Quantification of Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone Preservatives by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography
, Manal Abudawood 1, Reem Alrashoudi 1, May Alrashed 1, Yazeed A. Alsheikh 1, Salma Alkaff 2,3, Manal Alghamdi 4 and Naif Alenzi 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
manuscript Development and verification of method for the detection of 2 Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone pre-3 servatives is reviewed and has the following limitations so not recommeded for publication in the present form
Research has been planned for the development of method for Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone whereas work has been conducted on the analysis and methodology do not support the title of the work and abstract information.
Usually the method development require the pure refernce material for recovery and linearity.
Methodology is based upon the simple analysis criteria to identify preservatives in the samples.
No od samples are less and do not have research strength.
Methodolgy also need improvement in respect of title and abstract
change the heading as analysis by High-performance Liquid Chromatography as detection is one part of technique by detector
Figures are very poor in resolution
Conclusion need more tangible
Author Response
Reviewer 1
General comments
The manuscript is revised as per the comments in the manuscript
Major comments
Research has been planned for the development of method for Methylisothiazolinone and Methylchloroisothiazolinone whereas work has been conducted on the analysis and methodology do not support the title of the work and abstract information.
The title and abstract are changed as per the methodology
Usually the method development require the pure reference material for recovery and linearity.
Pure reference material of MIT and CMIT was used. Linearity was performed using pure MIT and CMIT (refer Figure 4)
Methodology is based upon the simple analysis criteria to identify preservatives in the samples.
The method employed is simple, easy to determine and cost effective using available resources
No of samples are less and do not have research strength.
We acknowledge for less number of samples used. This is added in limitations of the study. However, the results can be still validated.
Methodology also need improvement in respect of title and abstract. change the heading as analysis by High-performance Liquid Chromatography as detection is one part of technique by detector
The title and abstract are edited. The heading is changed as per the suggestions
Figures are very poor in resolution
Unfortunately we cannot provide better resolution than the submitted figures
Conclusion need more tangible
Conclusion is revised as suggested
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract Line 22, now abbreviate methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone
Abstract. Use sentence case don't use unnecessary capital letters
Abstract. which validation acceptance criteria? name it
Keywords. must be different from title page
Line 73. in a fixed ratio of 3:1 of CMIT and crucirespectively, not understandable
In the introduction, there is no discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the recently reported methods. What is the problem of the previous studies that need to be solved? What is the meaning and innovation of this work? The advance of this work compared with other works should be given in detail.
No rational for present study was given
In experimental section, sampling details with their codes were not provided
Validation study parameters were not explained in experimental section
Which guidelines were followed for validation studies, no details were provided
The method adopted was not compare with the reported methods for determination of MIT and CMIT
Tabulate the results and compare the results on basis of the validation parameters
Conclusion is very weak
Author Response
Reviewer 2
General comments
The manuscript is revised as per the comments marked for the manuscript
Major comments
Abstract Line 22, now abbreviate methylisothiazolinone and methylchloroisothiazolinone
Changes made as suggested
Abstract. Use sentence case don't use unnecessary capital letters
Corrections inserted
Abstract. which validation acceptance criteria? name it
Validation acceptance criteria from EU25 European Union for cosmetic regulations was adopted
Keywords. must be different from title page
Corrections inserted
Line 73. in a fixed ratio of 3:1 of CMIT and crucirespectively, not understandable
3:1 of CMIT and MIT. It was a typing error and corrected
In the introduction, there is no discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the recently reported methods. What is the problem of the previous studies that need to be solved? What is the meaning and innovation of this work? The advance of this work compared with other works should be given in detail.
The suggested recommendations are added in the introduction section
No rational for present study was given
The rationale of the study inserted in the manuscript in introduction.
In experimental section, sampling details with their codes were not provided
Details included in the experimental section
Validation study parameters were not explained in experimental section
Validation study parameters are included in the method section (Table 3)
Which guidelines were followed for validation studies, no details were provided
Guidelines from EU25 European Union for cosmetic regulations were followed
The method adopted was not compare with the reported methods for determination of MIT and CMIT
The method is compared with previous reported studies in Result and discussion section of the manuscript
Tabulate the results and compare the results on basis of the validation parameters
Table inserted in the manuscript as suggested.
Conclusion is very weak
Conclusion is revised as advised.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Concept of the manuscript is not clear
Author Response
Thanks for the review comment to build the manuscript up to the mark.
Comments in round 2
Concept of the manuscript is not clear
All the comments in previous revision were reconsidered and changes inserted and highlighted. Manuscript is revised to clarify the concept.
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript in its current form reached the level for final acceptance for publication
Author Response
Thanks for the comment
