Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very well designed and written. The flow of the article is well appreciable. References are adequate for the article. Following queries need to be addressed.

1. Add some Quantitative critical findings in the abstract.
2. Most of the time, authors have written: “described in [11] or reported in [11]”. It advised adding relevant information for the benefit of the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- Pag 1 line 42 change [7,8,9] for [7-9]

- 2. Materials and Methods, include information about purification materials or used as received

- Pag 2, line 92 revise if is correct this information “[0]8”

- Manuscript needs revision by native English speaking (are was the mass?)

- Manuscript has some interesting results but has no discussion, include it for all figures

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx