Optimizations of the Conditions for Ceftobiprole Determination in a Complex Matrix
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Respond to Editor
2022. Oct. 14
Original Research, Processes
Manuscript ID: processes-1985611
Title: Optimizations of the conditions for ceftobiprole determination in a complex matrix
Dear Editor Processes,
In the manuscript “Optimizations of the conditions for ceftobiprole determination in a complex matrix” the authors reviewed the study was to develop the conditions for the determination of the fifth-generation cephalosporin, ceftobiprole, in a complex matrix of biological material. This research focused in to 3 points. This manuscript presents interesting information, and the results are adequate to support the hypothesis of this study. I have some minor remarks to complete this manuscript:
1) The manuscript contains some typos and grammatical errors. The author should be thoroughly checked and corrected.
2) I would like to suggest adding more relevant information. I think it will be more beneficial to reader and completing a perfect this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is generally good but some important remarks and questions should be taken into account before making decision concerning the publication of it.
The introduction is very extensive and may be basis for a review paper. But the zeros as a numbers of cited papers are not true.
L. 195-196 and 368-369. Not plates but chromatograms are developed.
The numbers of paragraphs should be rather changed. 2.2 should be 2.4, 2.4 should be 2.3 and 2.3 should be 2.2. Bay the way, standard substance should be rather introduced into point 2.1.
L. 201-205. What criterions of optimization were tken into account? There are no information concerning the obtained chromatograms. What were, for example, values of RF.
P. 2.4. Instead of 0.00360 should be 0.0036. The 25 ml flask was full and how its content was diluted?
P. 2.5.3. The procedure of validation is described rather longly but the LOD and LOQ are described not enough. It is important that there is some dependence between them and noise of basic line.
Fig. 3. The description of parts b should not be i Polish
Table 4. What mean the values 80, 100 and 120 %? The recoveries were determined as other values.
L. 415-418. It is very important and bad information. Taking it into account it may be drawn a conclusion that good analysis of different amounts of ceftobiprole in blood is very difficult, if possible.
There is a lack, from a practical point of view, of important conclusion which solvent (methanol or acetone) is better for extraction ceftobiprole from blood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction
The introduction is too long, it is better to focus on the compound ceftobiprole, the basis for selecting the TLC method for the analysis of ceftobripole compounds in biological matrices. The author can also add to previous research on the analysis that has been reported by previous researchers for the ceftobripole compound.
Materials and Methods 1. The authors applied the analyte in 2 different volumes (10 and 30 L), but the authors did not explain the purpose or reasons for the differences. The author should add the reasons and purposes for this in his article 2. In validation, the author does not appear to have tested the stability parameters. A good analytical method also needs to inform how the stability of the analyte during short-term or long-term storage in the solvent and in the matrix. I suggest the author to do this parameter test Results and discussion 1. In line 294 the authors chose HPTLC cellulose for ceftobripole analysis but it was not supported by evidence in the form of data or densitograms describing examination with cellulose. 2. Figure 4 shows a ceftobripole densitogram with HPTLC cellulose, but the authors did not include a densitogram of blood/urine without the drug. I suggest that the author add it in figure 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The new version of the paper is much better than the previous one. My remarks are taken into consideration and I have no more remarks.
