In Vivo Biosynthesis of Au and Ag NPs Using Two Medicago sativa L. Genotypes
, Lauris Jankovskis 1,*, Marija Jermaļonoka 1 and Renata Galek 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a work that seems to be of interest of a part of the Appl. Sci. readership and can eventually be accepted after revision.
I leave some points that in my opinion should be revised.
The UV-vis. spectra show an wavelength range, 190-340 nm where some sort of experimental error or instrumental threshold happens and absorption is shown as zero. As this is clearly an instrumental artifact or an error, and these wavelengths are never discussed, in my view the wavelength range of 190-340 nm should be removed from all absorption spectra, leaving the 340-900 nm in the spectra.
Lines 104/105: What kind of filter was used? In my view this seems to be influencing the big variety in your results, especially in the spectrophotometric measurements, so in further studies a good filter should be selected.
Also, were the samples centrifuged? In what conditions? If possible indicate the g-force equivalent, not just rpm, to allow reproducibility by the readers.
Lines 108-109: infrared range (190 nm) to ultraviolet (900 nm): I suppose the authors mean: ultraviolet range (190 nm) to infrared (900 nm)
Tables 5 and 6: on my view, besides the average of 3 measurements, the standard deviation should also be shown
Line 289: 100 mg/mL: possibly an error as this concentration was not used with AgNO3 precursor
Line 332: Please check: 450 nm
In my view the experimental part could have been improved, especially
I wish the authors all the best in the continuation of their work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageTable 7: Wavelength period: Perhaps the authors mean Wavelength range or Wavelength interval ?
Lines 277, 311: irradiated – while formally not wrong, I tend to associate the term “irradiated” to continuous irradiation by a lamp by a long time, for example during the 24 or 48 hours that the plants are growing, so I would prefer some other expression like “absorption measured”
I wish the authors all the best in the continuation of their work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment to find the detailed responses.
Kind regards, authors of the manuscript!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presented an interesting approach about nanoparticles synthesis. My questions are:
1) Will be able to show the peaks in the range of 344 - 454 for all the graphs? It seems that the Absorbtion values are too high to show difference in the peaks. Figure 1, absorbcion and kometa 200, Figure 2 abdsorcion, figure 3 kometa 250, 500, can you explain these values?
2) Figure 5, Add the scale bare to understand the size of the clusters or NPs
Comments on the Quality of English Language
1) In all the graphs, the word absorbcion.
2) Figure 5 is named Figure 1
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment to find the detailed responses.
Kind regards, authors of the manuscript!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe idea presented in the submitted manuscript is good and has real applications, but this manuscript suffers from a number of shortcomings.
The authors should characterize the obtained AgNPs using at least two additional techniques, for example such as TEM/AFM and DLS/zeta sizer. Only in this case can we talk about the presence of NP in the solution. In the second case, we can only speak only as guesses.
In addition, UVVIS spectra should be better represented. For example, UVVIS spectra should be represented in the range characteristic of the Ag plasmon range, it is not necessary to use all wavelength ranges. Also, the reviewer cannot clearly see this band, usually non-aggregated AgNPs have a plasmon band around 390-450 nm (depending on their size). In the UVVI spectra presented in Figures 1 to 4, only the absorption maximum around 600 nm is clearly visible, indicating the aggregation process of AgNPs probably induced by high concentration of AgNO3.
The synthesis must be performed with an increased concentration of the reducing agent (plant extract concentration). The authors increased only the concentration of Ag3+ ions, but did not investigate the influence of the concentrations of reducing agents, which is mandatory.
Authors should also familiarize themselves with the terminology used in spectroscopy.
Based on the above reasons, the reviewer believes that the submitted manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication in this journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English have to be corrected.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment to find the detailed responses.
Kind regards, authors of the manuscript!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made an effort to improve their manuscript but in my opinion there are still some points to improve.
Response 1: OK
Response 2: OK
Response 3: OK, the confusing remark about centrifugation was removed. However now at line 106 there is a partly removed phrase (remaining: the mixture was kept in the) which now makes no sense and should either be corrected or totally removed
Response 4: OK
Response 5: OK for placing the standard deviations.
However some new questions arise since on my view in many instances the standard deviation is very high when compared to the average. So:
Lines 273-276: In my opinion no conclusions can be taken / the variations are within the experimental error since the standard deviation of the 50 mg HAuCl4 is quite large
Lines 277-281: In my opinion, also because of the large standard deviation, no changes within experimental error can be seen in Kometa with AgNOe at 470 nm
Response 6: OK
I wish once again all the best to the authors in the continuation of their work.
Response 1: OK
Response 2: partly OK, as the sentence should be adapted to the concrete phrase. Thus in line 281 it should be changed to something like “(...) in samples where absorption was measured (...)”
There are also some other instances of similar “irradiated” terms in lines 273, 290, 321, 456 which I did not notice in my previous review, I apologise. In my opinion the authors should adapt the phrase to say that absorption was measured at the referred wavelengths.
I wish once again all the best to the authors in the continuation of their work.
Author Response
Dear, reviewer 1!
Thank you for your second report!
Please see the attachment where the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments has been provided!
Kind regards, manuscript authors!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall comments were addressed
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2!
Thank you for your opinion in your report! Authors wish the reviewer all the best!"
Kind regards!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors did not fulfill any reviewer requirements and so this reviewer considers this manuscript not sufficiently improved to be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear, Reviewer 3!
Thank you for your opinion in your report! Authors wish the reviewer all the best!"
Kind regards, authors!
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors for their effort to improve the manuscript. I consider that my previous remarks were in general adequately responded,
I leave only a few minor remarks to check.
Line 322: light wave - Do the authors mean light wavelength?
Line 342: 100 mg/mg - Do the authors mean 100 mg/L ?
I wish the authors all the best in the continuation of their work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLine 310: shoved - do the authors mean showed?
Line 330: simples - do the authors mean samples?
I wish once again the authors all the best in the continuation of their work.
Author Response
Dear, Reviewer 1!
The authors are thankful to the reviewer for detailed and valuable reports. The authors have corrected the errors the reviewer noted in this report and the navigation function in MS WORD was used to find whether there are similar errors in other places in the manuscript.
Please see the attachment for the response to the reviewer's comments for round 3.
The authors wish the reviewer all the best!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
