Aquatic Toxicity of Photocatalyst Nanoparticles to Green Microalgae Chlorella vulgaris
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review focuses on the toxicity and related mechanisms of photocatalytic nanoparticles to Chlorella vulgaris. It is composed of two parts, the first part which describes the methods of culture, monitoring and growth parameters of C. vulgaris, the second one which goes into the focus of the discussion. In general, the topic is nice and comprehensively described, but I suggest publication after revisions.
The two parts, however, do not seem well structured, but seem descriptions of topics that have no logical connection. It would be better to rewrite the first part by making it more fluid, and connecting it to the second topic (as expressed in the title).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The article was written where it was needed, for better clarity. New paragraphs were introduced or changed.
Kind regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe the impact of Chlorella Vulgaris in the aquatic ecosystem. In particular, the toxicity of photocatalyst nanoparticles and mechanism of photocatalyst during oxidative stress on the photosynthetic mechanism of Chlorella Vulgaris was investigated. The most tested nanoparticles for algae toxicity are ZnO, TiO2, Ag, NiO. The application of more than 20 ppm of nanoparticles could have negative impacts on the growth and physiology of aquatic biology.
The review is interesting and the topic is well described but the English usage needs to be improved and some typo errors are present within the text.
The manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions, as specified below:
Table 1: Please specify TG 201 in the caption
Page 3, Line 76: reference [30] was repeated
Page 4, Lines 111, 118, 119, 125, 126, 133, 134, 223: Clorophyll a, A, b, B, a or -a should be uniformed
Page 5, Line 149: Please specify what "mu" represents
Page 5 Line 178: Please add this reference: Carlucci et al., Sci. Adv. Mater. 2014, 6, 1668-1675
Page 6, Table 3: there is no need to repeat “NP concentrations” throughout the column when it is already present in the caption and the measurement units (microM, microg L−1, mg/L, mg L−1) should be uniform
Page 8, Line 227: Please replace K et al. with Ko et al.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your interest in our paper, the following amendments will improve the paper, accordingly with your observations.
The review is interesting and the topic is well described but the English usage needs to be improved and some typo errors are present within the text.
Answer: The English correction was fixed.
The manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions, as specified below:
Table 1: Please specify TG 201 in the caption
Answer: The TG 201 was specified.
Page 3, Line 76: reference [30] was repeated
Answer: The correction was made.
Page 4, Lines 111, 118, 119, 125, 126, 133, 134, 223: Clorophyll a, A, b, B, a or -a should be uniformed
Answer: The correction was made.
Page 5, Line 149: Please specify what "mu" represents
Answer: This paragraph was deleted.
Page 5 Line 178: Please add this reference: Carlucci et al., Sci. Adv. Mater. 2014, 6, 1668-1675
Answer: I do not understand, why I must add this reference?
Page 6, Table 3: there is no need to repeat “NP concentrations” throughout the column when it is already present in the caption and the measurement units (microM, microg L−1, mg/L, mg L−1) should be uniform
Answer: The uniformity was ensured.
Page 8, Line 227: Please replace K et al. with Ko et al.
Answer: The correction was made.
Reviewer 3 Report
The review concerns an interesting and important topic. Moreover, the topic fits the scope of the journal.
However, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication due to a large amount of similarities >30% (please see the report attached). I would recommend to correct the manuscript and resubmit the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear review,
The paper was rewritten and revised carefully to avoid the similarities. Some paragraphs also were identified as similarities, but a proper citation was made.
Our university also has access at Turnitin but, some times this software was a few disadvantages. The software does not take into account the similar text but which was introduced as a reference.
Kind regards,
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was improved as suggested. However, minor revisions are required before the manuscript is accepted for publication.
- Chlorella vulgaris must be reported in italic in every section.
- References section: some journals are abbreviated and some are not, some references are incomplete (some miss authors, the journal name or the volume or pages), the format is not the same all over…. (for example, ref. 11, 19, 29, 38). Please, check all references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for help us to improve the paper. The suggested revisions were made.
1. Chlorella vulgaris must be reported in italic in every section
Answer: The modification was realized in all paper.
2. References section: some journals are abbreviated and some are not, some references are incomplete (some miss authors, the journal name or the volume or pages), the format is not the same all over…. (for example, ref. 11, 19, 29, 38). Please, check all references.
Answer: The references were correct as in journal examples.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have reviewed the use of the Chlorella Vulgaris for Aquatic Toxicity assessment of Photocatalyst Nanoparticles. They have discussed among others this microalgae culture growth parameters and the mechanism of nanoparticles toxicity towards them.
In general, this small review is written correctly. However, some improvements can be made. I have listed them below:
- A review article must explain the significant advances and understanding based on many literature positions and/or demonstrate your vision for future work convincingly. The conclusions of your paper are especially important for this. Therefore, please try to sharpen this further.
- Language needs many improvements. Please work through the MS carefully from this perspective.
- L15 and further: “Chlorella Vulgaris” should be written italic.
- “dw” abbreviation should be explained.
- “are presenting in Table 1.” – presented?
- L77: “[22] [23].” Improper citation style, should be corrected also further.
- “content is measured centrifugation”- English.
- L165: why do you write ??∙ italic?
- L165: also other reactive species than hydroxyl radical can be generated in the photocatalytic systems.
- “there are UV-light active materials and absorbs a small portion of the solar spectrum (4–5%), [65].” It should be mentioned that they can be modified to gain better efficiency: https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2019-0016
- L245: you write hydroxyl radical OH and HO; you should decide and unify it (probably the most proper way is to write it like this: OH).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for spending time to review our paper, in order to improve the final version.
Below are the punctual answers to your observations.
- A review article must explain the significant advances and understanding based on many literature positions and/or demonstrate your vision for future work convincingly. The conclusions of your paper are especially important for this. Therefore, please try to sharpen this further
Answer: The paper was improved your observations accordingly.
- Language needs many improvements. Please work through the MS carefully from this perspective.
Answer: The language was improved.
- L15 and further: “Chlorella Vulgaris” should be written italic.
Answer: The correction was made in all manuscript.
- “dw” abbreviation should be explained.
Answer: The abbreviation was explained in the text.
- “are presenting in Table 1.” – presented?
Answer: The correction was made.
- L77: “[22] [23].” Improper citation style, should be corrected also further.
Answer: The citations were properly modified. The references were adapted to the journal requirements.
- “content is measured centrifugation”- English.
Answer: The correction was made.
- L165: why do you write ??∙ italic?
Answer: It is not necessary using the italic font, the correction was made.
- L165: also other reactive species than hydroxyl radical can be generated in the photocatalytic systems.
Answer: Because, the mechanism of photocatalysis is discussed later the supplementary explanations was introduced in text: “Heterogeneous photocatalysis is an advanced oxidation process for pollutants degradation by generating hydroxyl radicals, electron-hole pairs ( and superoxide radicals () [61] The hydroxyl radicals react with organic pollutants and transform them into mineral constituents or in less toxic compounds [1]. The mechanism of photocatalysis is explained in Section 4.”
- “there are UV-light active materials and absorbs a small portion of the solar spectrum (4–5%), [65].” It should be mentioned that they can be modified to gain better efficiency: https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-2019-0016
Answer: Because, in this mini-review, the discussion was made around the most used photocatalyst (undoped and no heterojunction between semiconductors), we do not extend this discussion on other photocatalysts. However, a supplementary explanation was introduced in text: “Numerous research were also developed in the past twenty years, to efficiently use the solar energy and design new photocatalyst active under visible light irradiation [67].”
- L245: you write hydroxyl radical OH and HO; you should decide and unify it (probably the most proper way is to write it like this: OH).
Answer: The hydroxyl radicals was written uniform in the paper.
Kind regards,
Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript according to most of my comments; therefore, I can recommend it for publication.
Some small errors should be improved still through the proofing stage, e.g., L237: "increasingcells’"
