Waste Biomass Originated Biocompatible Fluorescent Graphene Nano-Sheets for Latent Fingerprints Detection in Versatile Surfaces
, Ashutosh Kumar Dixit 2, Vignesh Kumaravel 3, Jamal S.M. Sabir 4,5, Irfan A. Rather 4,5,* and Shruti Shukla 6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study，waste chickpea seedswere bioprocessed and utilized for the synthesis of non-toxic graphene nano-sheets (GNS) with high fluorescence， which was used to detect latent fingerprints on multiple non-porous surfaces and have a Interesting results. However,the paper has a bad organization (1)the abstract has many type mistakes. (2)the discussion is less thorough. (3)the references are in Chaotic format (4)the XPS result is missing etc
Author Response
Reviewer # 1
In this study waste chickpea seeds were bioprocessed and utilized for the synthesis of non-toxic graphene nano-sheets (GNS) with high fluorescence which was used to detect latent fingerprints on multiple non-porous surfaces and have an interesting result. However, the paper has a bad organization:
Query (1) the abstract has many type mistakes.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, accordingly, we have now revised our abstract for typo mistakes and the manuscript has been proofread by the professional English language editing company.
Query (2) the discussion is less thorough.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, accordingly, discussion has been updated.
Query (3) the references are in Chaotic format.
Response: Thank you. Now, we have formatted references according to the journals’ style.
Query (4) the XPS result is missing etc.
Response: We are really thankful for the expert reviewer’s suggestion; the query raised to XPS characterization will enhance our understanding of the synthesized materials. For the same, we performed a detailed comparative FTIR, Raman and XRD analysis as shown in Figure 2. FTIR peaks related to various functional groups and bonds are identified as and described in the main manuscript. For the XPS analysis, our system is not working correctly, and performing the analysis at some other place requires a lot of time due to present tough situations. We hope this would be of consideration to the honorable reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, author has converted the waste chickpea seeds to non-toxic graphene nano-sheets (GNS) with high fluorescence by bioprocesses, which was further used in safe fingerprint detection. Meanwhile, the biocompatibility of synthesized material has been observed, and the anti-microbial property was enough. But there were many errors of format and lack of significance in this manuscript, and minor revision is recommended, and comments are listed below:
1. In introduction, could the content on the importance of fingerprint applications be streamlined?
2. Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in clearer, and write to define the problem.
3. The main problem statement and justification for the research has not been clearly stated.
4. In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.
5. What was the gas atmosphere in the pyrolysis process?
6. Why did author conduct the pyrolysis process under the temperature of 800 ºC?
7. There are the obvious errors about units, such as “800∘C for 2 h at a heating rate of 5º min-1” in Line 148, “9000oC for 2 h” in Line 220.
8. The format of 3.2.2 in Line 236-248 seems to be unreasonable.
9. The survey scan XPS spectrum of GNSs is not represented in Fig.2d and Fig. 2e.
10. The XRD spectrum of GNSs is not smooth enough.
11. There is no Y-axis and title in the Fig.2d, 2e, and 2f, which is suggested to add.
12. Table 1 should be represented in the format of three-line table.
13. Fig. 5b should be made more normally.
14. In the trials of fingerprint recognition applications, some materials currently applied and researched should be compared with the materials in this study.
15. Conclusions sections should be amended briefly.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer # 2
In this paper, author has converted the waste chickpea seeds to non-toxic graphene nano-sheets (GNS) with high fluorescence by bioprocesses, which was further used in safe fingerprint detection. Meanwhile, the biocompatibility of synthesized material has been observed, and the anti-microbial property was enough. But there were many errors of format and lack of significance in this manuscript, and minor revision is recommended, and comments are listed below:
- In introduction, could the content on the importance of fingerprint applications be streamlined?
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback, accordingly, we have now updated the content in the introduction section regarding importance of fingerprint applications.
- Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in clearer, and write to define the problem.
Response: Thank you very much for your scientific evaluation. We have now discussed the concerned matter in more scientific way to make the content clearer.
- The main problem statement and justification for the research has not been clearly stated.
Response: we have now clearly mentioned the problem statement and the justification in the conclusion section clearly, hope this will be acceptable to the honorable reviewer.
- In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, accordingly, we have now clearly mentioned about the replicates in the appropriate section of statistical analysis (average of 3 replicates and SD values( as well as regarding the rationale of the study.
- What was the gas atmosphere in the pyrolysis process?
Response: The pyrolysis of waste chickpea seeds was done in inert atmosphere under the flow of nitrogen gas. Thank you very much. We have now mentioned regarding the gas atmosphere of pyrolysis process.
- Why did author conduct the pyrolysis process under the temperature of 800 ºC?
Response: Thank you very much for your kind concern. We are fully agreed with expert reviewer that the pyrolysis temperature have considerable impact on the crystalline degree of carbon. For comparison the chickpea seeds were also pyrolyzed at 700 ºC and 900 ºC for 1 h. The performances of synthesized graphene nanosheets in both the cases were almost similar with graphene nanosheets synthesized at 800 ºC. Therefore, 800 ºC pyrolysis temperature was chosen for synthesis of graphene nanosheets and further for latent fingerprints detection application.
- There are the obvious errors about units, such as “800∘C for 2 h at a heating rate of 5º min-1” in Line 148, “9000oC for 2 h” in Line 220.
Response: Thank you very much for your eye catching and valuable feedback. Accordingly, we have revised and corrected the text. Kindly see in synthesis and results sections.
- The format of 3.2.2 in Line 236-248 seems to be unreasonable.
Response: Thank you very much. We have now formatted the concerned text according to the journal’s requirement.
- The survey scan XPS spectrum of GNSs is not represented in Fig. 2d and Fig. 2e.
Response: We are really thankful for the expert reviewer’s suggestion; the query raised to XPS characterization will enhance our understanding of the synthesized materials. For the same, we performed a detailed comparative FTIR, Raman and XRD analysis as shown in Figure 2. FTIR peaks related to various functional groups and bonds are identified as and described in the main manuscript. For the XPS analysis, our system is not working correctly, and performing the analysis at some other place requires a lot of time due to present tough situations. Figure 2 is modified in the revised manuscript.
- The XRD spectrum of GNSs is not smooth enough.
Response: 'Noise' in XRD pattern is relative entity. It appears large or small in comparison to peak data of sample. Ideally, one should not use 'programs' to 'reduce noise'. Noise will be 'constant background' for given set of parameters or settings in X-Ray diffraction experiment.
- There is no Y-axis and title in the Fig.2d, 2e, and 2f, which is suggested to add.
Response: Thank you very much for your scientific suggestions, accordingly, we have now provided the titles in Y axis of all concerned figures.
- Table 1 should be represented in the format of three-line table.
Response: We have now provided Table 1 in the concerned format as suggested by the honorable reviewer.
- Fig. 5b should be made more normally.
Response: Accordingly, concerned changes have been made in Fig. 5b.
- In the trials of fingerprint recognition applications, some materials currently applied and researched should be compared with the materials in this study.
Response: According to your feedback, we would like to give explaination that other tested class nanomaterials have been submitted as other long manuscript which gives us impression for not including here, however at the end of discussion par we have included the literature captured other nanomaterials for their applications in finger print detections. Hope this will be acceptable.
- Conclusions sections should be amended briefly.
Response: According to your suggestion, we have now amended the conclusion section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Query: Minor editing of English language required.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment, we have now proofread our manuscript for scientific English language editing. Hope you find the revised manuscript well adequate now.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the submitted manuscript „Waste biomass originated biocompatible fluorescent graphene nano-sheets for latent fingerprints detection in versatile surfaces” the Authors discuss the fluorescence properties of carbon dots obtained by carbonization of chickpeas with a view to application in latent fingerprint detection. The obtained carbon dots is also tested for its bactericidal properties. The description of the studies in the sections 3.3-3.6 on toxicity testing, antimicrobial properties, and fingerprint development is methodologically correct and the results obtained will certainly be of interest to researchers working on carbon dots for fingerprint recovery.
The sections 3.1, 3.2 on the characterization of the material, on the other hand, have been edited so sloppily that they basically do not lend themselves to a substantive assessment. These sections have been probably edited by researchers who show their ignorance of instrumental methods in materials testing, as evidenced, for example, by reference in the text to nonexist figures. This section should be rewritten if it were to be assessed on its merits.
The sections 3.1, 3.2 should be rewritten and require a thorough linguistic revision.
Author Response
Reviewer # 3
In the submitted manuscript “Waste biomass originated biocompatible fluorescent graphene nano-sheets for latent fingerprints detection in versatile surfaces” the Authors discuss the fluorescence properties of carbon dots obtained by carbonization of chickpeas with a view to application in latent fingerprint detection. The obtained carbon dots are also tested for their bactericidal properties. The description of the studies in the sections 3.3-3.6 on toxicity testing, antimicrobial properties, and fingerprint development is methodologically correct and the results obtained will certainly be of interest to researchers working on carbon dots for fingerprint recovery.
Query 1: The sections 3.1, 3.2 on the characterization of the material, on the other hand, have been edited so sloppily that they basically do not lend themselves to a substantive assessment. These sections have been probably edited by researchers who show their ignorance of instrumental methods in materials testing, as evidenced, for example, by reference in the text to non-exist figures. This section should be rewritten if it were to be assessed on its merits.
Response: Thank you very much for your scientific comments, accordingly, we have now edited both the sections (3.1 & 3.2) and provided the missing information following the concern of the honorable reviewer.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Query: The sections 3.1, 3.2 should be rewritten and require a thorough linguistic revision.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment, we have now proofread our manuscript for scientific English language editing. Hope you find the revised manuscript well adequate now.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript according to the referees’ comments point by point. After carefully checking the responses from the authors, it is found that the revised manuscript has been largely improved. Therefore, the revised manuscript is suggested to be accepted and published.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have incorporated my comments in the revised version of the manuscript.
