The Role of Modification of the Structure of Water and Water-Containing Systems in Changing Their Biological, Therapeutic, and Other Properties Overview
, Boris Laptev 1, Nikolay Gorlenko 3, Leonid Antoshkin 4, Andrej Vidmar 2 and Andrej Kryžanowski 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- What's innovative about this article?
- Language editing is recommended prior to publication to further improve the quality of paper.
- What is the main point of this article?It is supposed to be an overview article.
- In this paper, effects of different factors on the structures of water molecules were introduced, but the relative analysis on how factors affect the water structures was lacked.
- “Discussion” section should be added in this paper.
- What do the authors want to let the readers know from this article and how to carry out the research on the structures of water molecules in the future?
- In conclusion, some references should not be cited. The content of the paper should be better summarized. Please revise.
Author Response
Thank you for your effort. Our response is in the submitted file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- As the manuscript is written, the variations in the electrophysical properties of water systems were attributed to changes of the water structure. However, there are no enough experimental or simulation arguments presented here to support this topic. There is a lack of more direct evidence demonstrating the structural change of water system occurs when exposed to magnetic and light fields.
- Maybe, extra work should also be done to illuminate how these changes in water structure effect the biological, therapeutic, and other properties of water systems reported here.
- Line 20: do the authors mean “… The effects of temperature and magnetic field …”.
- line 84: do the authors mean “… water clusters up to 400 nm in size formed …”
- line 85: do the authors mean “… Giant water clusters(GWK) with size up to 100 µm were found … ”
Author Response
Thank you for your effort. Our response is in the submitted file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is somewhat confusing. There is no clear distinction between the experiments and data that the authors obtained with the data collected from other authors. For instance, several figures presented in the text are attributed to other previous studies.
A thorough English revision is mandatory. The phrase constructs some sections of the document is poor, and the sentences verb tense is, often, inexistent or inappropriate. Figures 2 and 3 axes, lines 374 to 379 and references 1 to 49 should be translated to English. Proof editing by a native English speaker is advisable.
The references cited in the text should be introduced is ascending order. For instance, the first reference cited in the text should be numbered [1] instead of [6], and so on.
The following issues related to the paper scientific content should be better explained.
On lines 132-133, please further elaborate on how the electric capacity can be used for the assessment of the water structure.
On lines 163-165, it is not clear for which of the two presented distances (5000 to 5 µm and 75 to 25 µm) the authors claim that the resistance in electrical capacitance was more pronounced.
On lines 224-226, the authors state “In this case, more pronounced changes in electrical parameters observe at a distance from the solid (glass in this study) surface of fewer than 10,000 microns for distilled water and less than 75 microns for aqueous solutions of sodium chloride”. How do the authors come to this conclusion? Please explain further.
In Figure 4, what does Ti(%) represents? What does the x axis (temperature) represent? Is it the air temperature, the water temperature, (initial temperature, final temperature)? This figure needs to be thoroughly explained in the text.
On lines 266-267, please explain further what is the relative duration of temperature changes Ti(%) by one ºC. No suitable explanation of this parameter is given in the text.
On lines 221-222, the authors link the rise in the solutions electric capacity to the increase in dipoles mobility. How can, therefore, in line 308-309 the electrical capacity increase (in low frequencies) be compatible with a decrease in the dipoles mobility?
The sentence in lines 418-420 is rather confusing, Please rearrange this sentence.
In line 421, please explain what was the used control. (non-magnetized curative mud?)
Also In line 439, please explain what was the used control.
Author Response
Our response to all your comments is in the submitted file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Reviewer 3 Report
Although this paper has improved from the initial version, it still needs further improvement in order to be considered for publication.
Again, a thorough English revision is highly advisable. The phrase constructs in some sections of the document is still poor or inadequate at times. Proof editing by a native English speaker is advisable.
The following issues related to the paper scientific content should be better explained:
- On the following issue: “On lines 163-165, it is not clear for which of the two presented distances (5000 to 5 µm and 75 to 25 µm) the authors claim that the resistance in electrical capacitance was more pronounced.”, the performed changes did little to improve the sentence readability. It is still not clear for which of the two presented distances (5000 to 5 µm and 75 to 25 µm) the authors claim that the resistance in electrical capacitance was more pronounced. Furthermore, isn’t the 75 to 25 µm encompassed within the 5000 to 5 µm (or was it another experiment)?
- Again, In the Ti (%) equation, what does ti represents? Furthermore, please number the equations on text.
