Next Article in Journal
Green Building Concepts and Technologies in Ethiopia: The Case of Wegagen Bank Headquarters Building
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Methodology for the Development of an Open Source Experimental Platform for Control Courses
Previous Article in Journal
Tool Wear Characteristics and Strengthening Method of the Disc Cutter for Nomex Honeycomb Composites Machining with Ultrasonic Assistance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electronic Structure Calculation of Cr3+ and Fe3+ in Phosphor Host Materials Based on Relaxed Structures by Molecular Dynamics Simulation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Phenylcarbamate-Modified Paper for Paper Chromatographic Analysis of Hydrophobic Compounds

by Bungo Ochiai 1,*, Seiya Koseki 1 and Yoshimasa Matsumura 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Submission received: 26 October 2022 / Revised: 9 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart Systems (SmaSys2022))

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript entitled Phenylcarbamate-modified paper for paper chromatographic analysis of hydrophobic compounds”, authors modified the filter paper with phenyl isocyanate (PI-FP), successfully prepared a stationary phase containing phenyl carbamate moieties which can be used in low polarity materials. The results show that the paper modified by PI-FP has good separation performance. However, there are some insufficient parts in the present form. I recommend that this paper can be published after minor modification. The detailed comments are listed below:

1.     The introduction of the manuscript needs further improvement.

2.     The purity of reagents used during the experiments should be described in the manuscript.

3.     Figure 1 does not look good. It needs to be modified more formally.

4.     How about the cycle stability of the prepared paper?

5.     English language needs to be improved throughout the manuscript.

 

6.     Authors should carefully examine the references to keep a consistent format.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1

 

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. We revised our manuscript per your advice. The point-by-point responses are indicated below, and the changes we made are noted in red in the revised manuscript.

 

  1. The introduction of the manuscript needs further improvement.

The introduction was revised according to your comments. In addition, we corrected some awkward connections between paragraphs and added some new citations.

  1. The purity of reagents used during the experiments should be described in the manuscript.

We added the purity of the reagents in the revised version. However, the purity of the three dyes were not disclosed, and the lot numbers of these dyes are indicated instead.

  1. Figure 1 does not look good. It needs to be modified more formally.

We corrected the style of Figure 1.

  1. How about the cycle stability of the prepared paper?

The papers become slightly wrinkled after being washed and dried. Accordingly, we did not examine the cycle stability. For reuse, the optimization of the drying process will be necessary, and we will try it in the following work.

 

  1. English language needs to be improved throughout the manuscript.

              We corrected some grammatical flaws in the revised version.

 

  1. Authors should carefully examine the references to keep a consistent format.

              We checked the styles of the references and corrected the format.

Reviewer 2 Report

Bungo Ochiai et al. presented an extension of paper chromatography to compounds previously unavailable. Modification of the paper was carried out under laboratory conditions using phenyl isocyanate. The morphology of the paper was preserved, which the authors confirmed by the SEM analysis. Experiments were performed for positive and negative ClogP dyes. The authors demonstrated that the PI modification could be applied to preparative dye separation. The manuscript is well-written; however, at this stage, it is required to answer the following questions:

How many paper strips were prepared for each experiment? Were statistics investigating the scatter of results performed? Please enrich the analysis by giving the reproducibility of the effects obtained for two specific substances.


Please provide the algorithm used during the analysis in ImageJ (which functions, with which parameters, in which order).

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript. We revised our manuscript per your advice. The point-by-point responses are indicated below, and the changes we made are noted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment

How many paper strips were prepared for each experiment?

Answer

Three or more slips were used for each development experiment, and the averages are indicated. This was added in the experimental section of the revised version.

 

Comments

Were statistics investigating the scatter of results performed?

Please enrich the analysis by giving the reproducibility of the effects obtained for two specific substances.

 

Answer

We carelessly lost some of data, and we are not able to provide sufficient data for statistic analysis. Instead, we improved the supplementary materials.

 

Comment
Please provide the algorithm used during the analysis in ImageJ (which functions, with which parameters, in which order).

Answer

The method to determine the Rf values was added in the revised manuscript, as indicated below.

Color images were converted to gray-scale images. Relationships between color depths and the development direction were made from plot profiles of gray values. An Rf value was calculated by averaging positions with relative concentrations higher than 90% in an image. Triplicate experiments were carried out, and the averaged Rf values are indicated.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all my questions. I believe that the manuscript in its present form is suitable for publication.

Back to TopTop