Tellurium and Nano-Tellurium: Medicine or Poison?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Although it is an exhaustive study about this chalcogen element, the manuscript is quite difficult to read because the information presented is not very rigorously systematized and the wording of the phrases is quite cumbersome. I noticed several mistakes in expression and technical editing, which I pointed out directly in the manuscript with track changes.

I believe the manuscript matched the scientific scope of NANOMATERIALS and can be considered for publication after major  corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I noticed several mistakes in expression and technical editing, which I pointed out directly in the manuscript with track changes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although it is an exhaustive study about this chalcogen element, the manuscript is quite difficult to read because the information presented is not very rigorously systematized and the wording of the phrases is quite cumbersome. I noticed several mistakes in expression and technical editing, which I pointed out directly in the manuscript with track changes. I believe the manuscript matched the scientific scope of NANOMATERIALS and can be considered for publication after major corrections.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

We followed your comments and tried to answer as follows:

peer-review-35572987.v1.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I noticed several mistakes in expression and technical editing, which I pointed out directly in the manuscript with track changes.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comments, we went through the MS and followed your comments to improve the revised MS, thanks again. We also had a native English-speaking colleague review the manuscript and help improve the English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Draft “nanomaterials-2914123-peer-review-v1 - Tellurium and Nano-Tellurium, medicine or poison?” addresses a niche, yet interesting issue in the toxicology of mineral elements, under a well-learned and unusual perspective that makes it suitable to the aims of MDPI-Nanomaterials. On reading, I find this review article instructive for myself, and hopefully for several other readers.

Comments as Reviewer. Just from the start, the Authors should revise the draft for minor but frequent mistyping and trivial errors, so that the final version will be smoother to read. Check that also the text in the Figures (they are mostly recycled ppts, I won’t agree that this makes good publication) is with good grammar and sense. Table 1 “Tellurium hylides” is it “hydrides”? Is there any Supplementary Materials? If not, please strike away the deceiving section.

Comments as reader: a review like this makes a good fact source reference for short occupational medicine chapters like those you can find in the recent ILO Criteria book (see and download freely at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-library/publications/WCMS_836359/lang--en/index.htm). It would be a bonus to readers to add, whether possible, a proportionate section on technological methods and industrial safety and health that would complete the survey on toxicology. The discussion on Te nanoparticle toxicity is interesting, but confusing. Several readers would appreciate if you restructure the text and separate clinical signs (ll 390-391; 425-428), biochemistry (make a good table of organic forms, such as using Metallomics 2013), environmental effects (organication by microorganisms). It would be an advantage to make suitable sub-chapters from the text blocks of Figure 7.

I have a comment on the possible biological role of chalcogenide-metal nanocrystals derived from amino-acid and protein-bound Te forms, analogous to those of other Sulfur-binding elements. (doi:10.3390/toxics3010020; it is pointless to cite it, however it has more than 200 refs) that you may see whether it fits into the general picture. Nanoparticles embedded in living tissue, such as the kidney and the liver, may act as surface catalysts for electron transfer and trigger ox-stress with mechanisms analogous to light-producing in nanoparticle-based LEDs. Free for you to discuss relevance in the frame of Te toxicology.

While I appreciate very much your draft, I believe that a good tier of revision is very necessary. 

Kind regards,

Apart from typos and trivial mistakes, here and there, the text does not flow. While restructuring the text, you can make the mends.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Draft “nanomaterials-2914123-peer-review-v1 - Tellurium and Nano-Tellurium, medicine or poison?” addresses a niche, yet interesting issue in the toxicology of mineral elements, under a well-learned and unusual perspective that makes it suitable to the aims of MDPI-Nanomaterials. On reading, I find this review article instructive for myself, and hopefully for several other readers.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

Many thanks for your kind words and encouragement.

Comments as Reviewer. Just from the start, the Authors should revise the draft for minor but frequent mistyping and trivial errors, so that the final version will be smoother to read.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

The revised MS has been improved and double-checked. A native English-speaking colleague has reviewed the manuscript to improve the writing.

Check that also the text in the Figures (they are mostly recycled ppts, I won’t agree that this makes good publication) is with good grammar and sense.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments. The figures have been reviewed.

Table 1 “Tellurium hylides” is it “hydrides”? Is there any Supplementary Materials? If not, please strike away the deceiving section.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comment,

We corrected and modified, thanks

Comments as reader: a review like this makes a good fact source reference for short occupational medicine chapters like those you can find in the recent ILO Criteria book (see and download freely at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-library/publications/WCMS_836359/lang--en/index.htm ). It would be a bonus to readers to add, whether possible, a proportionate section on technological methods and industrial safety and health that would complete the survey on toxicology.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

Many thanks for your great book. This book is really very important, and we tried to pick up some important information that will be very useful to the readers. We added this section to the revised MS:

6.5 Tellurium toxicology and safety

The discussion on Te nanoparticle toxicity is interesting, but confusing. Several readers would appreciate if you restructure the text and separate clinical signs (ll 390-391; 425-428), biochemistry (make a good table of organic forms, such as using Metallomics 2013), environmental effects (organication by microorganisms). It would be an advantage to make suitable sub-chapters from the text blocks of Figure 7.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comment. We divided this section into your suggested sub-sections as follows:

6. Toxicity of tellurium and nanotellurium

6.1 Clinical signs

6.2 Biogeochemistry

6.3 Environmental effects

6.4 Toxicity of nano-tellurium

6.5 Tellurium toxicology and safety

We will make a table as suggested for our next review on nanotellurium. Due to the short time for corrections given by this journal we do not have time to construct the table, but we added a information on organotellurium compounds in the Biogeochemistry section.

Furthermore, we are working right now in the lab and have obtained interesting results on nano-tellurium and its alloys with nanoselenium, which we published in the following article:

Muthu, A.; Sári, D.; Ferroudj, A.; El-Ramady, H.; Béni, Á.; Badgar, K.; Prokisch, J. Microbial-Based Biotechnology: Production and Evaluation of Selenium-Tellurium Nanoalloys. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11733. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111733

We also added a section on the biogeochemistry of tellurium in the revised MS.

I have a comment on the possible biological role of chalcogenide-metal nanocrystals derived from amino-acid and protein-bound Te forms, analogous to those of other Sulfur-binding elements. (doi:10.3390/toxics3010020; it is pointless to cite it, however it has more than 200 refs) that you may see whether it fits into the general picture.

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments.

We added section 6.5 to help address this.

Nanoparticles embedded in living tissue, such as the kidney and the liver, may act as surface catalysts for electron transfer and trigger ox-stress with mechanisms analogous to light-producing in nanoparticle-based LEDs. Free for you to discuss relevance in the frame of Te toxicology.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comment.

We added the following part to the revised MS:

Toxicity of nano-tellurium compared to the bulk element is an important question that needs additional research. Nanoparticles can become embedded in living tissue, such as the kidneys and liver. These NPs may act as surface catalysts for electron transfer and in-duced oxidative-stress [112]. This has been confirmed for the application of nanoparticles as a drug delivery system in biological systems [113]. Biocompatible Te nanoneedles have been used for accelerated wound healing under long-term stable antibacterial activity [114]. Many applications of nanotellurium have been reported, as mentioned previously in this review, in the field of nano-medicine [11] [13] [64] [115].

While I appreciate very much your draft, I believe that a good tier of revision is very necessary.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comments. We feel there are many improvements in our revised MS thanks to your comments, along with comments of other reviewers and the editor as well.

Kind regards,

Author Response: Many thanks for your time and your valuable comments. Definitely, these comments will improve our revised MS, thanks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Apart from typos and trivial mistakes, here and there, the text does not flow. While restructuring the text, you can make the mends.

Author Response: Many thanks for your comment. The text has been reviewed and improved by a native English-speaking colleague.

We hope our revised MS is improved and accepted by the reviewer.

Thanks, again

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I agree with the paper publication in this form

Author Response

Many thanks for your time and encouragements

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, dear Editor,

The second-tier draft of “nanomaterials-2914123-peer-review-v1 - Tellurium and Nano-Tellurium, medicine or poison?” shows several improvements over the first one. However, I have much the same issues on the organization of statements throughout the text that make reading (I am reading both versions in print, rather than on screen, because scrolling up and down is even worse) rather dizzying. I have very little question on your abundant learning on this niche topic, however taking home the general points is far from easy. Please remind that efficient indexing will drive on this review many readers from disparate fields, even casual and just curious, so everyone should be able to find well organized relevant information without jumping up and down the text.

If ever I dare forward a suggestion, you may make an Introduction (why is it important, I should continue reading this and not move to the Wikipedia article) and general properties (including Table 1) section and then summarize the points you will address. Also useful is defining early terms such as nano particles, ribbons, rods and the like, so that readers won’t get confused. Another more substantial point is, throughout the text, separating the information on different chemical forms (Te(0), different physical forms like particles, wires, ribbons; different valence states and combinations with other elements, and so on). When discussing the toxicity of different nano-Te forms, such as “different CdTe QD particle sizes (520Q, 580Q, and 730Q, respectively)”, you may describe or define them before.

Another tier of contents classification is on biological forms and on their transformations, including conversion of organicated forms to Te(0) in its different physical forms. When discussing materials, please state clearly whether they are different nano-forms of elemental Te or of alloys and compounds (CdTe, and others). You may make a good discussion on whether they are alloys or chemical compounds, given the low energy differences between orbitals and the possibility that electron transfer can occur in the bulk of the nano-solids (you just made a teaser on “mixed valence” polymeric forms that is worthy of further enlightenment). These aspects make readers curious and in search of good discussion of complicated topics, if only to widen general knowledge.

There is a lot of confusion also in chapters 6.1 and 6.2 with toxicity and biogeochemistry intermingled among the two.

As you can understand, this is just a short list of suggestions that spring from several reading tiers of your second draft. Please, believe that I appreciate very much this nice compilation and highly esteem your efforts to make a point of more than 100 references on a niche topic. However, I still find the compilation, rather than the backgrounding science, still poorly organized. I would ask you to make the extra effort to rewrite a better draft, by re-organizing the contents in a smoother and better articulated way. It is a pity that this Journal does not allow Table of content in the reviews, because preparing that is very helpful in organizing the contents.

I again mark this draft for “major revision”, and I hope you understand the motivation: it is admirative, not despising! I strongly hope that you can make a much better, more informative review article to the benefit of many, many readers.

Kind regards.

nothing more than check typos and go along with text revision.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2#

Dear Reviewer 2#

Many thanks for your time and comments.

We have worked to answer your comments. We added many new parts to the manuscript based on your advice. We believe your additions will improve our MS. We hope this round will get your final approval, thanks again.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, dear Editor,

The second-tier draft of “nanomaterials-2914123-peer-review-v1 - Tellurium and Nano-Tellurium, medicine or poison?” shows several improvements over the first one. However, I have much the same issues on the organization of statements throughout the text that make reading (I am reading both versions in print, rather than on screen, because scrolling up and down is even worse) rather dizzying. I have very little question on your abundant learning on this niche topic, however taking home the general points is far from easy. Please remind that efficient indexing will drive on this review many readers from disparate fields, even casual and just curious, so everyone should be able to find well organized relevant information without jumping up and down the text.

Response of author: Many thanks for your advice and comments. We made more improvements by adding new tables (for example, Table 1 now provides definitions for many nano-terms that the reader may not be familiar with) and modifications to some of the previous tables. We double checked our personal TOC for the MS again as your asked, and tried to improve readability of the revised MS.

If ever I dare forward a suggestion, you may make an Introduction (why is it important, I should continue reading this and not move to the Wikipedia article) and general properties (including Table 1) section and then summarize the points you will address.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment.

Modifications have been made to the Introduction in an attempt to address the reviewer’s comments. See particularly the final paragraph of the introduction.

Also useful is defining early terms such as nano particles, ribbons, rods and the like, so that readers won’t get confused.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. We have added a new Table 1 in the revised MS. This table includes definitions and details for many items mentioned in the MS.

Another more substantial point is, throughout the text, separating the information on different chemical forms (Te(0), different physical forms like particles, wires, ribbons; different valence states and combinations with other elements, and so on).

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment.

Text was improved and more improvements were added in 3 new Tables (2, 3, and 4). These tables give summaries of information about Te properties and compounds.

When discussing the toxicity of different nano-Te forms, such as “different CdTe QD particle sizes (520Q, 580Q, and 730Q, respectively)”, you may describe or define them before.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. We have defined important terms in the new table 1 as previously mentioned.

Another tier of contents classification is on biological forms and on their transformations, including conversion of organicated forms to Te(0) in its different physical forms. When discussing materials, please state clearly whether they are different nano-forms of elemental Te or of alloys and compounds (CdTe, and others).

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. We have added a new Table 1 and Table 4 in the revised MS that will prepare the reader to understand the terminology they encounter later in the manuscript.

You may make a good discussion on whether they are alloys or chemical compounds, given the low energy differences between orbitals and the possibility that electron transfer can occur in the bulk of the nano-solids (you just made a teaser on “mixed valence” polymeric forms that is worthy of further enlightenment). These aspects make readers curious and in search of good discussion of complicated topics, if only to widen general knowledge.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. We added a new Table 7 based on your advice to provide more explanations to the readers in the revised MS, thanks

New refs. used to create Table 7

The number in [ ] refers to the number of the reference in the manuscript:

[64] Azzouz L, Halit M, Charifi Z, Matta CF. Tellurium Doping and the Structural, Electronic, and Optical Properties of NaYS_2(1-x)Te_2x Alloys. ACS Omega. 2019 Jun 28;4(6):11320-11331. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.9b01330.

[65] Gao, Y.; Cui, T.; Li, D. Unexpected d−p Orbital Covalent Interaction Between the Non-d-block Main-group Metal Tellurium and Fluorine at High Pressure. Fundamental Research,

2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2023.05.001.

[66] Jiang B, Xue H, Wang P, Du H, Kang Y, Zhao J, Wang S, Zhou W, Bian Z, Li H, Henzie J, Yamauchi Y. Noble-Metal-Metalloid Alloy Architectures: Mesoporous Amorphous Iridium-Tellurium Alloy for Electrochemical N₂ Reduction. J Am Chem Soc. 2023 Mar 22;145(11):6079-6086. doi: 10.1021/jacs.2c10637.

[67] Ma J, Shi T, Li Y, Yang B, Tian Y, Xu B, Yang H, Chen X, Chen C. Selective sulfidation-vacuum volatilization processes for tellurium and bismuth recovery from bismuth telluride waste thermoelectric material. J Environ Manage. 2023 Feb 1;327:116845. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116845.

[68] Liu D, Zha W, Yuan R, Lou B, Sa R. Indirect-to-direct band gap transition and optical properties of metal alloys of Cs₂Te_1-x Ti _x I₆: a theoretical study. RSC Adv. 2020 Oct 6;10(60):36734-36740. doi: 10.1039/d0ra07586h.

[69] Faizan M, Xie J, Murtaza G, Echeverría-Arrondo C, Alshahrani T, Bhamu KC, Laref A, Mora-Seró I, Haidar Khan S. A first-principles study of the stability, electronic structure, and optical properties of halide double perovskite Rb₂Sn_1-xTe_xI₆ for solar cell applications. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2021 Feb 28;23(8):4646-4657. doi: 10.1039/d0cp05827k.

[70] Yu D, Li Q, Zhang W, Huang S. Amorphous Tellurium-Embedded Hierarchical Porous Carbon Nanofibers as High-Rate and Long-Life Electrodes for Potassium-Ion Batteries. Small. 2022 Aug;18(32):e2202750. doi: 10.1002/smll.202202750.

[71] Zhang Y, Zhu H, Freschi DJ, Liu J. High-Performance Potassium-Tellurium Batteries Stabilized by Interface Engineering. Small. 2022 Apr;18(15):e2200085. doi: 10.1002/smll.202200085.

[72] Wu P, Mu Z, Qian K, Guo C, Li M, Li J. Biochar-Derived Hierarchical Porous Carbon as Tellurium Host for High-Performance Potassium-Tellurium Batteries. Chemistry. 2023 Dec 11;29(69):e202302121. doi: 10.1002/chem.202302121.

[73] Hellier K, Stewart DA, Read J, Sfadia R, Abbaszadeh S. Tuning Amorphous Selenium Composition with Tellurium to Improve Quantum Efficiency at Long Wavelengths and High Applied Fields. ACS Appl Electron Mater. 2023 May 3;5(5):2678-2685. doi: 10.1021/acsaelm.3c00150.

There is a lot of confusion also in chapters 6.1 and 6.2 with toxicity and biogeochemistry intermingled among the two.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. Improvements were made in these sections by re-arranging them to address the comment.

As you can understand, this is just a short list of suggestions that spring from several reading tiers of your second draft. Please, believe that I appreciate very much this nice compilation and highly esteem your efforts to make a point of more than 100 references on a niche topic. However, I still find the compilation, rather than the backgrounding science, still poorly organized. I would ask you to make the extra effort to rewrite a better draft, by re-organizing the contents in a smoother and better articulated way. It is a pity that this Journal does not allow Table of content in the reviews, because preparing that is very helpful in organizing the contents.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment.

The table of contents for the MS that we work from is given below, and you are right, it is important to start the MS with the TOC, we totally agree with your opinion. We made changes and improvements in the TOC based on your comments as well.

1. Introduction
2. Discovery of tellurium
3. Tellurium occurrence, forms in nature, and characterization

3.1 Tellurium occurrence

3.2 Global tellurium production

3.3 Tellurium forms in nature

3.4 Tellurium characterization

4. Nanotellurium and its production
5. Applications of tellurium and nanotellurium

5.1 Pharmaceutical applications

5.2 Biomedical applications

6. Toxicity of tellurium and nanotellurium

6.1 Clinical signs

6.2 Biogeochemistry

6.3 Environmental effects

6.4 Toxicity of nano-tellurium

6.5 Tellurium toxicology and safety

7. Conclusions

More improvements in many sections were added in the revised MS, hoping this will meet your approval, thanks

I again mark this draft for “major revision”, and I hope you understand the motivation: it is admirative, not despising! I strongly hope that you can make a much better, more informative review article to the benefit of many, many readers.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comments. We respect your opinion and your input will improve our MS.

Thanks again.

Kind regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

nothing more than check typos and go along with text revision.

Response: Thanks a lot for your comment. We checked again in the revised MS.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, dear Editor,

I think that this revision is all you can afford. I wouldn’t bother you further with improvements and suggest to have it published

Kind regards