Growth of New, Optically Active, Semi-Organic Single Crystals Glycine-Copper Sulphate Doped by Silver Nanoparticles

Comment

Response

Reviewer1

1) Some sentences, eg lines 40-44, should be corrected in English

English corrected

2)The formatting of the text should be adapted to the requirements of the journal, e.g. rows 73-75 have a different font size than, for example, 70-71. It should be unified.

Formatting adjusted

3) I would suggest supplementing Table 1 with the composition for pure GCS

Table 1  provided

4) The sentence in lines 91-92 is imprecise and needs to be rephrased as Figure 2 does not show the percentage composition, only the signal intensity, and Table 1 shows weight percentage not atomic percentage.

Sentence was corrected

5) In addition, in Fig. 2, the Cu and Ag lines are invisible, indistinguishable from noise. I suggest inserting an appropriately enlarged area inside the drawing, where the Cu and Ag lines will be visible.

Fig.2 was updated

6) Based on the literature, the choice of direct allowed transitions for the material should be justified

Ref. adjusted

7) Figure 4. should be described as "UV-Vis. absorbance curve." Vertical axis should be given unit

Fig.4  corrected

8) Figure 4 shows that the absorbance at 300 nm is about 0.15. However, in Figure 10 we see a value of about 0.5 for 500 nm. Does this mean that there is an absorption band in the 300-500 nm region? If so, Figure 10 needs to be presented in the range of 300 - 900 nm to be visible. If there is no absorption band, then the difference in absorbance between 300 nm and 500 nm needs to be explained (why the plots don't stitch together, are the data from the same measurement?)

Both Figs. explored

Comment

Response

Reviewer 2

(General comment): This is a paper of the growth of glycine-copper sulfate crystals with silver nanoparticles. The topic seems to be a little bit interesting, however, the purpose and originality of this manuscript is lack. In other words, the manuscript looks like a lab report which is full of results without proper interpretations.

Purpose and originality of  manuscript explored

In introduction, the author mentioned their purpose of study as “this study aims to … global warming.” The sentence seems to be a leap of logic from the introduction to the purpose. Why the author focuses on the glycine, why other amino acid crystals are not suitable, the reader cannot read it. So, it seems that the purpose (and/or originality) of this paper is unclear. I feel that this manuscript show the various experimental data which the authors did. This manuscript is not an original paper, but a lab report.

This section is corrected

Other comments,

1) At lines 15-16 in abstract, the abbreviation such as “GCS” and “SNPs” is not introduced. In abstract, the formal writing is recommended. (At lines 35, it is also)

Abbreviations formal writing given

2) At line 43 in experimental section, the nanoparticles diameter is shown. How was the diameter size measured?

SNPs is Synthetic with known properties

3) At line 45, the measurement temperature should be shown using absolute values (not using room temperature).

25^oC written [1].

4) At line 60 the X-ray wavelength of Cu-Kα is usually 1.5418 Å. What is the difference?

1.5418 Å

5) At lines 73-76, the font size seems to be different.

Font size adjusted

6) At line 82, “GCS, GCSN1, …” is not explained before using the abbreviation. The author should mention the specimen’s name using formal writing

Names mentioned before abbreviations

7) At lines 97-98, a figure is inserted, however, there is no mention about the figure.

Figure  described

8) At lines 112-114, the XRD patterns are shown. These figures seem to be screenshots of the analysis software. It is difficult to read the precise peaks. The author creates the readable figure for reader. Here, there are two questions. As mentioned in Figure 1, the author obtained the large single crystals. Why the author measure not single XRD, but the powder XRD? The author mentioned that the crystallinity is different for each sample. How the author decided the crystallinity. I think FWHM is usually used.

Figs adjusted

 Single crystal XRD is not available technique in our country. Crystalinity deduced using COD.

9) At line 135, the author mention that the wavelength range of UV-Vis is 190-1100 nm, however, in figure 4, the wavelength range is different.

Fig.4 updated

10) At line 166, what is the “n”?

 N: Refractive index

11)  At line 265, “ ºK ” is shown. It is a mistake

ºK corrected to K

12) It is unclear the connection of this study and global warming. Only the absorption of the infra-red wave

 This part corrected

Comment

Response

Reviewer 1

1) The suggested changes to Figure 2 have not been implemented. In Fig.2 the lines of Cu and Ag are invisible, indistinguishable from noise. For example, in Figure 2b the Cu line around 8 keV is not visible at all. Again, I propose to insert an appropriately enlarged area (in the range of 0.8- 10 keV) inside the main drawing, where the Cu and Ag lines will be visible.

Fig.2 was updated

2) Line 203-206: “absorption” should be replaced by “absorbance”

“absorption” replaced

3) Line 202 and 227: The table header appears twice as “table 3”, which makes further numbering incorrect.

Numbering is corrected

Comment

Response

Reviewer 2

This is a paper of the growth of glycine-copper sulfate crystals with silver nanoparticles. The topic seems to be a little bit interesting. The purpose and originality of this manuscript is added based on previous my comment.

-

1) The XRD patterns are shown in the manuscript. I gave a question in previous comments, however, the author did not answer. As mentioned in Figure 1, the author obtained the large single crystals. why the author measure not single XRD, but the powder XRD? Moreover, the author mentioned as “good fitting of pXRD patterns gave negligible difference between the observed and calculated intensities” why the difference can be negligible? It seems that there is a little bit large difference between the two profiles. The author should show the reason why the difference is negligible.

Single crystal XRD was unavailable technique during our study.

Difference between observed and calculated intensities neglecting as it is less than zero (negative) value in arbitrary unit.

2) At lines 14,15 in abstract, , “ ”is typo

, “ ,” is deleted

3) In Figure 1, the scale bar is not shown.

Scale bar given 

4) In Figure 2, the author shows the chemical structure of GCSN1 crystal. Is the structure reported by some previous studies? If the structure is only speculation by the author, it should be mentioned in the manuscript. I think the readers are misreading, for example the structure was calculated or determined by the structure analysis.

Fig.2e was deleted

Finally, the author should create the figures more precisely. For example, in Figure 3a,b,c,d, the angular region of horizontal axis is different each other .In Figure 8,the lines are thin ,so not suitable for readers , In Figure 10, the line profile is too thick .

Figures were adjusted