Extraction and Identification of Effective Compounds from Natural Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is, practically, the same document (jcs-1644759) that you sent me a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, none of the authors have answered any of the questions I have asked, nor have they made any suggested changes. So, if you don't do what is asked below, I will be forced to reject your manuscript.

Introduction section: In this section, the authors don’t indicate the novelty of their work. what is the innovation of your work when compared with the other researchers? The "Knowledge gap to be filled"? In this introduction, the authors must describe or indicate the work that will be done to test their "hypothesis". In another hand, the number of references is insufficient are updated. So, the introduction must be rewritten based on more recent research work

References standard representation is not in agreement with journal standards. Ex., line 27, the reference 1, must be represented “… agent [1].”, or line 50: “… 727 genera [5].”

Lines 153-159 all this information must be represented in a table.

The legend of figures is not in agreement with the journal standards.

Figure 5. The resolution of this figure must be improved.

Figure 17 must be improved, is possible to read the information of this figure.

 

Figure 19. The resolution must be improved and needs a legend indicating the most important elements of this experimental analysis.

 

References must be updated. The most recent reference has been 12 years, I don´t believe that in the last twelve years didn’t perform any research work in this field. Most of the references have more than 25 years.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• Introduction section: In this section, the authors don’t indicate the novelty of their work. what is the innovation of your work when compared with the other researchers? The "Knowledge gap to be filled"? In this introduction, the authors must describe or indicate the work that will be done to test their "hypothesis". In another hand, the number of references is insufficient are updated. So, the introduction must be rewritten based on more recent research work

 

Thanks for your highlighted comments

We did corrected about that during the text

 

• References standard representation is not in agreement with journal standards. Ex., line 27, the reference 1, must be represented “… agent [1].”, or line 50: “… 727 genera [5].”

 

We did corrections

 

• Lines 153-159 all this information must be represented in a table.

We did correction

 

• The legend of figures is not in agreement with the journal standards.

 

Thanks We did correction

 

 

• Figure 5. The resolution of this figure must be improved.

Thanks we did correction

 

• Figure 17 must be improved, is possible to read the information of this figure.

 

Thanks for your comments

 

 

• Figure 19. The resolution must be improved and needs a legend indicating the most important elements of this experimental analysis.

 

Thanks for your comments

 

 

 

• References must be updated. The most recent reference has been 12 years, I don´t believe that in the last twelve years didn’t perform any research work in this field. Most of the references have more than 25 years.

 

We did correction about that

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs major revision.

Comments

Abstract

extraction and Identification: extraction and identification

moreover it discussed: it stands for?

During the investigation of gorse flowers, leaves and bark, flavones were isolated from the bark and leaves: this sentence is not clear. Why flavones were not from flowers?

 to different solvent: change to different solvents, also List out solvents

indicate that Methanol is a suitable solvent: indicate that methanol was a suitable solvent

Methanol is a suitable solvent to selectively extract flavone.: Explain on what basis you have chosen?

Hydrolyses process conditions...suitable substance for paper: The whole sentence is not clear. First, explain the experimental conditions then talk.

The extracted bioactive compounds were diagnosed by using NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques: Strange, why did you finish the abstract with methodological information?

thus qualifying it as a suitable material. : Justify how the low level of isoflavonoid content (1.5 % from bark of gorse and 1.3 % from leaves) qualifies it as suitable material?

In total, the abstract seems like a review abstract, not a research article. completely revise the abstract: 1) describe the background,2) scientific gap3) proposed aim with justification to fill the scientific gap, 4) proposed approach and methods 5) major findings with possible reason 6) overall conclusion and perspectives

Introduction

Figure 1. A gorse plant in full blossom: In my understanding, the images seem like these are two different plants, Why do they have two different color flowers?

Concise the introduction part, too long.

 

2. Experimental

 chemicals used were purchased from Alfa Aesar: Full details of the company

Crude products were dried: First, explain what is crude products? details

They were purified via column chromatography : Explain the protocol of purification, experimental set-up and solvent details of column chromatography.

Solvents in the crude products: What solvents?

components were detected using GCMS, UV light or I2: Explain briefly all the protocol, and experimental set-up. 

NMR spectra were recorded: First explain the NMR experiment, and sample preparation. COnsider to Delete the whole para, mislead

Remove the word experiment in the methodology section

Results and discussion

Figure 2.: What was the long peak (at 1.3 ppm) in the chromatogram?

Figure 5.:Provide clear image with high resolution

Figure 7: Add error bar

Figure 9. : Maximize the peaks in a separate small insert in figure

Figure 11.: Axis label missing, Check all figures, Many Figures have no proper axis label

Figure 13.: Error bar

Figure 14: provide a clear image

Figure 16: Again, Not clear image, provide a clear image

Figure 17: Images not clear

Overall this MS has 19 Figures. This is really too many. Try to combine the appropriate images and make around 8-9 figures altogether. Also include some images as Supplementary figures

Conclusion

Is an essential dietary fatty acid: wrong sentence

The MS has so many grammatical errors, typo errors and incomplete sentences. Consult some professionals.

Author Response

Thanks to reviewer comments and suggestions

• extraction and Identification: extraction and identification moreover it discussed: it stands for?

 

Thanks for the reviewer comments  comment,. We corrected Thant at the text article and explained more

 

• During the investigation of gorse flowers, leaves and bark, flavones were isolated from the bark and leaves: this sentence is not clear. Why flavones were not from flowers?

 

 Thanks for the reviewer comments  comment,. We corrected Thant at the text article and explained more

 

 

• to different solvent: change to different solvents, also List out solventsindicate that Methanol is a suitable solvent: indicate that methanol was a suitable solvent

 

we corrected and explained more during text

• Methanol is a suitable solvent to selectively extract flavone.: Explain on what basis you have chosen?

 

A correction has made

 

• Hydrolyses process conditions...suitable substance for paper: The whole sentence is not clear. First, explain the experimental conditions then talk.

 

A correction has made during text

• he extracted bioactive compounds were diagnosed by using NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques: Strange, why did you finish the abstract with methodological information?

 

Thanks A correction has made

 

• thus qualifying it as a suitable material. : Justify how the low level of isoflavonoid content (1.5 % from bark of gorse and 1.3 % from leaves) qualifies it as suitable material?

 

Thanks a correction has made

 

• In total, the abstract seems like a review abstract, not a research article. completely revise the abstract: 1) describe the background,2) scientific gap3) proposed aim with justification to fill the scientific gap, 4) proposed approach and methods 5) major findings with possible reason 6) overall conclusion and perspectives

 

 

Thanks, we corrected that

• Figure 1. A gorse plant in full blossom: In my understanding, the images seem like these are two different plants, Why do they have two different color flowers? 

     Thanks  we correct that

• Concise the introduction part, too long.

 

Thanks we corrected that

 

• chemicals used were purchased from Alfa Aesar: Full details of the company

 thanks we corrected

• Crude products were dried: First, explain what is crude products? Details

Thanks we corrected

 

• They were purified via column chromatography : Explain the protocol of purification, experimental set-up and solvent details of column chromatography.

Was corrected

 

• Solvents in the crude products: What solvents?

Thanks we corrected

 

• components were detected using GCMS, UV light or I2: Explain briefly all the protocol, and experimental set-up.

Thanks was corrected

 

All other significant notes were corrected

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The second version of manuscript improved significantly when compared with the first version. However, the resolution of Figures 2, 5 (is very bad), 7, 8, 13, 14, and 17 must be improved. Figure 3 disappeared, the number of Figures goes directly from 2 to 4, where is the Figure 3?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• The second version of manuscript improved significantly when compared with the first version. However, the resolution of Figures 2, 5 (is very bad), 7, 8, 13, 14, and 17 must be improved. Figure 3 disappeared, the number of Figures goes directly from 2 to 4, where is the Figure 3?

 

Answer

Thanks for reviewer 1for his variable comment The Resolution for Figure 2 was now

For figures sorry was labeled by wrong numbers and they now arrangement properly

All other figures were clarified.  

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are not serious on revsing their paper, because none of my comments (not even single comment) were addressed in the revised manuscript, just only responded in cover letter, but not in manuscript. Please check all my previous comments, and revise them properly. Extrensive english revision is necessary, so many grammar mistakes.

Respond to each of my comments after do changes in your manuscript.

Few examples are:

Comment: During the investigation of gorse flowers, leaves and bark, flavones were isolated from the bark and leaves: this sentence is not clear. Why flavones were not from flowers?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer comments  comment,. We corrected Thant at the text article and explained more.

New comment: Not properly responded and modified

Old comment: to different solvent: change to different solvents

Author Response: we corrected and explained more during text

New Comment: You have not changed. 

Old comment: that Methanol is a suitable solvent: indicate that methanol was a suitable solvent

Author Response: we corrected and explained more during text

New Comment: No you have not changed in text.(Refer your abstract)

Check all my previous comments. None of my earlier comments were addressed. Totally the authors did not revise their manuscript in a proper way based on my earlier comments, or they suppose to attach a wrong version of MS. 

What are the new statement included below the abstract stating " Several bioactive compounds ....to another deferent benefit uses.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

What are the new statement included below the abstract stating " Several bioactive compounds ....to another deferent benefit uses?

Answer:

We added this paragraph according to reviewer 1 requirements.

All other older comments we previously were answered and highlighted  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The third version of the manuscript improved significantly when compared with the previous versions. So, in my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The third version of the manuscript improved significantly when compared with the previous versions. So, in my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Answer

Thank you for your comments we happy by accepting the paper of the third times.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors did not understand my previous comments. The responded to all my comments i agree, but they have not change anything in manuscript text. Do the changes in manuscript text that you submit.

Revise your manuscript "Text" based on below commetns:

The manuscript needs major revision.

Comments

Abstract

extraction and Identification: extraction and identification

moreover it discussed: it stands for?

During the investigation of gorse flowers, leaves and bark, flavones were isolated from the bark and leaves: this sentence is not clear. Why flavones were not from flowers?

 to different solvent: change to different solvents, also List out solvents

indicate that Methanol is a suitable solvent: indicate that methanol was a suitable solvent

Methanol is a suitable solvent to selectively extract flavone.: Explain on what basis you have chosen?

Hydrolyses process conditions...suitable substance for paper: The whole sentence is not clear. First, explain the experimental conditions then talk.

The extracted bioactive compounds were diagnosed by using NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques: Strange, why did you finish the abstract with methodological information?

thus qualifying it as a suitable material. : Justify how the low level of isoflavonoid content (1.5 % from bark of gorse and 1.3 % from leaves) qualifies it as suitable material?

In total, the abstract seems like a review abstract, not a research article. completely revise the abstract: 1) describe the background,2) scientific gap3) proposed aim with justification to fill the scientific gap, 4) proposed approach and methods 5) major findings with possible reason 6) overall conclusion and perspectives

Introduction

Figure 1. A gorse plant in full blossom: In my understanding, the images seem like these are two different plants, Why do they have two different color flowers?

Concise the introduction part, too long.

 

2. Experimental

 chemicals used were purchased from Alfa Aesar: Full details of the company

Crude products were dried: First, explain what is crude products? details

They were purified via column chromatography : Explain the protocol of purification, experimental set-up and solvent details of column chromatography.

Solvents in the crude products: What solvents?

components were detected using GCMS, UV light or I2: Explain briefly all the protocol, and experimental set-up. 

NMR spectra were recorded: First explain the NMR experiment, and sample preparation. COnsider to Delete the whole para, mislead

Remove the word experiment in the methodology section

Results and discussion

Figure 2.: What was the long peak (at 1.3 ppm) in the chromatogram?

Figure 5.:Provide clear image with high resolution

Figure 7: Add error bar

Figure 9. : Maximize the peaks in a separate small insert in figure

Figure 11.: Axis label missing, Check all figures, Many Figures have no proper axis label

Figure 13.: Error bar

Figure 14: provide a clear image

Figure 16: Again, Not clear image, provide a clear image

Figure 17: Images not clear

Overall this MS has 19 Figures. This is really too many. Try to combine the appropriate images and make around 8-9 figures altogether. Also include some images as Supplementary figures

Conclusion

Is an essential dietary fatty acid: wrong sentence

The MS has so many grammatical errors, typo errors and incomplete sentences. Consult some professionals.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for your Highlighted comments

Abstract

Comment 1….   extraction and Identification

answer

1.  Extraction is the process of separating the components of the plant and the active substances contained in it like ((Flavones, α-linolenic acid and sugar).identification is the Diagnosis of the active compound or group by proving its structural formula using special techniques like  NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques. Thus, the two terms are completely different from each other.

 

Comment 2…… During the investigation of gorse flowers, leaves and bark, flavones were isolated from the bark and leaves

answer

2. flavonoids available in gorse flowers, leaves and bark, but the high and good percentage were in leaves and bark it compared to flowers, therefor we didn't focusing on flowers. 

 

Comment 3….  to different solvent: change to different solvents, also List out solvents

indicate that Methanol is a suitable solvent: indicate that methanol was a suitable solvent

Methanol is a suitable solvent to selectively extract flavone.: Explain on what basis you have chosen?

 

answer

3.  More than one solvent was used in the extraction, such as water, methanol, dichloromethane, acetonitrile , etc., but the best was methanol in terms of the amount of extraction, ease of disposal of the solvent, its availability and not affecting the extracted compounds. (several solvent were used but the Methanol gave good yield)

 

Comment 4…. Hydrolyses process conditions...suitable substance for paper: The whole sentence is not clear. First, explain the experimental conditions then talk.

The extracted bioactive compounds were diagnosed by using NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques: Strange, why did you finish the abstract with methodological information?

 

Answer

4. Hydrolyses process was the best method used to separated active compounds from the paper, but it less suitable with the Gorse wood. While, the NMR, GCMS, UV, TLC and Fibre Analyser techniques, refer to that the identification of the compounds were by using  these techniques

 

Comment 5….  thus qualifying it as a suitable material. : Justify how the low level of isoflavonoid content (1.5 % from bark of gorse and 1.3 % from leaves) qualifies it as suitable material?

Answer

5.  This ratio is in the very few amount of bark and  leaves used in the laboratory, which means that it will give a good yield if large quantities are used.

 

Comment 6….  major findings with possible reason 6) overall conclusion and perspectives

Answer

6.  Gorse plants have a wide range of biological activities as antioxidants products. They also have clinical applications described as anti-fungal drugs and containing of α-linolenic acid and sugar. That is what made us and other researchers focus on uses of Gorse plants by extract the activate groups from  it. The novelty of our work was selectivity in choosing plant and the simplicity of method for extraction active compound. Throw our study, we successfully found and extracted several  important contains (Flavones, α-linolenic acid and sugar).     Introduction 

Comment 1…   Figure 1. A gorse plant in full blossom: In my understanding, the images seem like these are two different plants

 

Answer.. 1.       The two pictures were replaced with a clear picture of the plant to remove the interference (noting that the two pictures are for the same plant, but one of them is at the time of flowering and the other at the time of seeds)

 

Experimental 

Comment 1….  chemicals used were purchased from Alfa Aesar: Full details of the company

Crude products were dried: First, explain what is crude products? details

They were purified via column chromatography : Explain the protocol of purification, experimental set-up and solvent details of column chromatography.

Solvents in the crude products: What solvents?

components were detected using GCMS, UV light or I2: Explain briefly all the protocol, and experimental set-up. 

NMR spectra were recorded: First explain the NMR experiment.

 

 Answer..2.      Alfa Aesar is a leading manufacturer and supplier of research chemicals, metals and materials for a wide span of applications, while, crude products mean gorse flowers, leaves and bark . finally, column chromatography  It is a common method used for purification and its common in chemists field (it doesn't need to explain). Moreover, GCMS, UV and NMR spectra are not required to be explained or clarified because they are techniques known by chemists, and the role of each of them is clear. (our paper don’t talk on techniques but it focus on chemical extracted and them uses). 

Results and discussion

Comment 1…  What was the long peak (at 1.3 ppm) in the chromatogram?

 

Answer

1. It is possible this peak is for acetone, may be the round flask did not dry completely in the oven. 2. Figures may be not clear but we got them from University (Bangor University in UK) as an image or not with high resolution, and it's difficult for us to repeat these tests from UK.  Therefor we removed some of unnecessary spectrums.  The rest images can be zoomed or enlarged by the reader)

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Now the revised version is well written and clearly represents the concept. This is what I expected in the last revision. Now the MS is ready to accept.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, the authors developed analytical methodologies to extract and identify effective compounds from natural plants. The research appears to be efficiently done and appropriately reported; however, the standard of English must be improved. Nevertheless, there are some questions and corrections that must be answered to improve and complete the document.

 

 

Introduction section: In this section, the authors don’t indicate the novelty of their work. what is the innovation of your work when compared with the other researchers? The "Knowledge gap to be filled"? In this introduction, the authors must describe or indicate the work that will be done to test their "hypothesis". In another hand, the number of references is insufficient are updated. So, the introduction must be rewritten based on more recent research work

 

References standard representation is not in agreement with journal standards. Ex., line 27, the reference 1, must be represented “… agent [1].”, or line 50: “… 727 genera [5].”

Lines 153-159 all this information must be represented in a table.

 

The legend of figures is not in agreement with the journal standards.

 

Figure 5. The resolution of this figure must be improved.

 

Figure 17 must be improved, is possible to read the information of this figure.

 

Figure 19. The resolution must be improved and needs a legend indicating the most important elements of this experimental analysis.

 

References must be updated. The most recent reference has been 12 years, I don´t believe that in the last twelve years didn’t perform any research work in this field. Most of the references have more than 25 years.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed your paper and have concluded that it is outside the scope of the J. Compos. Sci. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "Extraction and Identification of an effective Compounds from natural Plants" should not been published in JCS journal. In my oninion the subject of the presented research is far from the journal's aim and scope area. Apart from the missmached subject of the submitted text, it is also worth pointing to the lack of an clearly pointed scope of the research work. In the case of the disscussed Journal of Composite Science the subject of work should be more focused on the possible use of the particular plant (Gorse) in composite processing, like cellulose fiber extraction. While the presented manuscript is more related to the development of new type of method for natural extracts receiving.