Probing the Local Polarity in Biocompatible Nanocarriers with Solvatofluorochromism of a 4-Carbazole-1,8-naphthalimide Dye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports on the synthesis of 4-carbazole-1,8-naphthalimide dye. The obtained dye was optically characterized in several organic solvents. The data presented show the value of the compound for assessing the polarity of polymeric nanocarriers.

The aim of the research is clear and experiments are well designed.

There are, however, some shortcomings, which needs to be addressed by the authors, as listed below:

1.     Synthetic procedures (p. 3):

·       line 107 -  the volume of water used for washing should be provided,

·       line 107 - the volume of diethyl ether used for washing should be provided,

·       for the better characterization of the compounds, their melting points should be added.

2.     All newly synthesized compounds should be also characterized by mass spectroscopy.

3.     Copies of NMR and MS spectra should be included in Supplementary Materials.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for taking the time to analyse our manuscript and provide valuable insights to improve its quality. We have addressed all comments, by adding the missing experimental details (line 111), additional characterization data (melting points, lines 113, 126 and 146, and high-resolution mass spectrometry, lines 115, 129 and 154) and including a supporting information file with NMR and MS spectra of compounds 1-3. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall a very interesting work with a broad range of potential applications, including photothermal and photodynamic therapy. A few minor points:

-Few english mistakes, eg lines 77 and 379.

-Some abbreviation explanations are missing or mentioned later than their first appearance.

-Results and discussion section could have two subsections.

-Line 101 it is Scheme 1 I presume.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for taking the time to analyse our manuscript and provide valuable insights to improve its quality. The manuscript was revised to correct English and referencing mistakes, as well as missing abbreviations. All changes were highlighted in the manuscript. After careful analysis, we believe that dividing section 3 in two sections (one for Results and another for Discussion) was viable but would break the flow of result analysis. By keeping one section, we aim at an immediate explanation for the observed results, before additional data is presented. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript is improved. The authors provide all necessary data. Thus, I think the presented manuscript  can be accept in present form.