Controlled Nickel Nanoparticles: A Review on How Parameters of Synthesis Can Modulate Their Features and Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The concept of the review article is beneficial to the general audience. However, in general, this review is poorly written. There are a lot of strange or incorrect grammatical structures that make the text difficult to follow (highlighted in the text). The literature is outdated; the newest article cited is a review from 2020.
In the introduction, gold is mentioned, suggesting that the authors copied this section from somewhere.
Eq 9, 10, 12, incorrect stochiometry.
Figure 5 is described by each section A, B, and so on, but then suddenly, it is referred to as the whole Figure 5, which is very confusing and makes it incomprehensible.
2.3 reaction temperature section is one colossal paragraph that is difficult to read.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is of poor quality. There are a lot of strange or incorrect grammatical structures that make the text difficult to follow
Author Response
Dear Dr. Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find attached the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and pertinent comments. We consider the revisions we made, motivated by the report, to have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thus, we kindly ask you to consider the new version of the manuscript for publication in AppliedChem.
Prof. Dr. Thenner Silva Rodrigues
Nanotechnology Engineering Program
Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies, and Research in Engineering
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript attempted to provide a comprehensive review of the controllable synthesis of nickel nanoparticles from the perspective of influencing factors, incorporating numerous references. However, the organization of the article is not well. Several key points need to be considered:
1. The preparation methods of nickel nanoparticles, including their mechanisms, processes, and operational steps, should be introduced specifically at the beginning. Currently, this part is completely missing in the manuscript.
2. Regarding controllable synthesis, the focus should be on controlling the properties of the resulting products, rather than just controlling the operational parameters. It is necessary to discuss how to control the morphology, size, and other aspects of the products, instead of discussing the influences of various factors as it is currently done.
3. Many materials mentioned do not appear to be nanoparticles. It may be more appropriate to describe them as nanostructured materials or nanomaterials.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find attached the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and pertinent comments. We consider the revisions we made, motivated by the report, to have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thus, we kindly ask you to consider the new version of the manuscript for publication in AppliedChem.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript review"Controlled Nickel Nanoparticles: A Review on How Parameters of Synthesis Can Modulate Their Features and Properties " reports the influence of certain physico-chemical parameters (precursor concentration, reducing agent concentration, temperature, reaction time, capping agent nature and concentration) on the synthesis of nickel nanoparticles with a controlled morphology (size, structure, shape, etc.) The aspects presented in this paper make a significant contribution to the field of nanoscience, contributing to the development of innovative materials with a multitude of applications in fields of great practical interest (electrodes, biomaterials, batteries, solar cells, etc.) The work is suitable for publication in the Journal AppliedChem.
The conclusions are relevant and supported by the arguments, being of interest for the readership Accordingly, I consider that this manuscript appropriate for publication, taking into account the following comments and suggestions.
1. For a better understanding, the paper should contain a table of contents.
2. Looking at the synthesis of metallic nanoparticles, an important problem faced by researchers is the separation and purification of nanoparticles. The manuscript should also present some aspects regarding the separation of nickel nanoparticles.
3. Eq. 4 page 4 is incorrect. Rred +ne- →Roxi should be Rred -ne- →Roxi
4. Eq 14, pag. 5 does not respect stoichiometry is also incorrect, please check.
5. Fig. 4B is unclear, the image resolution should be improved.
6. For such a large and well-documented work, the conclusions should be improved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Dr. Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find attached the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and pertinent comments. We consider the revisions we made, motivated by the report, to have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thus, we kindly ask you to consider the new version of the manuscript for publication in AppliedChem.
Prof. Dr. Thenner Silva Rodrigues
Nanotechnology Engineering Program
Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies, and Research in Engineering
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I congratulate the authors on the manuscript's advance. I would like to see more recent examples of nickel nanoparticles syntheses, but I accept your improvement.
In the text, I found only two places that should be changed (highlighted in yellow). I understand why the authors added a purification section, but the method of separation had minimal influence on nanomaterials' morphology or size; thus, this section should not be such a large part of the conclusions. When it comes to conclusions, they are lacking and seem more like introductions than actual conclusions. if I may suggest, it would be nice to see a sort of recipe in this section: if you want spherical NPs, use these conditions; if nanorods, then this... please rethink
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Dr. Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comment 1: Highlight markers in text.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comments. In our revised manuscript, we replaced the term highlighted in red.
Comment 2: I understand why the authors added a purification section, but the method of separation had minimal influence on nanomaterials' morphology or size; thus, this section should not be such a large part of the conclusions. When it comes to conclusions, they are lacking and seem more like introductions than actual conclusions.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In our revised manuscript, we have rewritten the conclusion segment highlighted in red.
Comment 3: If I may suggest, it would be nice to see a sort of recipe in this section: if you want spherical NPs, use these conditions; if nanorods, then this... please rethink
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. In our revised manuscript, we wrote three summaries in sections: 2.1. (Reducing Agent), 2.2. (Stabilizing agent), 2.3. (Reaction temperature), and conclusion highlighted in red.
We thank the reviewer for the careful reading and pertinent comments. We consider the revisions we made, motivated by the report, to have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.
Thus, we kindly ask you to consider the new version of the manuscript for publication in AppliedChem.
Prof. Dr. Thenner Silva Rodrigues
Nanotechnology Engineering Program
Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies, and Research in Engineering
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have revised the manuscript carefully. I think it can be accepted for pubilication in current stage.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comment: The authors have revised the manuscript carefully. I think it can be accepted for pubilication in current stage.
Response: Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you found the revision satisfactory. Based on your assessment, I we believe that the manuscript appears to be ready for publication in its current state.
We thank the reviewer once again for the careful reading and pertinent comments, which significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. Thus, we kindly ask you to consider the new version of the manuscript for publication in AppliedChem.
Prof. Dr. Thenner Silva Rodrigues
Nanotechnology Engineering Program
Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies, and Research in Engineering
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
