Comment 1: Keep the term fixed either extended or sustained release system.

Comment 2: Can you check this line ‘an increased release rate from the particles compared to pure amoxicillin powder’ release rate will be extended? And also make it which on e is considered here a paprticle?

Comment 3: sustained 3drug delivery acts to release the drug at a controlled rate’ There is a difference between sustained and controlled release

Comment 4: significant efforts are directed at developing new indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs)’ discuss related works on this. See such articles Int J Biol Macromol, 162, 2020, 1849-1861. Polymers. 2022; 14 (4): 746; J. Drug. Deliv. Sci. Tech., 72, 2022, 103380

Comment 5: mention the molecular weight of EC and the subsection process is not proper.

Comment 6: the amoxicillin must first be dissolved in a solvent with a low boiling point. ‘ Mention the solvent

Comment 7: amoxicillin release in water was determined using a thermogravimetric analyzer’ This procedure is not proper. Please cite some related works if anyone has followed the method.

Comment 8: If XRD procedure is needed in so details

Comment 9: Calibration curve can be added

Comment 10: Please check Figure 5

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 2;21(4):e0320280. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320280.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Jun 2025

Reviewer #1:

Dear Authors,

The research work is quite interesting with well problem statement but authors have designed the experiment for verifying material properties of amoxicillin loaded FCC not in a good manner and not thorough study to clearly understand the characteristic of the loaded FCCs. It is very difficult to follow mentioned experimental results step by step. It is very regret to recommend for rejection due to the quality of presented experimental data especially in the part of material characterization. For example:

The authors thank the Reviewer for the opinion regarding the worth of the work and acknowledge the aspects of concern. We hereby undertake to respond to the comments as follows:

1. To study the releasement of amoxicillin from FCC, FCC fines and FCC granules were used as carrier but to study the releasement of the amoxicillin from the Ethyl cellulose film, Omyapharm FCC500-OG was used instead without notifying the solid support to convince the possibility. Only particle size ranges of FCC fines and FCC granules were provided but not BET specific area not bulk density.

To clarify: the material family of functionalised calcium carbonate (FCC) retains consistent structural and chemical properties irrespective of sample name definition. We now have put more emphasis to this in the new manuscript text.

The use of a fractionated sample of FCC, in respect to fines and granules, was designed to study the impact of individual dispersed particle size versus structuration of those individual particles to form granules. The granular material has been shown earlier to accelerate advantageously pharmaceutical tablet disintegration in aqueous medium, for example, as illustrated in these extra references, which have now been added to the manuscript:

D. Preisig, et al., ‘Drug Loading into Porous Calcium Carbonate Microparticles by Solvent Evaporation,’ Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 87, 548–558 (2014).

T. Stirnimann, et al., ‘Compaction of Functionalized Calcium Carbonate: A Porous and Crystalline Microparticulate Material with a Lamellar Surface,’ Int. J. Pharm. 466(1–2), 266–275 (2014).

T. Stirnimann, et al., ‘Functionalized Calcium Carbonate as a Novel Pharmaceutical Excipient for the Preparation of Orally Dispersible Tablets,’ Pharm. Res. 30(7), 1915–1925 (2013).

The context of exemplifying structuration of FCC in respect to release kinetic of amoxicillin is, therefore, undertaken here to establish if such structuration provides any release mechanistic advantages, stressing once again throughout that the particle structure and chemical nature of the particles remain intrinsically constant.

Omyapharm FCC500-OG illustrates the current commercially available product from which the experimental fractions were similarly derived. This text is now included in the manuscript.

Nitrogen adsorption analysis in terms of BET specific surface measurement and bulk density are now also reported.

2. The content of amoxicillin is not informed for releasement study from the loaded FCC granules (Figure 4) but from the loaded FCC fines, the releasement results is presented both from 15% and 30% amoxicillin loading. The releasement of neat FCC is not comparatively studied.

The loading fraction of amoxicillin was consistently 30 w/w% and 15 w/w% for all samples. Section 2.2. was unfortunately somewhat misleading in this respect as the term FCC particles was specifically used to refer generically to all sample forms. The text is now modified to confirm the loading across all FCC sample types. We understand the implication raised by the reviewer in that granulated material has an additional pore space, i.e. between the individual particles, into which the amoxicillin will also enter. This is now also expressed in the manuscript as follows:

[2.2. Particle Loading

To load amoxicillin into the porous FCC particles, the amoxicillin must first be dissolved in a

solvent with a low boiling point and associated high vapour pressure. This solution is then mixed with the FCC particles as present in all structural forms used in the study, namely FCC fines, granules and commercial Omyapharm, and the solvent is allowed to evaporate. During evaporation, amoxicillin precipitates both within the pores and on the surface of the FCC particles. In this study, a 3 g/L solution of amoxicillin in an ethanol/acetone mixture was prepared. This solution was then added to a predefined amount of particles (for 30 w/w% and 15 w/w % loading – 7 g FCC and 8.5 g FCC, respectively, per 1 L solution) and the solvent was evaporated using a rotary evaporator (30 °C and 400-150 mbar). It is recognised that the distribution of amoxicillin in the case of the granulated structure will include loading between particles, and not only on the surface, and within the pores of the individual particles. Given the nature of the granule concept, material between the particles, to a first approximation, is likely to behave similarly to that associated with the exterior of the particles, though it should be recognised that access of liquid to the interior of a granule may be hindered to reduced permeability. Such effects reveal themselves during the release experiment study.]

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the inclusion of a neat FCC control. However, as the release studies were based on UV-Vis spectroscopy at 272 nm—a wavelength specific to amoxicillin—neat FCC does not exhibit any absorbance at this wavelength. Therefore, it does not contribute to the measured signal, and its inclusion as a control would not affect the release data. This point is now clarified in the revised manuscript.

3. XRD diffraction pattern of precipitated amoxicillin is presented but its SEM micrograph is not shown, to verify different morphology.

The morphology of amoxicillin depends on two main factors, the dynamic of precipitation and the surface onto which the precipitate forms. Amoxicillin in free solution under slow evaporation leads to microscopic single crystals, however under induced rapid precipitation, such as by the presence of a surface or nucleation centres, naturally tends to be amorphous. When considering monomolecular layers, such as those deposited on the surface of the FCC particle pores, microscopic imaging, by definition, unfortunately fails to reveal such molecular structure information. It is for this reason that resort is made to XRD diffraction, as reported in the manuscript, it being sensitive to molecular and intermolecular structure of relevance here.

4. In the material characterization results from loaded FCC, the finding are rarely compared to other similar finding and made discussion.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestion to broaden the contextual discussion of amoxicillin release from particulate systems beyond FCC, and we have now included comparative insights from other porous carrier systems. For example, Li et al. (2010) reported on organically modified MCM-41 mesoporous silica materials for amoxicillin delivery, where drug release was about 13% within 24 hours. Also, we reference studies such as Vafayi et al., who demonstrated a three-stage release profile from hollow silica nanospheres in simulated body fluid, and Bohns et al., who evaluated amoxicillin-loaded Eudragit S100 microparticles in dental applications. Their best formulation achieved a release of 16% amoxicillin within 96 hours. Additionally, Wang et al. who worked on the release of amoxicillin from Mg-HA porous particles. In this work 89% of the amoxicillin was released within 40hours. These examples have been incorporated into the revised manuscript to contextualize our results within the broader field of porous drug delivery systems. In contrast, our FCC-ethyl cellulose film composites demonstrate markedly extended release, supporting applications requiring long-term antimicrobial activity.

Li et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci., 342 (2010), 607–613, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2009.10.073.

L. Vafayi et al., Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications 2013 Vol. 2013 Issue 1 Pages 541030 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/541030

Bohns et al., Restor Dent Endod 2020 Vol. 45 Issue 4 Pages 50. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e50

Wang et al., Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2022 Vol. 37 Issue 13 Pages 1500-1505 DOI: 10.1080/10426914.2021.2016824

Reviewer #2:

The study presents an interesting approach utilizing functionalized calcium carbonate (FCC) microparticles embedded in ethyl cellulose (EC) films for sustained antimicrobial drug release. This research is particularly relevant for indwelling medical applications, addressing the need for prolonged drug release in such devices.

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for recognising the value of the main target application for this work.

1. Please explain the novelty compared to published work in this field. Pure drug used or its salt used?

In many cases, pure drugs tend to express hydrophobicity due to their organic molecular constituents. The advantage of depositing a monomolecular layer is that the dynamic of this arrangement is constrained prior to exposure to water, and the rapid dissolution thereby prevents the macro-induced hydrophobicity. The citation regarding the delivery of nutraceuticals and flavourings (11) (Lundin Johnson et al.) illustrates this nicely. In the case of amoxicillin sodium salt dissolution is not normally impaired by any hydrophobic effects, and, as the Reviewer correctly suggests, loading on porous media is not a prerequisite to ensure dissolution. The target here is to retain a reservoir of the amoxicillin whilst at the same time supporting a continuous release of the active substance at a level above the minimum bacterial inhibition concentration to ensure a continuous antibacterial activity in applications prone to recurring infection.

2. The introduction can be improved with recent work in this filed, like, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12668-024-01722-3, https://doi.org/10.2174/0115748855274979231228103038,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1655-9_6,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106206,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105489,

https://journals.lww.com/jpbs/toc/2012/04001 etc

We thank the Reviewer for the suggested literature. We have carefully reviewed the references provided and acknowledge their contribution to the broader field of drug delivery. However, these works focus on different types of materials or delivery systems that do not closely align with the specific objective of our study—namely, the integration of drug-loaded FCC particles into ethyl cellulose films for sustained release. To maintain a focused and concise introduction that accurately reflects the scope of our work, we have decided not to include these particular references. Nevertheless, we appreciate the Reviewer’s effort in highlighting them.

4. No clarity on how formulation optimized?

The formulation per se has two interactive aspects, (i) the dissolution and rapid evaporation properties required when loading the porous medium particles, and (ii) the distribution of the material in and on the FCC particles and granulate structure. To meet the criteria for step (i), simple reduction of pressure using a rotovap sufficed. Meeting an optimum for (ii), the distribution of material, is much more complex, and indeed depends strongly on the dynamic of permeation and absorption of the amoxicillin solution into the porous medium, and the time progression for partial dissolution and precipitation/deposition within it. We agree with the Reviewer that further work would be needed to optimise the spatial distribution of the active within the porous medium. We now emphasise this limitation to the work in the text and suggest the need for further optimisation.

5. How, XRD, To understand the underlying mechanisms influencing amoxicillin release, give this understanding?

The Reviewer identifies an important link here between the XRD structure-related properties of the active agent, in this case amoxicillin, and the subsequent desired release into aqueous medium. The Reviewer will recognise the difficulty we faced, and discussed in some depth, regarding the likely structural nature of the active as deposited within the porous FCC particles. We had hoped that the evidence of molecular arrangement provided by XRD would be more convincingly displayed. Given the ambiguity the XRD data raised, we chose to be somewhat reserved in providing a detailed mechanism for the release. We agree this leaves some open questions, and resort to the experience shown by the nutraceutical and flavourings exercise reported earlier by Lundin-Johnson et al., especially noting the similar rapid early stage dissolution occurring during release from FCC in the absence of ethyl cellulose. We reference this difficulty in the manuscript and rely on future work revealing more clearly the specific mechanistic stages involved. Suffice it to say at this point that the controlled dynamic required for the proposed application has been reached despite the lack of a complete molecular-based mechanistic description. We trust this applications-focused result is of sufficient worth to support publication.

6. How author is sure that during casting in organic solvent, microparticle not dissolve/break?

Here we assume that the Reviewer is referring to the stability of the FCC structures. Given the inorganic structural nature of the FCC, we would not expect any microparticle dissolution or breakage. Furthermore, the work reported by

D. Preisig, et al., ‘Drug Loading into Porous Calcium Carbonate Microparticles by Solvent Evaporation,’ Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 87, 548–558 (2014).

T. Stirnimann, et al., ‘Compaction of Functionalized Calcium Carbonate: A Porous and Crystalline Microparticulate Material with a Lamellar Surface,’ Int. J. Pharm. 466(1–2), 266–275 (2014).

T. Stirnimann, et al., ‘Functionalized Calcium Carbonate as a Novel Pharmaceutical Excipient for the Preparation of Orally Dispersible Tablets,’ Pharm. Res. 30(7), 1915–1925 (2013).

and now cited in the references, confirms the stability of the physical structures. The granulation is formed by the compression in close proximity of particle-particle adjacent surface platelets displaying van der Waals attraction, which, without inorganic breakdown, remains ubiquitous throughout any solvent processing. Only mechanical forces would be expected to disturb further the surface platelet structure.

7. Why HPMC K4m and HPMC K4M and Eudragit RS 100 selected as film former?

Here we assume that the Reviewer is referring to use ethyl cellulose (EC) as the film-forming polymer. We would like to clarify that HPMC K4M and Eudragit RS 100 were not part of our formulation work. The selection of EC was based on its well-established use in sustained-release systems, as it is a non-biodegradable yet biocompatible cellulose derivative widely studied for pharmaceutical encapsulation applications. EC is a biodurable polymer, and its molecular structure can be tuned through controlled degrees of substitution—specifically, the number of etherified hydroxyl groups per glucose unit—to achieve tailored solubility and viscosity profiles in various solvents. Moreover, although EC is not rapidly biodegradable under typical physiological conditions, cellulose and its derivatives are considered environmentally friendly materials, as they are ultimately degradable in natural ecosystems through microbial enzymatic activity (e.g., cellulases). This point is now explained in the revised manuscript.

We hope this clarifies the rationale for choosing EC as a film forming polymer.

8. The characterization of film like, Muco adhesion, tensile strength, swelling etc. should be compiled.

Here the Reviewer takes the work forward into the application environment in respect to both mechanical properties and properties in-vivo. We can but agree wholeheartedly that strength, swelling properties and surface interaction of the ethyl cellulose construct with surrounding mucous membranes is of crucial importance. Simply said, we have not moved on to the important applications environment at this stage and such questions are left open. We now draw attention to this next analytical step in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3:

Comment 1: Keep the term fixed eith

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2025-05-27.docx

pone.0320280.s011.docx (38.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mehnath Sivaraj

21 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Niga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.<gwmw style="display:none;"></gwmw>

Kind regards,

Mehnath Sivaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revisions made according to the reviewer's comments. Some revision has been done well. However please fulfill these following comments;

1. In Fig 4. please give information on the amoxicillin loading for loaded FCC granules as shown in blue squares.

2. If possibly, please provide the UV spectra of FCC fines, FCC granules and, Omyapharm particles (used to prepared EC film, in a range that cover wavelength of 272 nm as Data Availability.

3. Please workout more on the authors' response to reviewer's comment 3 on the aspect of molecular structure of the precipitated amoxicillin and intermolecular structure. In addition, the image of shown in Fig 7 (C) does not help to make relationship between the sustained release of precipitated amoxicillin from FCC. Not only the molecular and intermolecular structure affects the releasement performance but also the physical characteristics of the precipitated of amoxicillin inside the FCC and on the surface.

Reviewer #2: The author has successfully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided in the previous review. The revisions and editions made are satisfactory and have enhanced the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The paper can be accepted. The comments have been addressed. The author has responded point to point comments

Reviewer #4: This study investigates FCC microparticles integrated in ethyl cellulose films for sustained amoxicillin delivery—an innovative and clinically relevant concept targeting catheter-related infections. The combined use of SEM, UV‑vis, synchrotron XRD, and TGA strengthens the material analysis. Nonetheless, the manuscript currently falls short in methodological completeness, clarity, and novelty justification

Major Issues (Essential for Revision):

1. Material transitions and clarity

o The manuscript frequently switches between FCC fines, granules, and Omyapharm (e.g., in Chapters 2 and 3). A comparative table listing surface area (BET), morphology, rationale, and selection criteria for each form would greatly improve clarity.

2. Film characterization for application

o Films designed for indwelling use require mechanical (tensile strength), swelling, and mucoadhesion data. At minimum, quantitative swelling or tensile information should be included, or limitations acknowledged.

3. Drug release quantification

o Relying on TGA for drug release estimation is unconventional. While UV vis release curves are present, detailed release kinetics (e.g., cumulative release, release rate ± SD, model fitting) must be shown. Clarify that TGA data are supplementary and residual only.

4. Novelty and comparative context

o Similar systems (e.g., Mg HA, Eudragit, MCM 41) have been used for amoxicillin delivery. The manuscript should explicitly highlight what is novel—such as use of FCC in EC films—and compare performance metrics (release duration, loading capacity) to existing systems.

5. Terminology consistency

o Use “sustained” exclusively throughout. Currently, the manuscript alternates between “sustained” and “extended.” Ensure consistent usage.

Minor Suggestions:

• Correct remaining typographical and formatting issues (e.g., “Formatted: Font: 16 pt”).

• Expand figure legends (e.g., labeling apparatus components in Figure 2).

• Define all solvents and abbreviations in the Methods section first mention.

• Clarify that ethyl cellulose and FCC are biocompatible and sterile, as relevant to medical application.

The study is innovative and scientifically sound, but essential methodological work and clarity improvements are necessary for full publication. I encourage the authors to address these points comprehensively.

Reviewer #5: I recommend that the authors substantially revise the manuscript to include detailed methodologies, robust characterization data, well-annotated images, and thorough discussions. Doing so will significantly improve the clarity, reproducibility, and scientific impact of the work.

Reviewer #6: I can recommend publishing, however some the authors need to answer the following question and accordingly revise the manuscript.

1) How did the authors determine crystal unit cell parameters from a bench-top XRAY machine. Did they index the powder pattern ? If so the results should be documented ? If they grew single crystal , then did the simulated pattern from single crystal match the experimental pattern ? Has the structure been uploaded to the CCDC database ?. These details are missing and important to understand how these results were obtained.

2) For the different dissolution experiments the authors have not described whether the tests were conducted under sink or non-sink conditions ? If under sink conditions, how will this correlate to drug release from catheders once implanted ?

3) Did the authors do a mass balance experiment and confirm that at the end of 5 month dissolution experiments the amoxicillin loaded in omyapharm had the remaining drug in the intact in the films or had the drug degraded by that time ?

4) There is a lack of statistical data in the dissolution release models? No error bars seen and std deviation mentioned in the experiments.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments-2.docx

pone.0320280.s009.docx (16.1KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: review letter- PONE-D-25-08617-R1 (1)_anon.pdf

pone.0320280.s010.pdf (428.5KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Apr 2;21(4):e0320280. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320280.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


24 Oct 2025

The response to reviewers is loaded as a separate file.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_FCC-EC Sustained Release.docx

pone.0320280.s013.docx (31.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Mehnath Sivaraj

26 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Niga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mehnath Sivaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The revisions are fully fulfilled to all points of previous comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the thoughtful revision. The manuscript is much improved in clarity and positioning. I appreciate the addition of the FCC materials comparison (particle size/BET/bulk density with usage rationale), the clearer description of sink (particles) vs non-sink (films) conditions, the inclusion of UV-vis controls showing no FCC absorbance at 272 nm, and the expanded comparison to prior amoxicillin delivery systems. The sustained multi-month release under non-sink conditions is a useful proof-of-concept for indwelling applications.

Recommendation: Minor Revision

What has been satisfactorily addressed

Materials clarity: Table summarizing fines, granules, and Omyapharm with BET/density and rationale greatly improves readability.

Terminology: Consistent, correct use of “sustained release” with a brief definition.

Context/novelty: Stronger discussion vs MCM-41, Mg-HA, Eudragit, hydrogels, hollow silica; the FCC-in-EC approach and months-long profile are now well framed.

Analytical specificity: UV spectra for FCC materials confirm no absorbance at 272 nm, supporting the release measurements.

Requests before acceptance (minor but important)

Statistics & replication for release data.

Please report the number of independent replicates for particle (Figs 3–4) and film (Figs 8–9) release experiments. Where feasible, provide mean ± SD and indicate n in figure captions. If the 5-month film curve was run on a single representative sample (as stated), keep it as proof-of-concept but clearly label it as such in the text and captions.

Basic kinetic analysis.

Add simple model fits (e.g., Higuchi and/or Korsmeyer–Peppas) to the film data—separating the initial burst and the longer sustained phase is fine. A small SI table with parameters (and R², n for Korsmeyer–Peppas) is sufficient. If you believe non-sink conditions make a specific model inapplicable, a brief rationale will suffice.

End-point mass balance for films.

Provide an assay at the end of the 5-month study confirming remaining drug in the films and commenting on degradation. TGA (as used for particles) is acceptable; HPLC/LC-MS would be ideal if available. This will strengthen the long-duration result.

Compact methods summary.

Include a short table (main text or SI) listing, for each experiment: matrix (particles/films), sink vs non-sink, total volume, temperature, agitation/flow, exposed surface area (your coiled film geometry is clear—just recap the calculated area). This will improve reproducibility.

XRD reporting clarity.

Please clarify whether the powder pattern was indexed and temper any structural claims that would require single-crystal data. A one-sentence note is enough; a CCDC deposition is not necessary here.

Limitations statement (applications).

Keep/strengthen the explicit note that tensile strength, swelling, and mucoadhesion of EC films were not examined in this proof-of-concept and are planned for future work toward indwelling use.

Minor edits

Remove any residual tracked-changes artifacts (e.g., “Formatted: …”).

Keep explicit loading information in Fig. 4 caption.

If you add statistics/kinetic fits/mass-balance data to SI, please reference them in the Data Availability statement and relevant figure captions.

With the above clarifications and small additions, the manuscript will meet PLOS ONE’s rigor and transparency standards.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: I support publication, but I would like the authors to clarify the following before acceptance.

1) We can speculate that the driving mechanism for nanocrystal formation could be related to a sorption effect of molecules in contact with a surface which could provide a nanoscale molecular orientation effect, a conformation that prevents the lowest energy intermolecular structure, namely preventing crystal formation.

• Could the authors clarify "lowest energy intermolecular structure"? Amorphous amoxicillin suggests a high-energy metastable state, while the crystalline form represents a low-energy conformation.

2) Did the authors examine, or can they propose, whether amoxicillin underwent crystallization during the release studies? This consideration could potentially account for the observed release profile in relation to the differences in solubility between crystalline and amorphous forms of amoxicillin.

3) How does the solubility of amorphous amoxicillin compare to crystalline amoxicillin? How can changes in crystal form during formulation affect the product's performance and release?

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments-2 (2).docx

pone.0320280.s012.docx (13.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Mehnath Sivaraj

19 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Niga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mehnath Sivaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

Reviewer #4: The authors have carefully and satisfactorily addressed the major points raised in the previous review. The revised manuscript is substantially clearer, particularly regarding the distinction and rationale for the different FCC materials, the positioning of TGA versus UV–vis measurements for drug release, and the discussion of novelty relative to existing amoxicillin delivery systems. Terminology is now consistent, and the scope of the work is appropriately framed as a proof-of-concept study focused on sustained release behavior.

While mechanical and swelling properties of the films and statistical replication of long-term release experiments remain outside the scope of the present work, these limitations are now explicitly acknowledged and no longer overstated in the conclusions. The experimental data presented support the claims made within this defined scope.

Only minor points remain, mainly editorial in nature (e.g., wording, figure labeling, and formatting). Detailed comments and suggestions are provided in the attached review letter. These points do not affect the scientific validity of the study.

Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and suitable for publication after minor editorial adjustments.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed satisfactorily. No further questions. I can now recommend publishing.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sepideh AsadiSepideh AsadiSepideh AsadiSepideh Asadi

Reviewer #6: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review letter- revised version.pdf

pone.0320280.s014.pdf (365.9KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Apr 2;21(4):e0320280. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320280.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 4


10 Feb 2026

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #4: The authors have carefully and satisfactorily addressed the major points raised in the previous review. The revised manuscript is substantially clearer, particularly regarding the distinction and rationale for the different FCC materials, the positioning of TGA versus UV–vis measurements for drug release, and the discussion of novelty relative to existing amoxicillin delivery systems. Terminology is now consistent, and the scope of the work is appropriately framed as a proof-of-concept study focused on sustained release behavior.

While mechanical and swelling properties of the films and statistical replication of long-term release experiments remain outside the scope of the present work, these limitations are now explicitly acknowledged and no longer overstated in the conclusions. The experimental data presented support the claims made within this defined scope.

Only minor points remain, mainly editorial in nature (e.g., wording, figure labeling, and formatting).

Detailed comments and suggestions are provided in the attached review letter. These points do not affect the scientific validity of the study.

Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and suitable for publication after minor editorial adjustments.

Remaining Issues and Minor Comments

1. Statistical and quantitative language

Long-term release experiments are still based on single representative samples. While

this limitation is acknowledged, language such as “average release rate” should be

softened to avoid over-interpretation. Terms such as “apparent” or “estimated” release

rate would be more appropriate in this context.

2. Figure clarity

Figures 8 and 9 would benefit from clearer, more explicit labeling of “loaded” versus

“physical mixture” directly on the plots to improve readability without requiring

extensive reference to the captions or text.

3. Formatting and presentation

A small number of formatting artifacts and spacing inconsistencies remain in the revised

manuscript and should be corrected during final editing.

4. MIC and biological relevance

The discussion linking sustained release behavior to MIC values is informative; however,

it should remain cautiously framed as indicative only. Care should be taken to avoid

implying predictive relevance for in vivo efficacy at this stage.

These points do not affect the scientific validity of the study.

Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and suitable for publication after minor editorial adjustments.

Response to reviewer #4

We thank the reviewer for these constructive and helpful final comments, which have improved the clarity of the manuscript.

Remaining Issues and Minor Comments

1. Statistical and quantitative language

We agree and have revised the manuscript to replace “average release rate” with “estimated release rate” to reflect that the long-term release data are based on single representative samples.

2. Figure clarity

We have retained the legend and added explicit curve labels directly within Figures 8 and 9 to clearly distinguish “loaded” and “physical mixture” samples.

3. Formatting and presentation

We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected remaining formatting artifacts and spacing inconsistencies during final editing.

4. MIC and biological relevance

We agree and have revised the MIC discussion to ensure it is framed as indicative only and does not imply predictive in vivo efficacy.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed satisfactorily. No further questions. I can now recommend publishing.

Response to Reviewer #6

We thank the reviewer for their careful evaluation and for confirming that all comments have been satisfactorily addressed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_4.docx

pone.0320280.s016.docx (25.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Mehnath Sivaraj

10 Mar 2026

Functionalized Calcium Carbonate Microparticles in Ethyl Cellulose Films: A Vehicle for Sustained Amoxicillin Release for Medical Applications

PONE-D-25-08617R4

Dear Dr. Niga,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mehnath Sivaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: This paper has addressed all the comments. This paper can be accepted now. Please arrange the references according to guidelines.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Mehnath Sivaraj

PONE-D-25-08617R4

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Niga,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mehnath Sivaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Calibration curve of the released amoxicillin in water obtained by using the UV-vis absorbance at 272 nm.

    (TIF)

    pone.0320280.s001.tif (157.8KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. The amoxicillin release curves in water from 30% amoxicillin loaded FCC granules.

    (TIF)

    pone.0320280.s002.tif (143.6KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Residual Amoxicillin loaded in FCC fines measured with TGA (up to 600*C) after release in water.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320280.s003.docx (20.7KB, docx)
    S3 Fig. UV–Vis absorbance spectra of FCC fines, FCC granules, and Omyapharm in water, showing no absorbance near 272 nm (Spectra were corrected for pure water absorbance).

    (TIF)

    pone.0320280.s004.tif (674.1KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Amoxicillin release profiles for Omyapharm-loaded ethyl cellulose (EC) films of different thicknesses (200 µm and 160 µm).

    The thinner film (160 µm) exhibits a comparable biphasic release pattern—an initial burst followed by a slower sustained phase—demonstrating reproducibility of the release behavior.

    (TIF)

    pone.0320280.s005.tif (674.1KB, tif)
    S2 Table. Summary of experimental conditions for particle and film release studies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320280.s006.docx (21.5KB, docx)
    S1 Text. Applicability of classical kinetic models.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320280.s007.docx (20.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2025-05-27.docx

    pone.0320280.s011.docx (38.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Comments-2.docx

    pone.0320280.s009.docx (16.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review letter- PONE-D-25-08617-R1 (1)_anon.pdf

    pone.0320280.s010.pdf (428.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_FCC-EC Sustained Release.docx

    pone.0320280.s013.docx (31.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments-2 (2).docx

    pone.0320280.s012.docx (13.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0320280.s015.docx (30.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review letter- revised version.pdf

    pone.0320280.s014.pdf (365.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_4.docx

    pone.0320280.s016.docx (25.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES