Synthesis and X-ray Structures of Potential Light-Harvesting Ruthenium(II) Complexes
, Nathaniel Nisly, Tanner J. Henning, Kathryn A. Goerl, Madhubabu Alaparthi and Andrew G. SykesRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Attached documents contain my answers / responses are in red. Thank you so much for your comments / corrections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript „Synthesis and X-ray Structures of Potential Light-Harvesting Ruthenium(II) Complexes“ by K. Mariappan et al. is interesting science, as the compounds are of gerenal interest for experimental chemists.
The work can be best addressed as “factual and calculative correct” and can therefore be published with minor revisions.
Revision: Line 311, TiO2 the “2” need a subscripted typing
Note: The first paragraph is 100% politics … and well today people write that, but to the authors really want to tell me that Ru-compounds can significantly contribute to energy conversion and regenerative local energy supply?
Author Response
Attached documents contain my answers / responses are in red. Thank you so much for your comments / corrections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper submitted to Molchem is a contribution that does not contain new data, as far as the type of compounds that are reported in it is concerned. The authors have chosen to analyze spectroscopic data of 2 [Ru(II)(bipyR2)(bipy)2]2+ species , in which the R groups is COOH, or CH2OH and [Ru(II)(bipy(CH2OH))3]2+. These molecules are among those that play an important role in some specific applications such as the harwesting of solar energy with the help of Ru(bipy)3]2+ type ions. Why did the authors chose these substituents among the very numerous that are indeed possible ? The answer is not in the paper.
Anyway the paper consists in some comments about the spectroscopic data (UV-Vis absorption and emission spectra) as well as electrochemical studies, but no clear conclusion upon wether the data gathered would higlight the importance of the molecules chosen has been drawn.
The authors have chosen to submitt the paper as a communication. This is surprising because no cruxial brakethrough have been found as all data are in line with what is known in the literature for compounds closely related to those described here.
I would recommend the authors to be more ambitious and publish their paper as a full contribution by increasing the number of compounds with a larger variety of ligands, because there already exist many reports about the effects of electron-donating or electron-withdrawing ligands upon the photo-physical and electrochemical properties of related Ru(II) compounds
Author Response
My responses are in red. Thank you very much for your suggestion and comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
As the authors choose not to follow my recommandations to publish these data in a full paper, I stay on my first impression and do recommand rejection of the paper.
