Extraction and Synthesis of Silicon Nanoparticles (SiNPs) from Sugarcane Bagasse Ash: A Mini-Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title:

The title is not showing what is in the paper.

 

Figure #1:

• Need to improve the quality of the text

 

Table #1:

• Missing units (or state clearly that it is a.u.)

 

Line 110-130 there is a problem with the editing

 

Lines 130-135:

• It is not clear what is the purpose of educating us how to prepare SiNPs from cysteine silicon wafer, where in this paper it should describe the

 

Lines 136-137: need to fix editing

 

Line 159: editing

 

In general 2.1 and 2.2 are not helping to understand the why and how SiNPs are done in this work and what are the reason there are other Silicon NP forming techniques

 

Lines 192-193: editing

Lines 205, 208: editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors review various methods that derive silicone nanoparticles from sugarcane bagasse. The narration was adequate and is publishable with following edits

• Provide some pictorial representations of the experimental set-up for electrochemical and ball milling processes to make this review follow a subtle and interesting flow.
• Provide a description of the flowchart presented at Figure 3.
• Remove spaces between numbers in lines 73, and 76.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Generally, authors submitted a good-written mini-review about the fabrication of fine silicon nanoparticles from agricultural wastes. However, a few mistakes have been found in the text and should be improved:

1. Page 1, lines 33-35 - quartz is a crystalline form of silica. I don't understand this highlight.
2. Page 4, line 101 - table 1 description should be improved.
3. Page 4, lines 110-129 - presented calculation are barely readable, it should be better edited.
4. Pages 5-7, lines 136, 137, 159, 192, 193, 205, 208, 234-236, 248-251 - presented reactions should be better edited and numbered continuously.
5. Page 7, line 201 - the sentence 'Silica xerogels by sol-gel method' sounds like a header for a paragraph. Please explain it or improve it in the main text.
6. Paragraph 3 - both methods, carbothermal reduction and magnesiothermic reduction are only shortly described - in my opinion, a longer and wider description will be better.
7. Please improve figures 1 and 3, because they are unclear.

 

Generally, the paper is good-written and shows good scientific merit, with very good 'triumphs and challenges' sections, but short cost analysis will strongly improve this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors strongly improved their manuscript, thusly I recommend it for further processing and publication.