Extraction of Carbon Nanodots from Benzoin Resin Soot for Multifaceted Antibacterial Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigate the role of carbon nanodots of benzoin resin soot in antibacterial, anti oral bacterial and anti-biofilm properties. However, some questions should be amended to improve the manuscript.

1. In Fig.2, the image bar was not clear, and  BRS-CNDs were not labeled.

2. In Fig.3, A and B diagrams were not marked.

3. In Fig.4,  the result figure was incomplete (words "Test organisms"), and there was no error bar in E.coli graph.

4. In Fig.5, A and B diagrams were not marked too, and there was no image bar in Epifluorescence images.

5. In Fig.6, figure 6C was incomplete too, and there was no image bar in figure 6B.

6. The overall work of the manuscript is insufficient, number of references did not meet the standard.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The authors investigate the role of carbon nanodots of benzoin resin soot in antibacterial, anti oral bacterial and anti-biofilm properties. However, some questions should be amended to improve the manuscript.

Ans. We would like to thank the Editor and the reviewers for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments. We have highlighted the changes made to the manuscript using track changes. We provide a point by point response to the comments below. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.

1. In Fig.2, the image bar was not clear, and  BRS-CNDs were not labeled.

Ans. Sorry about that , we have revised this fig. 2. thank you.

2. In Fig.3, A and B diagrams were not marked.

Ans. We apologize for that, marked now.

3. In Fig.4,  the result figure was incomplete (words "Test organisms"), and there was no error bar in coli graph.

Ans. Corrected and added error bars. Thank you for rightly pointing out.

4. In Fig.5, A and B diagrams were not marked too, and there was no image bar in Epifluorescence images.

Ans. Sorry about that, its marked now. And added scale bar.

5. In Fig.6, figure 6C was incomplete too, and there was no image bar in figure 6B.

Ans.Added. Thank you for your patience.

6. The overall work of the manuscript is insufficient, number of references did not meet the standard.

Ans.We have now done a thorough revision and have added a figure for the mechanism behind the antibiofilm activity of the carbon nanodots. We have also upgraded the references and added a discussion of the results. We thank you for your kind consideration. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research article entitled “Extraction of carbon nanodots from benzoin resin soot for multifaceted antibacterial applications” from authors Pranesh T, Gnanadeepam Raja and Judy Gopal is describing the beneficial properties of carbon nanodots from benzoin resin soot. I believe the manuscript has potential, but needs serious upgrade with more scientific relevance in the Introduction and more characterization analysis to make it more scientifically sound. Some suggestions are as follows:

1) The abstract lacks basic information on the focus and main conclusions drawn from the conducted study. 

2) Microorganisms mentioned throughout the manuscript should be written in italics. Why choosing mentioned microorganisms? 

3) The introduction part is in lack of scientific relevance and should offer an overview of current findings relevant to the study. What was done, what is the novelty of your research? More background on using nanodots for similar applications with provided references.

4) How are the nanodots produced? Only by collecting, ultrasonification and centrifugation? Was the purity of obtained nanodots determined?

5) I kindly suggest to perform additional analysis regarding characterization. What about XRD to determine the crystalline planes of carbon dots? Also, size distribution of produced nanodots should be necessary using either TEM or DLS technique. I believe the characterization part is insufficient and would suggest more analysis to be performed.

6) The scale is missing from SEM image (Figure 2). How can you know the sizes and how were the sizes determined (since it is not evident from the SEM images)?

7) I suggest improving FTIR spectra with adding mentioned peaks corresponding to the functional groups present at nanodots.

8) Figure 4 needs to be improved – to what does * and ** relate?

9) Figure 6 needs to be improved.

Additionally, too many grammar mistakes and the plagiarism detection is too high (49%). 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The research article entitled “Extraction of carbon nanodots from benzoin resin soot for multifaceted antibacterial applications” from authors Pranesh T, Gnanadeepam Raja and Judy Gopal is describing the beneficial properties of carbon nanodots from benzoin resin soot. I believe the manuscript has potential, but needs serious upgrade with more scientific relevance in the Introduction and more characterization analysis to make it more scientifically sound. Some suggestions are as follows:

Thank you for appreciating that our manuscript has potential. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments. We have highlighted the changes made to the manuscript using track changes. We provide a point by point response to the comments below. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.

 

• The abstract lacks basic information on the focus and main conclusions drawn from the conducted study.

Ans. We have rewritten the abstract. Thank you.

 

• Microorganisms mentioned throughout the manuscript should be written in italics. Why choosing mentioned microorganisms?

Ans. Modified. We have chosen pathogens that are predominantly responsible for infections in humans and oral pathogens. Thnak you.

 

• The introduction part is in lack of scientific relevance and should offer an overview of current findings relevant to the study. What was done, what is the novelty of your research? More background on using nanodots for similar applications with provided references.

Ans. We have revised the entire introduction. Thank you.

 

• How are the nanodots produced? Only by collecting, ultrasonification and centrifugation? Was the purity of obtained nanodots determined?

Ans. Yes the nanodots were isolated based on earlier reports and our earlier laboratory reports that used the reported procedure to isolate carbon nanodots. We have explained this in the discussion. Thank you.

 

• I kindly suggest to perform additional analysis regarding characterization. What about XRD to determine the crystalline planes of carbon dots? Also, size distribution of produced nanodots should be necessary using either TEM or DLS technique. I believe the characterization part is insufficient and would suggest more analysis to be performed.

Ans. We have provided size distribution histogram. XRD not taken, since in most cases we expect only amorphous carbon states. Thank you.

 

• The scale is missing from SEM image (Figure 2). How can you know the sizes and how were the sizes determined (since it is not evident from the SEM images)?

Ans.Added. Added size distribution histogram.

 

• I suggest improving FTIR spectra with adding mentioned peaks corresponding to the functional groups present at nanodots.

Ans. Improved the FTIR

 

• Figure 4 needs to be improved – to what does * and ** relate?

Ans. Modified.

 

• Figure 6 needs to be improved.

Ans. Improved

 

Additionally, too many grammar mistakes and the plagiarism detection is too high (49%).

Ans. We are sorry about that, we have now done a total rewrite of the manuscript, we assure you it will now be justified. Thank you .

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article complies with the introduction and objective, the appropriate methodology for the results is developed, the contribution can be seen in them. 

It is necessary to carry out a further discussion of each result, to contrast their results, other studies have been carried out for the control or elimination of bacteria, but there are no references in this work.

 

The conclusion can be improved, after improving the discussion of results, there will be lines of research that contribute to the generation of scientific knowledge. With solutions with a specific impact, and for what type of applications.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The article complies with the introduction and objective, the appropriate methodology for the results is developed, the contribution can be seen in them. 

Ans.Thank you for your encouraging words, we appreciate your time and efforts. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments. We have highlighted the changes made to the manuscript using track changes. We provide a point by point response to the comments below. Thank you for your time and valuable suggestions.

 

It is necessary to carry out a further discussion of each result, to contrast their results, other studies have been carried out for the control or elimination of bacteria, but there are no references in this work.

Ans. Yes, we understand, we have now added discussion and added references and discussed the results based on the previous work in the related area. Thank you.

 

The conclusion can be improved, after improving the discussion of results, there will be lines of research that contribute to the generation of scientific knowledge. With solutions with a specific impact, and for what type of applications.

Ans. We have worked on the conclusion and revised and added the expected points you have raised. Thank you very much.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made contributions according to recommendations to improve the quality of the work

The quality of Figure 1 and Figure 7 can be improved, it is suggested.