Effect of Reverse Micelles Size on the Electron Transfer Reaction within the Ion Pair of Co (III)/Fe (II) Complexes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors attempted to investigate the effect of water pool encapsulation size on the electron transfer process between two complexions. The authors also explained the ion-pairing constant in the process. The work is interesting and appreciable.

Comments

1. What are the functional differences between the Micelles and Reveres Micelles?
2. Why did the authors choose AOT surfactant but not others?
3. What is the role of isooctane in RMs preparation?
4. Which of the parts A, B and C in the figure 2(II) is more polar?
5. What does the re-organization energy stand for?
6. Some typos are found, such as subscript in CF3SO3H, Wo should be consistent. Some are upper case and some are lower case. Please check thoroughly.
7. Authors are advised to use equation numbers.

Author Response

Reviewer-1

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their time to review my paper.

 

1. What are the functional differences between the Micelles and Reveres Micelles?

We need to know structural differences to dig into functional differences. The structural difference is shown in figure 1 of the manuscript.

 

Micelles are lipid molecules that organize themselves in a spherical form in an aqueous solution. They encapsulate hydrophobic compounds and help our body absorb lipid and fat-soluble vitamins.

Reverse micelles are self-organized molecular collections of surfactants in a polar media. Their polar heads are in the interior and their hydrophobic chains are in the exterior. It gives polar substances a ride through an oily medium.

 

2. Why did the authors choose AOT surfactant but not others?

It is an anionic surfactant. We can use other anionic surfactants as well. However, its bioactivity, low volatility, and its potential to persist in the environment.

 

 

3. What is the role of isooctane in RMs preparation?

             Its role is to create nonpolar environments outside and to produce reverse micelles    

             instead of micelles.

 

 

4. Which of the parts A, B and C in the figure 2(II) is more polar?

Due to polar heads of surfactants pointing inwards, location A is the most polar among the three locations.

 

 

5. What does the re-organization energy stand for?

During the outer sphere electron transfer process, the structural units of solvation change along with bond breaking and formation. In such a case, the water molecules rearrange the environment around and between the reactants. This involves energy changes. That is the re-organization energy.

 

6. Some typos are found, such as subscript in CF3SO3H, Wo should be consistent. Some are upper case, and some are lower case. Please check thoroughly.

They are fixed.

 

 

7. Authors are advised to use equation numbers.

Equation numbers are assigned. I would like to thank the reviewer for the advice.

•  

Riviewer-2

 

Abstract is not clear: many abbreviations/magnitudes are present,and it may not be easy to be understood by the reader without explanations.

Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestions. The abbreviations/magnitudes were explained.

 

Why is hexacyanoferrate written “Fe(C.N.)6”? Why the dots?

Dots have been removed.

 

Since Applied Sciences is a multidisciplinary journal, the reader may expect a more detailed introduction to put the focus of the paper in the right perspective. Thus, the authors should comment more on the properties and applications of reverse micelles and of the studied complexes.

 

The properties and applications of micelles and reverse micelles have already been mentioned in the manuscript. The properties and application of the complexes have been added in the introduction of the manuscript.

 

 

Concerning synthetic procedures: did the authors perform anyanalysis to check identity and purity of obtained species? Is there a characterization procedure?

These are well familiar complexes and synthesis techniques. We followed the same synthesis techniques. We did perform the analysis and characterization of the complexes using FTIR.

 

Moreover, I report some minor comments below:

Table 1: check the plus & minus symbol

Fixed

 

References: some of them are reported before, others after punctuation. Some others, even between “.[7].” Please check.

Fixed.

 

The content of Figure 2 may be integrated within Figure 1.

I integrated the figures as the reviewer advised.

 

Once a chemical substance has been defined, it is not necessary to report every time in the text both the chemical name and formula. Anyway, chemical compounds should be cited throughout the manuscript in a consistent manner.

Fixed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper submitted by Ram Krishna Hona and colleagues is focused on the study of the electron transfer reaction in Co/Fe complexes.

The topic may be attractive for the readers of Applied Sciences, but the paper does not meet the standard for publication in the current form. I report my major concerns below:

 

• Abstract is not clear: many abbreviations/magnitudes are present, and it may not be easy to be understood by the reader without explanations.
• Why is hexacyanoferrate written “Fe(C.N.)6”? Why the dots?
• Since Applied Sciences is a multidisciplinary journal, the reader may expect a more detailed introduction to put the focus of the paper in the right perspective. Thus, the authors should comment more on the properties and applications of reverse micelles and of the studied complexes.
• Concerning synthetic procedures: did the authors perform any analysis to check identity and purity of obtained species? Is there a characterization procedure?

 

Moreover, I report some minor comments below:

• Table 1: check the plus&minus symbol
• References: some of them are reported before, others after punctuation. Some others, even between “.[7].” Please check.
• The content of Figure 2 may be integrated within Figure 1.
• Once a chemical substance has been defined, it is not necessary to report every time in the text both chemical name and formula. Anyway, chemical compounds should be cited throughout the manuscript in a consistent manner.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for their time to review my paper.

 

Abstract is not clear: many abbreviations/magnitudes are present,and it may not be easy to be understood by the reader without explanations.

Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestions. The abbreviations/magnitudes were explained.

 

Why is hexacyanoferrate written “Fe(C.N.)6”? Why the dots?

Dots have been removed.

 

Since Applied Sciences is a multidisciplinary journal, the reader may expect a more detailed introduction to put the focus of the paper in the right perspective. Thus, the authors should comment more on the properties and applications of reverse micelles and of the studied complexes.

 

The properties and applications of micelles and reverse micelles have already been mentioned in the manuscript. The properties and application of the complexes have been added in the introduction of the manuscript.

 

 

Concerning synthetic procedures: did the authors perform anyanalysis to check identity and purity of obtained species? Is there a characterization procedure?

These are well familiar complexes and synthesis techniques. We followed the same synthesis techniques. We did perform the analysis and characterization of the complexes using FTIR.

 

Moreover, I report some minor comments below:

Table 1: check the plus & minus symbol

Fixed

 

References: some of them are reported before, others after punctuation. Some others, even between “.[7].” Please check.

Fixed.

 

The content of Figure 2 may be integrated within Figure 1.

I integrated the figures as the reviewer advised.

 

Once a chemical substance has been defined, it is not necessary to report every time in the text both the chemical name and formula. Anyway, chemical compounds should be cited throughout the manuscript in a consistent manner.

Fixed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered to most of the comments raised in the first round of revision. Nevertheless, some revisions are still needed. For example, formatting/spacing issues are present (e.g. in the abstract or in the equation at line 87, page 3).

Author Response

The authors want to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have fixed the formatting of this paper. 

Sincerely,

Authors.