China Rose/Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Pollen-Mediated Phytosynthesis of Silver Nanoparticles and Their Catalytic Activity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Kumar et al. reported the synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) using double petals China rose/Hibiscus-sinensis pollen as a natural reducing and stabilizing agent. The work is well conceived, and the results are clearly presented. However, an English language review of the manuscript shall be done. I also recommend some corrections in the following sections:
1. Introduction, line 43: change “instruments” by “techniques” and “scheme” by “pathway”
2.3. Photocatalytic Test of AgNPs, line 3: change “…H2O mL was added to 5 mL TF…” by “…H2O was added to a 5 mL solution of TF…”
3.3. Visual and UV-Vis Studies of AgNPs Synthesized by H. Rosa-Sinensis Pollen
line 3: explain or remove the statement “by chemical methods or by greener methods”.
line 11: change “peak” by “band”
line 19: change “corresponding particles were in a range of 10 – 40 nm” by “corresponding to particles size within the range of 10 to 40 nm”
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #1:
Kumar et al. reported the synthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) using double petals China rose/Hibiscus-sinensis pollen as a natural reducing and stabilizing agent. The work is well conceived, and the results are clearly presented. However, an English language review of the manuscript shall be done. I also recommend some corrections in the following sections:
Comments: In revised version, grammar of manuscript is corrected by English speaker. All references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript is revised and also formatted in journal style.
- Introduction, line 43: change “instruments” by “techniques” and “scheme” by “pathway”
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.
Photocatalytic Test of AgNPs, line 3: change “…H2O mL was added to 5 mL TF…” by “…H2O was added to a 5 mL solution of TF…”
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.
line 3: explain or remove the statement “by chemical methods or by greener methods”.
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion and the statement “by chemical methods or by greener methods” was removed.
line 11: change “peak” by “band”
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.
line 19: change “corresponding particles were in a range of 10 – 40 nm” by “corresponding to particles size within the range of 10 to 40 nm”
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
(The manuscript is at times difficult to read because of the grammatical errors.)
The introduction is somewhat weak, pointing in several directions without being rigorous or detailed about the information.
I am not convinced that the authors did prepare silver metal nanoparticles as claimed. The small surface plasmon resonance peak that appears only as a shoulder around 400 nm on the UV-visible spectrum is concerning, and so is the brownish tint of the solution. Could there be some form of silver oxide nanoparticles instead, especially after having the mixture react for several days? Did the authors see any silver metal depositing in the bottom of the brownish-tinted solution? I feel that because the surface plasmon resonance signal is weak, the authors would need a powder XRD (x-ray diffraction) or EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) analysis to better supplement their claim. I am not sure that the SAED pattern is enough (could the authors provide a more thorough analysis?).
It is also not entirely clear why the Thioflavin dye was chosen. Are we looking at a decomposition of the Thioflavin dye actually being “catalyzed” by the silver/pollen mixture (that is, do we then see the same decomposition products with and without the mixture)? Or are the authors only showing that the silver/pollen mixture reacts in some way with the dye?
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #2:
(The manuscript is at times difficult to read because of the grammatical errors.)
Comments: In revised version, grammar of manuscript is corrected by English speaker.
The introduction is somewhat weak, pointing in several directions without being rigorous or detailed about the information.
I am not convinced that the authors did prepare silver metal nanoparticles as claimed. The small surface plasmon resonance peak that appears only as a shoulder around 400 nm on the UV-visible spectrum is concerning, and so is the brownish tint of the solution. Could there be some form of silver oxide nanoparticles instead, especially after having the mixture react for several days? Did the authors see any silver metal depositing in the bottom of the brownish-tinted solution? I feel that because the surface plasmon resonance signal is weak, the authors would need a powder XRD (x-ray diffraction) or EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) analysis to better supplement their claim. I am not sure that the SAED pattern is enough (could the authors provide a more thorough analysis?).
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion and new UV-Vis graph was plotted at different time intervals to confirm its SPR (Figure 3d). Now I am shifted to India and not possible to perform XRD/ EDX. So, we cited our and other researcher work for the proof.
It is also not entirely clear why the Thioflavin dye was chosen. Are we looking at a decomposition of the Thioflavin dye actually being “catalyzed” by the silver/pollen mixture (that is, do we then see the same decomposition products with and without the mixture)? Or are the authors only showing that the silver/pollen mixture reacts in some way with the dye?
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion. Yes, we are looking for TF degradation. Numerous researches were performed on degradation of methylene blue and methyl orange dye.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the Authors
1. In the introduction section authors should discuss the advantages of AgNPs over other nanoparticles. For this author should follow the following articles as a references and discussion:
a. doi.org/10.1007/s11164-020-04165-0
b. doi.org/10.1002/slct.201900470
2. The quality of the figure 3 d should be improved.
3. Author should provide a histogram of AgNPs size or marked in the microscopic images with their size.
4. Marked the XRD peak in the figure 2(b)
5. Few grammatical errors are present in the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #3:
- In the introduction section authors should discuss the advantages of AgNPs over other nanoparticles. For this author should follow the following articles as a references and discussion:
- doi.org/10.1007/s11164-020-04165-0
- doi.org/10.1002/slct.201900470
Comments: In revised version, both suggested references are added and cited.
- The quality of the figure 3 d should be improved.
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion and new UV-Vis graph was also plotted (Figure 3d).
- Author should provide a histogram of AgNPs size or marked in the microscopic images with their size.
Comments: In revised version, it is corrected as per suggestion and histogram for AgNPs distribution is plotted using ImageJ software (Figure 5d).
- Marked the XRD peak in the figure 2(b)
Comments: Pollen grain extract is pure organic and we doesn’t observe any metal peak in XRD pattern (Figure 2b).
- Few grammatical errors are present in the manuscript.
Comments: In revised version, English grammar of manuscript is corrected by English speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
Author Response
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #1:
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Comments: In revised version, grammar and typing mistakes of of manuscript is corrected
The manuscript can be accepted in the present form.
Comments: Thanks for the positive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the corrections.
I approve of the revised manuscript, except for one detail:
In Figure 3d, the consecutive spectra near the SPR peak show an isosbestic point around 380 nm, except for the spectrum at 30 days. The latter also has an odd shape--I think that something else is going on here. I strongly suggest that the authors remove the spectrum at 30 days from Figure 3d, but keep the other spectra there.
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #2:
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Comments: In the revised version, grammar and typing mistakes of of manuscript is corrected
I approve of the revised manuscript, except for one detail:
In Figure 3d, the consecutive spectra near the SPR peak show an isosbestic point around 380 nm, except for the spectrum at 30 days. The latter also has an odd shape--I think that something else is going on here. I strongly suggest that the authors remove the spectrum at 30 days from Figure 3d, but keep the other spectra there.
Comments: Thanks for the positive comments. In the revised version, spectrum for 30 days is removed and figure 3d is corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I recomend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work for consideration for publication in the Journal of Composites Science. Thanks to our editor and reviewers who provided valuable input and detailed explanation. All the comments stated in the revision note focuses on improving the clarity and quality of our study. We hope that the revised version meets with the expectations of the journal for its publication.
The revised statement is highlighted in yellow color text representing each comment
Reviewer #3:
I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Comments: Thanks for the positive comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
All requested (minor) changes have been applied.
