From the journal Environmental Science: Atmospheres Peer review history

26-Aug-2022

Dear Dr Subramanian:

Manuscript ID: EA-CRV-08-2022-000098
TITLE: Detection Techniques for Air-borne Isocyanates based on Fluorescent Derivatizing Agents

Thank you for your submission to Environmental Science: Atmospheres, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. I sent your manuscript to reviewers and I have now received their reports which are copied below.

I have carefully evaluated your manuscript and the reviewers’ reports, and the reports indicate that major revisions are necessary.

Please submit a revised manuscript which addresses all of the reviewers’ comments. Further peer review of your revised manuscript may be needed. When you submit your revised manuscript please include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments and highlight the changes you have made. Full details of the files you need to submit are listed at the end of this email.

Please submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible using this link:

*** PLEASE NOTE: This is a two-step process. After clicking on the link, you will be directed to a webpage to confirm. ***

https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos?link_removed

(This link goes straight to your account, without the need to log on to the system. For your account security you should not share this link with others.)

Alternatively, you can login to your account (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/esatmos) where you will need your case-sensitive USER ID and password.

You should submit your revised manuscript as soon as possible; please note you will receive a series of automatic reminders. If your revisions will take a significant length of time, please contact me. If I do not hear from you, I may withdraw your manuscript from consideration and you will have to resubmit. Any resubmission will receive a new submission date.

The Royal Society of Chemistry requires all submitting authors to provide their ORCID iD when they submit a revised manuscript. This is quick and easy to do as part of the revised manuscript submission process. We will publish this information with the article, and you may choose to have your ORCID record updated automatically with details of the publication.

Please also encourage your co-authors to sign up for their own ORCID account and associate it with their account on our manuscript submission system. For further information see: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/journal-authors-reviewers/processes-policies/#attribution-id

Environmental Science: Atmospheres strongly encourages authors of research articles to include an ‘Author contributions’ section in their manuscript, for publication in the final article. This should appear immediately above the ‘Conflict of interest’ and ‘Acknowledgement’ sections. I strongly recommend you use CRediT (the Contributor Roles Taxonomy, https://credit.niso.org/) for standardised contribution descriptions. All authors should have agreed to their individual contributions ahead of submission and these should accurately reflect contributions to the work. Please refer to our general author guidelines https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/author-and-reviewer-hub/authors-information/responsibilities/ for more information.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

************

Reviewer 1

This manuscript reviewed the fluorescent derivatizing agents (with amine and hydroxyl groups) for the determination of isocyanates and also discussed about fluorescent polymer on non-derivatization mode. The classification of the review is relatively clear and the content is relatively comprehensive. However, some errors in writing details and lack of graphic explanation of the main content prevents me to recommend this work published in Environmental Science: Atmospheres directly. I suggest the authors should pay more patient to revise their paper.

1. When describing some important examples in the article, it is best to provide corresponding diagrams so that readers can understand the content more easily.
2. Some details. (1) There should be a space between the punctuation and the following word. For example, on page 6 line 22 “including aliphatic,aromatic” and on page 9 line 2 “Mg2+,Ca2+,Cu2+,Ni2+, F-,Cl-,Br- and NO3-)”. (2) On page 8, “Heating time beyond 16 min. causes degradation…” the “.” after min is obviously incorrect. (3) On page 9, “peak as well as urea derivatives of PAC were separated by HPLC using a fluorescence / UV detector” should remove the space between “fluorescence / UV”.
3. The form of the table can be further optimized, it would be better if the text in the table is centered vertically and the title of table 1 is not bold but table 2 is bold.
4. In the introduction part of this review, the author should explain why the fluorescence method is selected for detection, and describe the advantages of fluorescence detection. Some good papers can be cited, such as: Chemical Society Reviews, 2017, 46, 2237-2271; , Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2013, 135, 7674–7680.ACS Sens. 2021, 6, 1228−1239

Reviewer 2

Selvakumar et al. in this review summarized the fluorescent reagents for the detection of isocyanates, which is an appropriate topic for Environmental Science: Atmospheres as isocyanates with the high toxicity and strong volatility have been used within a wide spectrum of industries. However, almost all fluorescent reagents reviewed in this paper were reported before 2004 (only three ones reported in 2014, 2017 and 2020), which had been well reviewed by the other review article (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2007, 387, 219-236). In addition, the contents of part IV are not included in the title, and what is the correlation between them? What's more, there are some errors in the main text, including but not limited to: 1) the formats of the references 19, 20 and 28 inconsistent with those of other references, and 2) names of isocyanates bolded not in Table 1 but in Figure 1. Therefore, the current work is not suitable for publication in Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres.

RESPONSE to REVIEWERS

Referee 1

Comment 1: The classification of the review is relatively clear, and the content is relatively comprehensive
Response 1: Thanks for the positive comments and suggestions
Comment 2: When describing some important examples in the article, it is best to provide corresponding diagrams so that readers can understand the content more easily
Response 2: Incorporated new graphical image in the abstract for better understanding of readers
Comment 3: Some details. (1) There should be a space between the punctuation and the following word. For example, on page 6 line 22 “including aliphatic, aromatic” and on page 9 line 2 “Mg2+,Ca2+,Cu2+,Ni2+, F-,Cl-,Br- and NO3-)”. (2) On page 8, “Heating time beyond 16 min. causes degradation…” the “.” after min is obviously incorrect. (3) On page 9, “peak as well as urea derivatives of PAC were separated by HPLC using a fluorescence / UV detector” should remove the space between “fluorescence / UV”. All the changes made in the manuscript are highlighted.
Response 3: Corrected in the revised file
Comment 4: The form of the table can be further optimized, it would be better if the text in the table is centered vertically and the title of table 1 is not bold but table 2 is bold.
Response 4: Text in the table centred vertically and the font style of table 1 and table 2 made uniform.
Comment 5: In the introduction part of this review, the author should explain why the fluorescence method is selected for detection and describe the advantages of fluorescence detection. Some good papers can be cited, such as: Chemical Society Reviews, 2017, 46, 2237-2271; Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2013, 135, 7674–7680. ACS Sens. 2021, 6, 1228−1239. (References-49-51). After adding these references, numbering of all the other references are modified and highlighted.
Response 5: Advantages of fluorescence detection are newly added in introduction part and cited the above-mentioned fluorescence detection papers.

Referee 2

Comment 1: Selvakumar et al. in this review summarized the fluorescent reagents for the detection of isocyanates, which is an appropriate topic for Environmental Science: Atmospheres as isocyanates with the high toxicity and strong volatility have been used within a wide spectrum of industries. However, almost all fluorescent reagents reviewed in this paper were reported before 2004 (only three ones reported in 2014, 2017 and 2020), which had been well reviewed by the other review article (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2007, 387, 219-236).
Response 1: The above mentioned paper (Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2007, 387, 219-236) is cited in our paper and we aware that there are only few papers in literature till date. Hence, we intend to write and give detailed insight of fluorescent molecules used for isocyanate detection till date which can be useful for the researchers working towards polymer/nanomaterial-based sensors.
Comment 2: In addition, the contents of part IV are not included in the title, and what is the correlation between them?
Response 2: The contents of part IV are not included in the title since we have found only one paper related to that content. Hence, we have not included in the title. But the contents of part IV can be useful for the researchers working in the non-derivatization mode fluorescent polymers or materials.
Comment 3: The formats of the references 19, 20 and 28 inconsistent with those of other references
Response 3: The reference format of all three are corrected and updated in revised file.
Comment 4: Names of isocyanates bolded not in Table 1 but in Figure 1
Response 4: The font bold style of Table 1 and Figure 1 made uniform

17-Sep-2022

Dear Dr Subramanian:

Manuscript ID: EA-CRV-08-2022-000098.R1
TITLE: Detection Techniques for Air-borne Isocyanates based on Fluorescent Derivatizing Agents

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Environmental Science: Atmospheres. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in its current form. I have copied any final comments from the reviewer(s) below.

You will shortly receive a separate email from us requesting you to submit a licence to publish for your article, so that we can proceed with the preparation and publication of your manuscript.

You can highlight your article and the work of your group on the back cover of Environmental Science: Atmospheres. If you are interested in this opportunity please contact the editorial office for more information.

Promote your research, accelerate its impact – find out more about our article promotion services here: https://rsc.li/promoteyourresearch.

We will publicise your paper on our Twitter account @EnvSciRSC – to aid our publicity of your work please fill out this form: https://form.jotform.com/211263048265047

How was your experience with us? Let us know your feedback by completing our short 5 minute survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/RSC-author-satisfaction-energyenvironment/

By publishing your article in Environmental Science: Atmospheres, you are supporting the Royal Society of Chemistry to help the chemical science community make the world a better place.

With best wishes,

Dr Nønne Prisle
Associate Editor, Environmental Sciences: Atmospheres

Reviewer 1

This work has been improved and I recommend its publication.