Detection of Redox Properties of (6,5)-Enriched Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Using Potassium Permanganate (KMnO₄)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “Detection of redox properties of (6,5) -Enriched Single-walled Carbon Nanotube (SWNT) using potassium permanganate (KMnO4)” is an original work. The data and figures presented in the work are quite interesting. The structure of the research paper is logical and intuitive. However, there are a number of instances where some major corrections are required. I can recommend this paper for publication if authors include these corrections in the revised manuscript.

1. There are so many grammatical and typographical inconsistencies in the manuscript.

(i) In “UV–vis spectrophotometer (V-630, JASCO CORPORATION, Hachioji city, Tokyo, Japan) was employed for NIR measurements.” use “A UV–vis spectrophotometer…..”

 (ii) Correct the grammar in “As shown in Table 1, the ratio of the redox reaction of DNA-SWNT complex to the change in KMnO4 concentration and the peak shift in wavelength were revealed”.

(iii) In “The absorption spectra (average value measured three times) measured for each concentration is shown……” ‘spectra’ is a plural word. So you should use ‘…….are shown……’

(iv) The quality of English is weak, and authors are advised to improve the English in lines 111-118. I would suggest the authors to thoroughly redo the English throughout the manuscript.

2. The following sentence is ambiguous to the readers “The peak wavelength becomes shorter as the KMnO4 concentration decreases.”.
3. The resolution of the plots (figure 2, 3) is not good enough for publication. I would suggest the authors to use software like Origin etc. to produce high-resolution images. The inset of figure 2 is very blurry and hard to read.
4. In scientific papers, we do not use “wavelength peak shift”. You can use ‘shift in the peak position’ (the position implies the wavelength automatically).
5. In addition, in the introduction part authors must have to re-write and cite the suitable recent potentials references. Therefore, it can be proposed to add the following citations in the introduction part.

(i) Synthesis of diamond nanostructures from carbon nanotube and formation of diamond-CNT hybrid structures, Carbon, 150, 2019, 388-395

(ii) Pseudo-topotactic growth of diamond nanofibers, Acta Materialia 178, 2019, 179-185

6. The conclusion is too short and insufficient information to the readers.
7. The authors must have to follow the standard US English grammar language and the ALL the figure captions should have to improve for the Journal Standard.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your helpful comments. According to your comments, we modified the manuscript as follows:

1. Thank you for your advice. The whole manuscript was corrected with English corrections. There are various corrections, so please check in the "Track Changes" in Microsoft Word. We apologize for the inconvenience.
2. The sentence "The peak wavelength becomes shorter as the KMnO₄ concentration decreases." was changed to the following text. “Increasing the final concentration of KMnO₄ was found to correspond to a negative peak wavelength shift. The peak wavelength was not affected by the addition of 0.05 µM of KMnO₄; however, a KMnO₄ concentration of 1.0 µM corresponded to a total decrease of 6.5 nm. Then when the complex was reduced with catechin, the initial peak wavelength was fully recovered.” (Line 145-149)
3. The quality of Figures 2, and 3 were improved and replaced. (Line 117, 139)
4. We changed “wavelength peak shift” to “shift in the peak position”.(Line 153, 163)
5. We added some sentences in the introduction of the manuscript and cited the suitable recent potentials references. (Line 29-39, 225-244)
6. We added some sentences to the conclusion. (Line 205-211)
7. Please refer to item1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study presented is well conducted and very complete and is suitable for publication in C. The article is well written and easy to read. I recommend to the authors a revision of the text to correct some small typographical errors and some missed subscripts (see lines 58 and 121) and a small extension of the introduction to better clarify the problems studied in this work.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your helpful comments. According to your comments, we modified the manuscript as follows:

 Thank you for your advice. The whole manuscript was corrected with English corrections. There are various corrections, so please check  in the "Track Changes" in Microsoft Word. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.