Overall, I am not sure that covalent linkages are leading to stiffer materials and slowed curcumin release in your system. Isn’t it is just as easy to say that when PLA is added to the fiber formulation, the curcumin release slows. This could just be due to increasing the hydrophobicity of the material overall by adding PLA. The mechanical properties get stiffer when PLA is added, could be due to the fact that PLA is a stiffer material than gelatin. Without some additional references for esterification occurring between PLA and gelatin at 50 °C, it is hard to imagine it happening without more proof. Certain chemical reactions need elevated temperatures to occur and esterification reactions between PLA and gelatin will likely need to exceed 100 °C in order to occur. It is more likely and simper that no cross linking is occurring and the resulting mechanical/release profiles are just determined based on the combination of the material properties that you put into the samples. “(b) Cur (8.3 wt%):GL (30%): Gelatin (6.0 g) and curcumin (8.3 wt%) were dissolved in 20 mL of TFA” Authors should use grams without parenthesis and put wt% in parenthesis. This is true for all samples. The revised text could be written: “6.0 g of gelatin (30 wt.%) and X.X g of curcumin (8.3 wt.%) were dissolved…” Also, once the authors have added the wt% of each chemical, then the naming system for the sample could reflect the wt.% to make more sense of the figures. Specifically, “Cur (8.3 wt%):GL:PLA (1:3)” is not particularly helpful, but the authors choose to use “Cur:GL:PLA-I” instead (even less helpful). The same things can be said about the naming of the other samples. Page 9: “randomness properties”. What are the authors referring to? Page 11: “enhanced tensile properties were noticed” What are the authors referring to? Page 11: tensile discussion The authors should include pure PLA into the stress/strain curve as it may explain the trend towards a stiffer material when PLA is added (not covalent bonds forming between curcumin, poly(lactic acid), and gelatin). Page 21, Figure 1a. As drawn the authors believe that the end groups of poly(lactic acid) (a secondary alcohol and a carboxylic acid) react with gelatin to form an ester and an amide. Additionally an alcohol from curcumin has formed an ester with gelatin. While the solution is heated at 50 °C, it is highly unlikely that any of these reactions proceed at this temperature without a catalyst. Rather, it is more likely that the resulting IR peaks are just arising from intermolecular interactions rather than covalent linkages. Page 21, Figure 1b. Authors are missing an IR of pure gelatin. Without this graphed, the authors cannot make any conclusions about the appearance of a new peak in the sample, without showing all of the precursors. Page 21, Figure 1c. What does the read arrow mean? Is the figure just a zoom in? Page 21: “(c) SEM image of Cur:GL:PLA-II aligned fiber scaffolds fabricated at 6,500 rpm in 30 seconds, respectively. Cur:GL:PLA-I and Cur:GL.PLA-II indicate Cur (8.3 wt%):GL:PLA (1:3) and Cur (8.3 wt%):GL:PLA (1:4), respectively. Scale bar = 100 μm and 1 μm, respectively.” The authors do not explain what the read arrow pointing to the second SEM image refers to. Are the images of two different spun fiber samples? If so, why is there an arrow? Page 24: “Figure 4. DSC curves of pure curcumin, Cur:GL and Cur:GL:PLA (I and II). Cur:GL indicates Cur (8.3 wt%):GL (30%); Cur:GL:PLA-I and Cur:GL.PLA-II indicate Cur (8.3 wt%):GL:PLA (1:3) and Cur (8.3 wt%):GL:PLA (1:4), respectively.” Graph has pure PLA, but is not described in the caption. Also the caption is overly complicated, the authors could adopt the wt.% as suggested earlier and avoid redescribing what samples “Cur:GL:PLA-I and Cur:GL.PLA-II” are. The authors should also add pure gelatin into the DSC as a comparison (and it is used as a control in Figure 5 anyway). Also where is gelatin’s endotherm?