Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I really enjoyed reading this paper!!
It is very actual but also quite innovative and of interest because looking at explaining medium and large Extracellular Vesicles in healthy people
This paper is very well written and I believe it deserves to be published.
I have found only some minor spelling/errors and I have reported those here below.

ABSTRACT
This should be rewritten!

Need a sentence to introduce first EV then move on introducing m/lEV
However give also the size  200-800 nm here, not in the method.
please in the method need to mention that samples were drawn by healthy people
Were these blood donors? How do you ensure that they were healty? Did you measure other key parameters such as for example FBC and urine creatinine? if yes please provide these data in a Table

INTRODUCTION
line 51
add those more references:
Intern Med J. 2017 Oct;47(10):1173-1183. doi: 10.1111/imj.13550
Transl Res. 2017 Jun;184:21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2017.02.001.
Blood Transfus. 2015 Apr;13(2):172-3. doi: 10.2450/2014.0276-14.
Acta Haematol. 2014;132(2):199.

line 65,
need to also comment on EV in  VOD and on ET use these references:
Intern Med J. 2017 Oct;47(10):1173-1183. doi: 10.1111/imj.13550
Transl Res. 2017 Jun;184:21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2017.02.001.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
when reporting industrial data or product the copyright sign " © "should be included
e.g Thermo Fisher, Wako etc

As above: healthy people how did you ensure this?
Were these blood donors? How do you ensure that they were healty?
Did you measure other key parameters such as for example FBC and urine creatinine?
if yes please provide these data in an additional Table

line 322 we next examined= rephrase it

DISCUSSION
line 353 delete "these cells are exposed to shear stress during blood flow and"

CONCLUSION
Delete first sentence: " We made...derived."
Experimental design: very well
Validity of the findings: very well
Additional comments: I really enjoyed reading this paper!!
It is very actual but also quite innovative and of interest because looking at explaining medium and large Extracellular Vesicles in healthy people
This paper is very well written and I believe it deserves to be published.
I have found only some minor spelling/errors and I have reported those here below.

ABSTRACT
This should be rewritten!

Need a sentence to introduce first EV then move on introducing m/lEV
However give also the size  200-800 nm here, not in the method.
please in the method need to mention that samples were drawn by healthy people
Were these blood donors? How do you ensure that they were healty? Did you measure other key parameters such as for example FBC and urine creatinine? if yes please provide these data in a Table

INTRODUCTION
line 51
add those more references:
Intern Med J. 2017 Oct;47(10):1173-1183. doi: 10.1111/imj.13550
Transl Res. 2017 Jun;184:21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2017.02.001.
Blood Transfus. 2015 Apr;13(2):172-3. doi: 10.2450/2014.0276-14.
Acta Haematol. 2014;132(2):199.

line 65,
need to also comment on EV in  VOD and on ET use these references:
Intern Med J. 2017 Oct;47(10):1173-1183. doi: 10.1111/imj.13550
Transl Res. 2017 Jun;184:21-34. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2017.02.001.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
when reporting industrial data or product the copyright sign " © "should be included
e.g Thermo Fisher, Wako etc

As above: healthy people how did you ensure this?
Were these blood donors? How do you ensure that they were healty?
Did you measure other key parameters such as for example FBC and urine creatinine?
if yes please provide these data in an additional Table

line 322 we next examined= rephrase it

DISCUSSION
line 353 delete "these cells are exposed to shear stress during blood flow and"

CONCLUSION
Delete first sentence: " We made...derived."


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript describes the proteome analysis of medium and large extracellular vesicles (m/lEVs) from plasma and urine. I can not find out the importance and novelty of this study from the viewpoint of analytical chemistry, because authors used general analytical procedures and their findings does not directly lead to a new analytical method. Hence, I can not understand why this manuscript was submitted to an analytical chemistry journal. Please add the novelty, importance, and progress of this study in terms of analytical chemistry more concretely.
Experimental design: Although authors said that they collected 200-800 nm m/lEVs by differential centrifugation, EVs larger than 800 nm exist in your samples by the flow cytometric analysis (Figure 2). Authors used nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) (line 242) which is a useful instrument for size, size distribution and particle number analyses of the particles, please add the analytical results of your samples by NTA in the revised manuscript.
Validity of the findings: This study is important in the field of EVs.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled “Characterization and function of medium and large extracellular vesicles from plasma and urine by surface antigens and Annexin V” shows that m/lEVs derived from plasma and urine can be characterized by flow cytometry analysis using some membrane proteins and their methodology can distinguish m/lEVs from each type of cells. Moreover, they revealed that DPP4 activity is present in m/lEVs from urine, but not m/lEVs from plasma. These methods are effective in quality control of m/lEVs from plasma and urine, however, the impact is lost by not indicating the clinical applications and I found no major flaws in this manuscript.

The following points should be addressed:
1.	What is the aim of this study? If the authors claim that the novelty of this study is development of m/lEVs detection methods, some researcher already reported the EV detection methods using flow cytometer. Moreover, if the authors want to use this method for clinical applications, the authors need to clearly articulate why this study was undertaken (what clinical situations?).
2.	The authors described “data not shown” in this manuscript, however, the authors should show the all data in manuscript.
3.	Although the authors claimed that CD59 and CD235a double-positive and CD45-negative m/lEVs were classified as erythrocyte-derived m/lEVs etc…, there is no evidence shown in the manuscript. The authors should indicate CD59 and CD235a double-positive and CD45-negative m/lEVs are derived from erythrocyte using pure culture system (I mean the authors culture erythrocyte and purification of m/lEVs from this culture supernatant).
4.	Why did the authors use Annexin V as a marker of m/lEVs? Please explain more details.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Accept for publication
Experimental design: is well reported and clear
Validity of the findings: Are well reported and of interest
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for your revisions based on my comments.
Experimental design: Authors mentioned that they characterized medium/large EVs (m/lEV) and their size ranges were from 200 to -800 nm in the manuscript. However, the size of more than half plasm EVs measured by NTA was less than 100 nm after centrifugation (Supplementary Fig.S1). How did you eliminate the effects of proteins in small EVs in shotgun proteomic analysis?
Validity of the findings: Although you added the importance of this study from the viewpoints of analytical chemistry, I couldn't understand the importance of this study even in the revised manuscript. For example, you found CD26 enzyme activity from urine samples in this study. Why is this important from an analytical chemistry viewpoint? Please explain the novelty and importance of this study in a simpler and easier way from an analytical chemistry viewpoint.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This revised version is much improved. The authors addressed almost all of my concerns.
Experimental design: This revised version is much improved. The authors addressed almost all of my concerns.
Validity of the findings: This revised version is much improved. The authors addressed almost all of my concerns.
Additional comments: This revised version is much improved. The authors addressed almost all of my concerns.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND FUNCTION OF MEDIUM AND LARGE EXTRACELLULAR VESICLES FROM PLASMA AND URINE BY SURFACE ANTIGENS AND ANNEXIN V
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you very much for your revisions. The revisions does not fit my requests. For example, I think you should analyze new sample because about half of the EVs have deteriorated before the NTA analysis. However, if you can not make additional revisions those were requested by my previous comments, no further improvements of the manuscript are expected. This revised manuscript would be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: no further comments
Validity of the findings: no further comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ON THE MECHANISM OF AUTOMATED FIZZY EXTRACTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A fizzy extraction (FE) is a novel liquid-gas separation system with emulsification of aqueous sample by effervescence effect. The pressure-controlled changes in the extraction environment heads to the immediate analyte flow through gaseous headspace to the on-line coupled analyser. In this regard, we may consider it as an pressure-controlled effervescence-assisted emulsification liquid-gas extraction approach.

As a very recently developed extraction, it deserves attention to be studied and gradually improved if it would have brought better sensitivity, selectivity, robustness and so forth.

The mechanism of FE and important analytical parameters, have been studied in this work. The instruments, sample, and chemicals were investigated to eliminate potential interfering agents. The chemical conditions were also optimised to get the best mass spectrometry signal.

I miss to stress more on the automation as it gave refinment in repetitive control of the bubbling and effervescence.

(Introduction, Note):
In the very first part of first paragraph, I miss the general starting of how important is the sample preparation when sensitive analysis is to be used. For the record, I would like to give you an example and related citations which significantly contributed in the area. Also there have been important contributions in unattended approaches applied in chemical laboratory. As this field gradually increases in analytical chemistry the also deserve mentioning.

(Introduction, Upgrade):
Sample preparation (whether done in manual or automated manner), which work on the basis of analyte transfer between different phases such as liquid-liquid, solid-liquid, liquid-gas, solid-gas etc., is frequently unavoidable step before analysis [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993616302916, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128169117000013, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570023218306214, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128169063000212]. The one of them is a very recently introduced fizzy extraction (FE) which relies on dissolution of a carrier gas in liquid sample under ...
Experimental design: Again, in this manuscript, would that do not be better to state and discuss more as it is automated method?

For example in title: On the mechanism of automated fizzy extraction?

It is known the extraciton automation has brought many advantages and solely thanks to instrumental performance the analytical parameters improved.
The program controlled pressure changes can head to a repetitive bubbling manner, in your extraction chamber.
Validity of the findings: The mechanism of FE is exhaustively studied with necessary parameters impacting the extraction efficacy.

However, I do not see using any aqueous real sample analysis. I would say, it would be positive to validate the method applicability in doing so.
Additional comments: Authors present a fizzy extraction for the volatile compounds analysis.
The system is modified in comparsion with prior fizzy extractions.
The novelty are clearly declared as detail study of FE mechanism.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ON THE MECHANISM OF AUTOMATED FIZZY EXTRACTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors of the manuscript "On the mechanism of fizzy extraction" have presented a systematic study on fizzy extraction in order to shed light on its underlying mechanism. Although, fizzy extraction is a variant of conventional "purge and trap", the new technique is lot faster than "purge and trap" and therefore possesses good potential in modern high throughput laboratories. The manuscript is well written and properly presented. The references look okay. The rational provided to validate the hypothesis is scientifically fair.
Experimental design: Experimental design is okay except that the authors missed to evaluate the impact of pressure more systematically on the solubility of carrier gas and the correlation between the soluble carrier gas concentration and the EF values.
Validity of the findings: The presented results are valid. However, the schematic presented in Figure 6 needs additional explanation in the text. It is unclear as to why a polar or hydrophilic compound would move into the bubbles?
Additional comments: Although the authors tried to explain the mechanism of fizzy extraction, some additional factors need to be evaluated such as dependence of EF on the soluble gas concentration. The mechanism or hypothesis as to why a polar compound would move to bubbles needs further explanation.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF COPPER, SELENIUM, AND ZINC IN NEWBORN DRIED BLOODSPOTS USING TOTAL REFLECTION X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (TXRF) SPECTROSCOPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: there is no language problem - perfectly written throughout
literature references adequate
abstract, text and the complete submitted article is well structured and clear

I am missing in the abstract and the paper the following information:
1. why are the chosen elements Cu Zn and Se of importance
2. give some examples on the importance of these elements on the nutrional status of new       born and in general what more could be expected in understanding the composition of DBS
3. using TXRF you get multelement information in each spectrum were there other elements considered carrying interesting information
4. In conclusion mention some examples instead of "great demand across clinical and public health
Experimental design: Details in sample preparation would be fine
1. p7/111 back up the assumption that in a 3mm punch yoiu find 3,1 µl blood
2. p7/114 what parameters do you study to get a suitable analytical method
3. was the purity of HCl checked by TXRF
4. PVA 1% how much was added ?
5. p7/134 the reflectors were siliconized by SERVA solution to prepare the surface of the reflectors
6. p8/141 a photo of the final sample preparation on the reflector is informative pleae add
7. p8/142 one spectrum of the DBS measured should be added to show the spectroscopic details
8. p10/260 any idea why the Zn was lower in frozen cards??
9. p11/311  does the filter paper blank contain any of the targeted elements Cu Se Zn??
p12/343 Mg can not be measured in air, He flush or vacuum required
Validity of the findings: The use of TXRF for this application is a meaningful approach but includes the problem of dissolving the filter material Whatman 903 - nevertheless results are looking promising and fit in a general technique used in sampling minute volumes of blood which is advantageous.
Specifying more details on a medical fundamental research field where these information are important is required.
Additional comments: Some technical and spectroscopic information in particular sample preparation and influence of blank measurements on filter paper are missing. Specify if possible contamination or production impurities in the filter paper can lead to uncontrolled errors in the results. Point to the multelement capacity of TXRF so also cross readings among other elements are possible.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF COPPER, SELENIUM, AND ZINC IN NEWBORN DRIED BLOODSPOTS USING TOTAL REFLECTION X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (TXRF) SPECTROSCOPY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: Very informative and interesting work. A useful application of TXRF for analysis of biological samples which are available in less quantity.

- Q1:  Line 129 : The sample was then vortexed thoroughly and digested for 1.5 hours at 550C. At 550C the blood sample and the filter paper both get digested?

- Q2: In Line 133 : what was the purpose to add polyvinyl alcohol (1%) ?

- Q3: Why Cu, Se and Zn were studied? Do these elements have special significance? Please explain.

- Q4: please give some comments on the Variation in analytical results with respect  to time and temp?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS OF COPPER, SELENIUM, AND ZINC IN NEWBORN DRIED BLOODSPOTS USING TOTAL REFLECTION X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (TXRF) SPECTROSCOPY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors followed the sugegstions and for me the paper gained now successfully information for other readers
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: Interesting results and now informative in details


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW ON BENEFITS, TOXICITY, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE OF GRAPHENE-BASED FACE MASKS IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The review paper presented intends to demonstrate the prospects and challenges of graphene-based face masks in preventing COVID-19 Pandemic. This is a very timely review and significant study since highly infectious COVID-19 has become a global public health concern. Graphene-enhanced face masks have demonstrated some hopeful results due to the incredible properties of graphene. However, there are health risks associated with the use of this graphene-enhanced face masks. This review paper has systematically reviewed recently published papers in relevant area and presented scientifically. However, it would be good to make few minor amendments:

Comment 1: Line 217: Check if the figure number is accurate.

Comment 2: It would be great to include some other relevant papers such as: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c05537, https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202107407, https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.202100176


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW ON BENEFITS, TOXICITY, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE OF GRAPHENE-BASED FACE MASKS IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is interesting and hot; however, the article needs significant modification.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: 1.	How does the electrical and thermal conductivity of graphene reduce the virus transmission?

2.	Techniques for the Incorporation of graphene into the polymer matrix should be highlighted. for example; electrospinning, 3D printing, coatings............etc

3.	The possible environmental impacts associated with the use of graphene-based face masks should be covered.

4.	Filtration process should be elaborated. Also, the benefits of using graphene in the face mask should be explained.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW ON BENEFITS, TOXICITY, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE OF GRAPHENE-BASED FACE MASKS IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The article meets the PeerJ criteria regarding basic reporting, study design and validity of findings. The article should be accepted as is.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW ON BENEFITS, TOXICITY, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE OF GRAPHENE-BASED FACE MASKS IN THE PREVENTION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The paper can be accepted.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES, CYTOTOXICITY, COLOUR AND MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF LIGHT-CURED RESIN COMPOSITES CONTAINING MODIFIED NOVARON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: a. English usage
1. Please check some English usage. For example, Materials, p.8, "Two types of enhanced materials were ....". It should be "Two types of silanized filler materials were ....".
Experimental design: Methods
1. The silanization of both filler particles, ABWs and ZrO2, was not mentioned in the methods. Are you referring the procedure according to your previous study [Zhang et al. 2014b]? if yes, please mention it in the text.
2. The total weight % of the filler particles and Novaron was 64%. Was it difficult to wet enough of the fillers with the resin matrices?
3. How long did it take for the light curing each time?
4. A surface roughness of 0.18 um for biological test and 0.02 um for Vickers hardness tests, why? According to your previous studies?
Validity of the findings: All raw data are provided. Some comments are given:
1. Please check no SD values are provided.
2. The raw data need more descriptive information. e.g., surface hardness test, there are 9 values measured for each group.
Additional comments: Figures
Represented live/dead images for biofilms on resin disks
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 5 to 10 into one figure.
The live/dead results of planktonic bacteria in the medium
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 11 to 16 into one figure.
The MTT results
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 17 to 22 into one figure.
CFUs results
1. It is recommended to combine Figs. 23 to 28 into one figure.
Other comments
1. p.13, “Representative live/dead images are shown in Fig. 3 for…..”. Please check if it is Fig. 5.
2. p.14, “Fig. 5A (S. mutans), B (F. nucleatum) and C (C. albicans) present the MTT results for the biofilms on the resin surfaces of the Novaron groups, and Fig. 5D-F are….”. Please check the figure numbers.
3. p.14, “……. presented in Fig. 6A (S. mutans), B (F. nucleatum) and C (C. albicans), and the results for the planktonic cells in the culture medium are presented in Fig. 6D-F. The results were the same as the MTT results.”. Please check the figure numbers.
4. p.15, “……. cytotoxicity of resin composites are shown in Fig. 7,……”. Please check the figure numbers


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES, CYTOTOXICITY, COLOUR AND MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF LIGHT-CURED RESIN COMPOSITES CONTAINING MODIFIED NOVARON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study evaluated some properties of a silver-containing resin composite. Novaron is a silver-supported antibacterial material with promising inhibit activity, which can be useful in dental restorative materials for preventing secondary caries around restorations. Thus, the results of this study strengthen the body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of Novaron incorporation. However, from a dental perspective, several improvements are needed.
Herein, a list of criticisms and related suggestions is described.
Experimental design: TITLE
The current title does not fully express the objective of the study, since it was not only evaluated the antimicrobial properties, but also the color and mechanical properties. Please, rewrite the title.

ABSTRACT
The abstract does not report all the tests performed in this study. Please, mention that color change was also evaluated and include a brief description of the statistical analysis used.

INTRODUCTION
In general, the introduction is clear and concise. However, I assume that the novelty of the study should be more emphasized. The current introduction does not approach its main topic: Novaron material. For instance, why Novaron is interesting? How Novaron works? Why Novaron should be incorporated in resin composites? What are the advantages of incorporating Novaron compared to other silver-based agents? These questions must be briefly answered through the introduction.
Some minor revisions are addressed below.
Line 71: The term “lower resistance to caries” is not adequate. Please, reformulate the sentence explaining the risk for secondary caries due to microbial invasion and proliferation in the tooth/restoration interface. Add more references if necessary.
Lines 71-72: Please, include a reference that supports this statement.
Lines 80-82: Please, include reference of studies that evaluated resin composites containing antimicrobial agents.
Line 81: Replace “microbial destruction” for “microbial growth/proliferation”.
Line 86: Please, indicate that Ag means silver, since it was mention in the text for the first time.
Line 89-98: This paragraph is confusing for me. I suggest that the authors firstly mention the previous researches using Novaron. After that, the introduction must end with the objective of the study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
In my understanding, the authors prepared resin matrices with and without Novaron. From a clinical perspective, why Novaron particles were not incorporated into a commercial resin composite? If it is not possible, would not be interesting to include a control group using a commercial resin composite?
Please, include sample size calculation.
Lines 100-111: To enhance the readability of the paper, I suggest the inclusion of a Table giving detailed information regarding the composition of the resin composites evaluated in the study.
Lines 131-132: Describe how the light-curing was performed in more detail. What light-curing unit was used? The irradiance? Light exposure time?
Line 137: How the specimens were sterilized? Please, describe it.
Line 145: Replace “three kinds” for “three strains”.
Line 201: I suggest the calculation of the Whiteness Index for Dentistry (WID) since it has been widely used in recent studies. WID is a CIELAB-based system, thus the authors can calculate it using CIELAB values previously obtained. Please, have a look at the published paper: Peréz MM et al. Development of a customized whiteness index for dentistry based on CIELAB color space. Dent Mater. 2016;32(3):461-7. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.008.
Line 216: Considering the sample size (n = 6), the most adequate normality test would be Shapiro-Wilk. Why the authors did not use that test instead of Kolmogorov-Smirnov?
Please, include statistical significances for Tables 1 and 2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All the changes suggested in previous sections should be considered for the Results and discussion section.
This study inspires several questions that could be deeply explained through the results and discussion section. Herein, authors should report comments upon only report the obtained results. Moreover, the clinical extrapolation of the results is missing and it is crucial for the dental audience. I suggest rewriting all this section.

FIGURES
Please, include in all figure captions what the asterisks and red lines mean in the charts.
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: No comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES, CYTOTOXICITY, COLOUR AND MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF LIGHT-CURED RESIN COMPOSITES CONTAINING MODIFIED NOVARON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: In Fig. 1, the XPS spectrum. please check the XPS curve of unsilanized Novaron. It is not clear.
Additional comments: Please check the English throughout the text. For example, line 201, the spelling: "foetal calf serum".


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES, CYTOTOXICITY, COLOUR AND MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF LIGHT-CURED RESIN COMPOSITES CONTAINING MODIFIED NOVARON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear authors,
The quality of the manuscript has improved significantly after the changes. However, some minor revisions are needed to their possible publication.
Experimental design: - “Ag(slilver)-based”: replace for “Ag(silver)-based”.
- “Navaron”: replace for Novaron
- It was not described the irradiance emitted by the light curing unit. Moreover, it was added that increments of 0.2 mm in thickness were used. Why such a fine layer? From a clinical perspective, increments of 2 mm in thickness would be used.
Validity of the findings: No further comments.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: In this paper, the authors have presented a review of various materials and testing methods for virus filtration of face masks and respirators. The topic is hot and this article can provide in-depth details on the face masks and respirators. After careful reading, I concluded that the manuscript should be published. I suggest a minor change to the manuscript.
1) The surface area and porosity of the fibers are important features that dictate the breathability and filterability of the face masks. Electrospinning has been considered as one of the best techniques for fabricating nanofiber membranes with desired porosity and surface area. However, the electrospinning technique has been ignored in this paper. It would be better if the authors could include some examples/ or recent trends in electrospinning.
2) There are few typing errors: Line no 70, Line no 409


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The MS is clearly written scientifically, English language is pretty much okay.
Experimental design: I think the article falls within the scope of the journal.
Validity of the findings: Abstract and conclusion are well stated.
Additional comments: Authors reviewed the virus filtering efficiency of the face masks and respirators in this MS. The manuscript is well written and presented clearly. There are some issues to be discussed more before published. The comments are as follows.
1.	The importance of the face mask and respirator should be discussed in introduction part to create the background for their study.
2.	The special terms such as face velocity, charge holding, etc. used in MS should be defined.
3.	 The proven filters/mask such as N95 are expensive to used, in this case, authors should think discussion briefly about recycling by using suitable sterilization techniques.
4.	Authors should discuss how the virus penetrates the mask/respirator briefly.
5.	The viruses are very much smaller than the pores of the filter materials, in this case how these materials can be able to prevent them from entering?
6.	I suggest making a table mentioning filter materials (possibly polymers), their filtration efficiency, their general name such as N95, surgical face mask, etc., the application, and so on.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Insufficient background in the area of respiratory protection.  Need to review the literature thoroughly.
Experimental design: Test methods are not well understood and are mixed up.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions address research questions.
Additional comments: Review of material and testing methods for virus ﬁltering performance of face mask and respirator
This review describes the material and testing methods for face masks and N95 respirators, and their virus ﬁltering performance.  The difference in properties of face masks and respirators to reduce/prevent virus transmission has been described.  To address respirator shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic, research on filter material with novel functionalities, new mask designs and decontamination methods have been discussed.
Aerosol particles are captured by fibrous filter materials of N95 respirators and face masks.  Inert particles and virus particles are captured by the same mechanisms and literature shows there is no difference in filter efficiency. In the US, neither NIOSH nor FDA requires viral efficiency tests for approval process.  The developments in this area appear to have limited applications.
The information on face masks including the approval agency and testing requirements is lacking.  Facemask test methods have been mixed up with N95 respirator test methods. The distinction between filter efficiency and OSHA assigned protection factor should be well defined.
Minor comments:
Lines 66-68 – Recent studies showed COVID-19 transmission by aerosol mode.                                                                                Reference shows “Organization”, which should be “World Health Organization” – change it throughout the manuscript.
Lines 66-68 – Surgical face mask.  Few other names include surgical, isolation, dental, and medical procedure masks. What facemasks are described in the manuscript?  US FDA cleared surgical masks (SMs) are regulated under 21 CFR 878.4040 and they meet certain efficiency for inert particles and biological particles as well as fluid barrier protection standards and standards for Class I or Class II flammability tests. The surgical mask described in the study should be identified.
Lines 89 – “surgical masks” are recommended for protection.  Is this US FDA approved or other agency approved masks?  Different types of masks under the name “surgical masks” are on the market.  The approval standard or agency should be mentioned. FDA surgical mask information can be obtained from reference “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Surgical Masks - Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions Document issued on: March 5, 2004 and a correction posted on July 14, 2004.”
Similarly, 42CFR Part 84 explains NIOSH approval of N95 masks.

Lines 113 – In the US, respirators are certified by the NIOSH under 42 CFR Part 84.
Lines 143-158 – Filter efficiency and assigned protection factor have been described. Assigned protection factor (APF) applies to only NIOSH approved respirators not respirators for other countries.  APF is not applicable to surgical masks.  It appears that filter efficiency and APF have been misunderstood and simplified.  Filtration efficiency and APF are not the same.  One cannot simply measure the filtration efficiency and report the APF value.
The overall performance of a respirator is described by the OSHA assigned protection factor (APF). APF is defined as the workplace level of respiratory protection that a respirator or class of respirators is expected to provide to employees when the employer implements a continuing, effective respiratory protection program as specified by the 29 CFR 1910.134 standard.  APF accounts for factors including filter media, faceseal, valve leakage, fit factor and others.  OSHA assigns these numbers after thoroughly reviewing the available literature including the various analysis by respirator authorities, as well as quantitative analysis of data from workplace protection factor and simulated workplace protection factor studies, comments submitted to the record, and public hearing testimony.  No such considerations exist for surgical masks and APF does not apply to SM.
Lines 169 – Again the test parameters are all mixed up.  N95 respirator filtration test is done at 85 L/min using charge neutralized NaCl aerosol.  Additional tests are needed for certification under a set of test conditions described in 42CFR Part 84.  Face velocity 0.5 to 25 cm/sec is described in the ASTM standard.  These two cannot be mixed up.  This section should be revised.
Lines 181-183 – I assume the size of virus particles refer to physical diameters not MMAD.
In the case of N95 respirators, virus particles smaller and larger than the most penetrating particle size (MPPS) (~50 nm [physical diameter] for N95 respirators and most of the surgical masks).  The virus particles are captured up to 95%.
Lines 293-303 – specify if this is a US FDA cleared surgical mask.
Lines 328-340 – For NIOSH certification, N95 respirators should meet the test requirements described in the 42 CFR Part 84 standard.  There is no requirement for the number of filter media layers and the order of hydrophobic and hydrophilic layers.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No clear understanding of the different types of masks for protection.
Experimental design: Test method for one type of mask is mixed up with another type.
Validity of the findings: Reasonable.
Additional comments: Review of material and testing methods for virus ﬁltering performance of face mask and respirator
This revised manuscript is much improved on the description of information in several sections.  Some points have been overlooked and not satisfactorily addressed.
Specific comments:
Lines 61 – (Yang et al., 2009, p. 1). What is the reason for adding p.1? just delete throughout the manuscript.
Lines 66-68 – Recent studies showed COVID-19 transmission by aerosol mode.  This point has not been included in the revised manuscript.
Line 109- ‘Respirators are primarily designed for high risk environments including  by health care professionals while treating a COVID patient’ – revise the sentence
Lines 112 –  ‘Since respirators have special design and advanced filter materials (figure 2c), a properly worn respirator provides an excellent protection to the user’.
delete ‘excellent’, better to say ‘expected’ because N95 respirator can give 95% protection level for particulates when fit tested and properly used in workplaces with a written respiratory program in place.  (A P100 respirators can give 99.97% protection level, and higher level respirators can give higher protection levels.)
Lines 117 – However, when the EV is not working properly, it may contaminate the nearby environment with infectious virus particles through exhaled breath.
Delete ‘not’.  This is the reason why NIOSH recommends respirators without EV for infectious diseases. Revise the sentence.
Line 119- There are different names for respirators. Gather more information before writing this section. It is full of mistakes.
What do you mean?  There are only N95, N99 and N100 in the whole world?  You may want to say that there are different types of particulate respirators available in different countries.  In the US, Filtering facepieces respirators (FFRs) (disposable FFRs), elastomeric half-mask, full facepiece, powered air-purifying respirators, supplied air-purifying and self-contained breathing apparatus and others are available.  N, P and R series FFRs are available at 95, 99 and 99.95% efficiency levels (total 9 different types).  (approval - code of federal regulations Title 42, Part 84). Then describe N95 FFRs, (widely used, reasonable cost).
Surgical N95 masks are a subset of N95 FFRs which are used in healthcare for infectious aerosols.  They are NIOSH approved N95 FFRs and also cleared by FDA for fluid resistance, flammability, and biocompatibility properties.  Presently, NIOSH reviews the results for fluid resistance, flammability, and biocompatibility supplied by the manufacturer for certification.

Other countries have different types of respirators.  FFRs in the UK include FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3. Revise the paragraph.
Line 121- N-not resistant to oil, R-partially resistant and P-resistant (oil proof)
Line 123- The ‘medical N95’ ---------- delete.  It is ‘Surgical N95’ and make the change throughout the manuscript.
Line 127- wrong reference.  For certification refer; code of fed regulations. 42 CFR Part 84.
Line 131- come up with a reason why filtering efficiency for virus?  filter efficiency for inert particles such as NaCl aerosol and other particles are well documented and info on virus particle filtration is not well described.??
147- may be better to use ‘---------masks and respirators -------             ‘?
159- delete ‘facial fitness, breathing condition’- not applicable for efficiency measurement.
Line 164-176- delete this part ‘Alternately------respectively’.  APF does not apply to SMs.  How is the APF of N95 compared with SM?
Line 180- include filter media charge and particle charge
Line 182- Delete it.  ‘A user can use a filtering device in a wide range of 183 particle size and concentration distribution and breathing conditions………(Balazy et al., 2006; Ba\lazy et al., 2006; Shine, Rogers & Goldfrank, 2009, p. 1).’
Line 183- 186 -‘The regulatory recommendations for the use of respirator and surgical mask are made from in vitro measurement of filtering efficiency(Balazy et al., 2006; Ba\lazy et al., 2006; Shine, Rogers & Goldfrank, 2009, p. 1).’
Refer 42CFR Part 84 NIOSH particulate respirator standard for certification.
Line 189- ‘NIOSH respirator test method(NIOSH, 2019)’
Do not generalize test conditions because different tests are required for different types of respirators.
NIOSH uses NaCl aerosol method (not recommending) for testing only N95 FFRs, not other respirators.  revise the sentence.
Line 199-200- Please delete.
No need to describe the sealing of a respirator because the test methods includes this step.  Manikin system is not used for this testing.
Line 201- Make a paragraph for surgical mask testing.
Line 208-226.  Delete these sentences.  The NIOSH -------- Grinshpun et al 2009)
214.  The US FDA also provides clearance to medical surgical mask after reviewing the
FDA clears SM after reviewing the test results and supporting information 215 provided by the manufactures in the 510(k) premarket application(US Food and Drug 216 Administration, 2004). In the 510(k) application, the manufactures are required to provide the 217 results of fluid resistance, polystyrene latex and Staphylococcus aureus bacterial aerosol filtering 218 efficiency, differential pressure, and flammability tests.  Read the FDA document and include all the tests required for surgical masks. Do not confuse with surgical N95 FFRs tests.
Read the literature -  Surgical N95 respirators are recommended in healthcare.  These are NIOSH certified N95s and also cleared for fluid resistance, flammability and biocompatibility by NIOSH.
See reference. Rengasamy et al. 2021. American Journal of Infection Control, online 24 March 2021
Lines 218 –234  delete  ‘Size of aerosol particle -----------illustrated in Fig 1.  Neither NIOSH nor FDA requires this test.  What is the purpose?
Line 247- The VFE of surgical masks 248 ranged from 80 to 85%, suggesting surgical masks cannot be as effective as N95 respirators for 249 small virus.  Make sure it is correct.
One SM shows penetration  of ~30 to 85% for ~5 to 80 nm particles while the other SM showed 5 to 20% .
Line 250- Specify the name of the SM used in the study.
Line 256 – 258 In another study, filtering efficiency of medical 257 N95 respirator was ≥99.6% for all combinations of experiment configurations using influenza A 258 virus, rhinovirus 14, and bacteriophage ΦΧ174 at a flow rate of 28.3 Lmin-1(Zhou et al., 2018).
There is no medical N95.  The name of the mask is ‘Surgical N95’
Line 309-321- smaller fiber, longer fiber, shorter fiber, - use smaller and larger with diameter
Line 511- excellent protection.  delete ‘excellent’ and use expected as suggested previously.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The quality of the manuscript has been improved after revision.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: REVIEW OF MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS FOR VIRUS FILTERING PERFORMANCE OF FACE MASK AND RESPIRATOR
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors revised the manuscript substantially.
Experimental design: The study is focussed on the subject they choose.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are supported by results
Additional comments: The revision is satisfactory.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CREATION OF A PROTOTYPE BIOMIMETIC FISH TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACT TRAUMA CAUSED BY HYDROPOWER TURBINE BLADE STRIKES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was written in professional English. The research backgrounds was fully described by using the appropriate references.
Experimental design: The contents of the research is in the field of the journal, and the research significance is explained in detail. And the study meets ethical standards.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The research in this paper is very meaningful. It has potential application value to imitate fish similar to live fish by using bionics. However, there are still some shortcomings in the research or questions that readers may have. As shown below:
(1) How to evaluate the flexibility of Gelfish, is it reasonable to evaluate only by hardness? In this paper, only the hardness can be used to determine whether the tissue similarity between Gelfish and live fish is correct? I think this is not rigorous. I don't know whether other scholars in previous studies also used hardness to characterize it.
The hardness value of the ballistic gelatin in the article should be given, is it Shore A? Or something else?
(2) In the process of preparing the sample, the dosage value of de-foaming agent added should be clear, rather than using a few drops to express it.
(3) Whether it is necessary to vacuum defoam the sample during the fabrication process. I don't know how you solved the air bubbles in the prepared sample. In our actual operation process, vacuum defoaming is required, otherwise there will be bubbles.
(4) Why did you choose bluegill, rainbow trout, gizzard shad, and white bass as the prototype for your study.
(5) The marker points in Figure 1 are similar to those added in the post-image processing process. Please provide the actual biological pictures with marker points during the scanning process.
(6) The scanning accuracy of the scanner in this paper should be given, rather than let the reader find it by himself.
(7) Whether the sensor designed by the author has been calibrated. This is very critical to the accuracy of the sensor.
(8) The authors should check whether the format of literatures meet the requirements of the journal, and check the references in the paper, such as P26 Line 677 and P27 Line 706 the corresponding literatures.
Moreover, the paragraphs of the manuscript should be double-spaced, and the font should be times new roman. The format of the formula should be centered and right aligned.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CREATION OF A PROTOTYPE BIOMIMETIC FISH TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACT TRAUMA CAUSED BY HYDROPOWER TURBINE BLADE STRIKES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear writing is used throughout, with sufficient literature references. The introduction is focused on biomimicry and modeling as the foundation for this work, though some additional focus on how similar models have been used to make decisions or inform scientific questions may be useful. There is a considerable amount of biomechanics literature on things like using 3D printing to understand form or function of organism teeth, armor, etc, to model how adaptations might be used in the actual organism. Adding this background might expand the applicability of the research.

Article is well structured

This paper is more of a methods paper than one with a self contained hypothesis and results, but the paper has clear objectives and relevant results.
Experimental design: Research question is relevant and meaningful. The topic, understanding how to replicate fish structure and materials, is a knowledge gap. The methods for creating the materials and iterations are well described, with detailed description of how each step was completed.

Additional detail is needed for the durometer measurements. Describe how the model and fish were fixed while taking the measurements. Describe how deep the durometer set up is designed to penetrate. While the durometer is a decent way of understanding the material properties, it might be worth while describing why this one was chosen, as opposed to others, like comparing rated elastic modulus, bending or torsion of the full structure, etc.
Validity of the findings: Findings are generally robust. The results of the strike analysis on the Gelfish is somewhat speculative, as it is not compared to a fish response in the paper, though it is modeled off of previous results. If it were compared to a fish, how does the model assist in understanding whether or not the strike is a lethal strike? What characteristics of the strike are the authors looking for? A certain amount of force or deflection? This is discussed a bit in the conclusions, but it is difficult to understand if biofidelity can be achieved without injuring more actual fish.

While the strike analysis adds value for the potential hydropower industry, I don’t know if the strike analysis adds important conclusions to the results of whether or not the Gelfish has high fidelity as a model. I would recommend strengthening comparisons to the rainbow trout lab trials mentioned in line 562. Throughout this section, compare findings to the expectations of an actual fish.

Line 575 – the paper describes how the Gelfish began to disintegrate after being struck repeatedly. I would guess that a fish would also begin to disintegrate after repeated trauma. A high fidelity model would need to respond to trauma like the fish. In this case, the fact that the skin separated is an important difference, as that would be an unlikely result in the actual fish. I think the paper would benefit from additional focus on describing how the results compare to actual fish in these sections.
Additional comments: Overall, I think this a relevant study with useful data toward creating model fish or other marine animals.

I would like some additional discussion about the lack of bone structure in the model fish. How does this compare to the way an actual fish behaves? What is the justification for not including some internal structure?

Errata:
Line 200: I think plastic storage bag would be better


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYNTHESIS OF NANO-TIO2 ASSISTED BY GLYCOLS AND SUBMITTED TO HYDROTHERMAL OR CONVENTIONAL HEAT TREATMENT WITH PROMISING PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The present manuscript titled "Synthesis of nano-TiO2 assisted by glycols and submitted to hydrothermal or conventional heat treatment with promising photocatalytic activity" is an interesting and compelling study. The results and discussion presented are interesting and can help other readers/researchers working in this area. I recommend the author(s) to address the following minor issues.

1 The caption in the inset of figure 4 mentioned the Optical "reflectance" spectra of the samples while in the figure it is indicated as absorbance spectra.
2. In figure 6, the linear fit in the case of TiO2 G1HT (A) doesn't seem right. Please correct it.
3. There are several typos in the manuscript. I recommend proofread the manuscript again.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYNTHESIS OF NANO-TIO2 ASSISTED BY GLYCOLS AND SUBMITTED TO HYDROTHERMAL OR CONVENTIONAL HEAT TREATMENT WITH PROMISING PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well organized and clear. Literature were appropriately cited. The article is divided into different section and are appropriate
Experimental design: The experimental designs are appropriate and in line with the overall scope of the paper
Validity of the findings: The authors demonstrated the preparation of TiO2 mesoporous nanoparticles using the modified sol-gel method with different glycols as structure molds. The authors found the use of ethylene glycol  associated with hydrothermal heat treatment proved to be the most effective way to obtain nanoparticles with improved photocatalytic properties. The use of different glycols influenced the size of the particles, promoting the formation of smaller particles. All the conclusions are well stated with the proper experimental studies. All data have been provided.
Additional comments: Overall quite good


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYNTHESIS OF NANO-TIO2 ASSISTED BY GLYCOLS AND SUBMITTED TO HYDROTHERMAL OR CONVENTIONAL HEAT TREATMENT WITH PROMISING PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The language for the most part is easy to understand. However, there are a few cases (listed in the comments to the author section) where the sentences are ambiguous.
Experimental design: Authors have attempted to compare the different heat treatment techniques in obtaining a better photocatalyst using a “modified” sol-gel method.
The research question is clearly stated. The authors have clearly stated the problem they are tackling and relate the experimental findings to the problem.
Also, the authors have performed several experimental techniques in the experimentation section, which are detailed in the discussion section.
Validity of the findings: The authors have done a remarkable job of performing several analyses to obtain structural information.
Many reference materials (including the analytical methods) are rightly cited by the authors.
Conclusions are clearly stated as well.
Additional comments: Authors have attempted to compare the different heat treatment techniques in obtaining a better photocatalyst using a “modified” sol-gel method.
As authors stated, Titanium dioxide has been attracting interest in various multidisciplinary applications.
In the introduction section, there are a few places there it is
The authors tried to explain recent applications of the TiO2 and the use of the language was very ambiguous. Some sentences and paragraphs do not make any sense even after going back-and-forth several times.
For example, lines 108 - 109
“….semiconductor oxides can to  allow the displacement of electrons…”
The above sentence is not only hard to comprehend but also confuses the reader in grasping the authors’ views. There are several of these examples all over the manuscript.
Lines 111-112
“…Similar behaviors have the mixtures of crystalline phases of  TiO2, such as anatase/brookite (A/B) or anatase/rutile (A/R)…”
The authors may want to restructure the above sentence.
Also, line 114-116
“In the present study, photocatalysts based on TiO2 were synthesized by the modified sol-gel method, evaluating the influence of the use of different structural molds  (ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol or polyethylene glycol 300 ), as well as the effect of thermal treatments by conventional or hydrothermal route on the structural, optical and morphological properties. ”
It would be easier to break the above sentence and explain it effectively in two separate sentences.
Line 119-121
“…The results presented provide new ideas about obtaining mesoporous...”
please rewrite the sentence
Language should be improved to make sure that the international audience can clearly understand your manuscript.
Experimental methods:
Does using different structural molds will qualify to be the modified sol-gel?
In the results and discussion section:
In line 180:
The authors state that the formed agglomerates are spherical nanoparticles, which is conflicting with the TEM images.
In Fig. 1, D has a different scale compared to A-C, authors may want to replace it with an image with a similar scale.
Including the TEM and HRTEM images for TiO2G2M and TiO2G3M might help the reader to comprehend the Fig.1 better.
Authors may want to state the reference for their estimated spacing between crystalline planes an the .
Can the authors comment on why the Fig.2. (plot C had greater brookite phase than plot f)?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: SYNTHESIS OF NANO-TIO2 ASSISTED BY GLYCOLS AND SUBMITTED TO HYDROTHERMAL OR CONVENTIONAL HEAT TREATMENT WITH PROMISING PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: N/A
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: The author(s) have addressed the concerns raised previously. The revised manuscript looks good overall.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION OF THE PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY OF OXIDES BASED ON TIO2 SYNTHESIZED BY HYDROLYSIS CONTROLLED BY THE USE OF WATER/ACETONE MIXTURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION OF THE PHOTOCATALYTIC ACTIVITY OF OXIDES BASED ON TIO2 SYNTHESIZED BY HYDROLYSIS CONTROLLED BY THE USE OF WATER/ACETONE MIXTURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors presented a synthetic method based in co-precipitation of the titanium alkoxides in a mixture of water/acetone in different proportions. Then, the authors analyzed the microstructural properties of these samples and analyzed their respective performance on photocatalytic discoloration and mineralization of two different dyes, and in the H2 evolution.

Although the synthetic method is not novel and innovative, the authors managed to apply the synthesized samples in different applications. This fact makes the manuscript appropriate for publication after some improvement.
The introduction is well-written and provide enough context to understand the manuscript development. Some references I suppose could not be properly found by Editorial Office or Editor. I suppose the authors should try to address this issue as well.
Experimental design: The experimental design is properly described and performed throughout the research. There is a small concern about the accuracy of determining the concentration of the both dyes simultaneously by using absorption spectrum. This concern is explained in more detailed in the section 4 of this report.
Validity of the findings: Although the synthetic model is straightforward the findings obtained different applications, such as dyes mineralization, discoloration and H2 evolution are very useful and worth to be communicated in a peer-review article.
Additional comments: In this section there are the comments that I would like to see some improvements made by the authors, in order to make the manuscript more appropriate for publication before its acceptance. Please pay attention and try to address them:

On page 5, line 123:
The expression Transmission Electron Microscopy was wrongly abbreviated as MET. The correct acronym is TEM.

On page 5, lines 141 and 142, where it is written:
“Monitoring was done in the maximum absorbance wavelength in the visible of each dye – 507 nm for P4R and 512 nm for RR120 - using a UV-1201 (Shimadzu) spectrophotometer.”
I am concerned about if it is truly possible to determine the concentration of the two dyes simultaneously accurately. My concern is based on the fact that one of the dyes absorbs at 507 nm and the other absorbs at 512 nm. I suppose there is a huge peak overlap. So, the authors should add a section in the supporting information containing an actual absorption spectrum. There, they should explain a detailed way of how they manage to distinguish the two peaks. For instance, if they used some peak deconvolution software or not.
Another point that should be detailed in this explanation section is the calibration curves. For instance, when the authors were preparing the calibration curves. Did they make two separate calibration curves or only one with the two dyes mixed?

On page 5, lines 150 to 152, where it is written:
“For this, after each reaction the photocatalyst was separated from the supernatant by decanting, washed with distilled water, centrifuged and dried at 70°C for 24 hours, and then reused under the same described conditions using a new load of the same dye.”
When the authors were washing and drying the powder for recovering, how much of the initial powder were the authors able to recover?
I suppose, at least, a small amount of the catalyst is lost during the washing/drying process. And if so, in the second and subsequent cycles, did the authors decrease the dyes initial concentrations proportionally to the mass of TiO2 unable to be recovered?

Results
About Figure 1:
In figure 1, there is no way to distinguish the standard patterns of anatase and brookite. One pattern is black and the other one is dark green. There is not enough color difference allowing to distinguish the two patterns.
If the authors want to keep the standard patterns this way, they should change the colors of the standard patterns, in such a way they are two clearly distinguishable colors.

Still about figure 1, there are the expressions: “Refletions de Bragg Anatase” and “Refletions de Bragg Brookite”
None of these expressions are written in standard English language. The authors should correct these two expressions.

Second, I recommend the authors to perform the Rietveld Refinement in the TiO2 P-25 sample. This way, they will be able to verify how the brookite-anatase-rutile proportion from P-25 compares with the ones of the samples prepared in the study.

About Table 2:
The caption of this table should be corrected, because it shows Table 1, instead of Table 2. Also, I do not think the morphological parameters would be the best expression. I think the expression “textural parameters” would be more appropriate.

About Table 3:
For each entry wherever the rate constants of discoloration or mineralization where presented, there are two values. It is not clear what these two values mean. Is it the result of two equal trials? If yes, I think it is more appropriate to present the data as an average and standard deviation.
Or are those two values related to the two-stages pseudo-first-order rate constant? If yes, I recommend the authors to present these values in different columns, and clearly label the columns as first-stage degradation and second-stage degradation, for instance.
Second, for the RR120 dye, why is there only one value for the discoloration rate constant? The reason why there is only one value should be clearly explained by the authors.
Third, why were the samples W1-25 and W1-75 not tested neither for mineralization nor discoloration for RR120? If the authors have the possibility to perform this analysis, they should timely do it for the revisions of this paper. If the authors are unable to do it, the reason why should be clearly explained in the manuscript text.
Fourth, to complement the data, I recommend the authors to present the R2 values obtained from the pseudo-first-order model fit to the experimental data.
Fifth, the caption should be checked, as it is showing Table 1 instead of Table 3.

About the Mineralization and Discoloration Kinetics:
As the mineralization and discoloration kinetics present two different linear regions, with different rate constants. It would be more interesting if the authors could calculate an apparent rate constant by doing a non-linear fitting to the data.
Explaining more in depth, the linear model used by the authors is represented by the equation:
ln〖(A_t/A_0 )=-kt〗 	Eq. 1

This Eq. 1 comes from the non-linear Eq. 2
A_t=A_0 e^(-kt) 	Eq. 2
So, by using some graphing software like Origin or the solver function in Excel is possible to obtain the rate constant from the non-linear model (Eq. 2). The rate constant values obtained from the non-linear model can be more representative of the process, and complement well the two-stage linear analysis done in the manuscript.
To help the authors, in case they are not familiar with non-linear curve fitting, the video below teaches how to setup a non-linear fitting using the software Origin:
Curve Fitting: Origin 8.6: Nonlinear Curve Fit Tool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfQDLwGS6q8
Also, always present the R2 values for each fit (linear or non-linear) done in the paper.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONTROLLED RELEASE OF METHYL SALICYLATE BY BIOSORBENTS DELAYS THE RIPENING OF BANANA FRUIT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -Your introduction needs more relevant and detail information about your project materials. I suggest that you consider some changes in first two paragraphs of your introduction and add more related background to clearly show significance of your system. for example MeSA information about formula , molar mass and non related application to your paper's goal can be replaced with more relevant MeSA application on fruits and plants.
Experimental design: -To investigate more, it is suggested to check effect of adsorbent dosage on preventing banana ripening?

-It is suggested to report the change in half time of fruit ripening.
-How experimentally author confirmed complete removal of free MeSA?  just using filter paper may not be efficient enough (has author tried any chromatography methods/Centrifugation)

-Why desorption percentage increased with increasing relative humidity?

-Author need add more background information on respiration and ethylene production to make purpose of experiment clear, also as temperature (and concentration of MeSA) can have effect on respiration rates, it would be informative if author check respiration rates at different temperature and MeSA concentrations.

-To enhance the absorption capacities of developed formulation, it is suggested to modify surface of biosorbent.
-Different factors such as pH, initial concentration, sorbent dosage have effect on biosorbent, therefore considering these factors to optimize system performance by adding more experimental condition can help on performance of system.

-Page 7, Line 60 . Biosorbent materials part need more references.

-Page 9, line 105, 107. No need for abbreviation as RF and RH abbreviation has been already introduced in above part.

- Author used  2:1 mole ratio of MeSA and RF/RH and 24h incubation, so it is suggested to show the optimized mole ratio and time of reaction for both systems by reporting data for different ratios and time.

- Adsorption percentage experimental design need more explanation.  E.g. author mentioned: Excess MeSA was removed from RF-MeSA and RH-MeSA samples with Whatman® filter paper No. 1 at 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h. (of what process?)

-is there any reason author tested just two temperature of 25 and 40 C and humidities of 75 % and 95 %,? more clarification and explanation would be helpful to understand the experimental design.

-What is part 2.3.1 and 2.3.2? if they are related to the mentioned reference, it is strongly recommended to add that information in the paper.

-.Data should be reported in text or table format, (not both), it is suggested to add standard deviation information as well. (Table 1)

- More characterization is recommended (e.g. EDS mapping analysis to show silicon and oxygen maps on surfaces of RH before and after adsorption)

-Page 19, Line 327 . reference is needed

-It is suggested to check postharvest quality of other fruits as well to confirm applicability of developed formulation

-Figure 1. Error bars are needed

-Page 15, line 241.Data should be reported in text or table format, (not both), it is suggested to add standard deviation as well
Validity of the findings: -Comparing you control released system ability with other biosorbent materials,such as α-cyclodextrin can help better understaning on advantages and novelity of your system.

-RF and RH have already been used as a biosorbent , so author should strongly discuss on fundamental advantage /effect of their system compared to available systems
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONTROLLED RELEASE OF METHYL SALICYLATE BY BIOSORBENTS DELAYS THE RIPENING OF BANANA FRUIT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The story presented by Uthairatanakij and colleagues is clear. Further, authors made a good effort explaining their results in the discussion section. However, figures should significantly be improved for reader to fully appreciate the data authors are trying to present.
Experimental design: Experimental methodology is easy to follow and provides a good flow to the story. Further, the proposed experimental design allows for the story to be understandable by the audience.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript by Uthairatanakij and colleagues reports on the usage of rice husk (RH) and rice flour (RF) as bio-sorbent materials for the controlled release of methyl salicylate (MeSA). Different incubation periods of MeSA and bio-sorbent promoted absorption of the methyl ester into either RH or RF (>36%). Presence of the methyl ester within either bio-sorbent was corroborated by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis by peak overlapping of MeSA within the RF-MeSA and RH-MeSA samples.  Morphology changes observed through scanning-electron micrographs were attributed the absorption of MeSA in both RF and RH. On the other hand, x-ray diffraction patterns of pristine and MeSA encapsulated RF and RH show minimal to no difference. Thermogravimetric profiles of both RF-MeSA and RH-MeSA reveal a significant mass loss (> 40%) at ~155 °C, indicative of methyl salicylate decomposition. Additionally, it was found that temperature and humidity have a significant impact on desorption of both RF-MeSA and RH-MeSA, parameters particularly relevant for the industrial application of these two bio-sorbent materials. Further, in a moisture free environment both bio-sorbent materials show to significantly delay the ripening of banana fruits.
Publication is recommended after addressing the following suggestions:
-Reviewer recommends authors to revisit the introduction, some important claims have no reference.
-Reword line 49, the idea authors are trying to convey is not clear.
-Verb conjugation in line 77 should be have instead of has.
-The reported data could be better interpreted if authors spend time improving the overall quality of reported figures.
-For example, in figure 2 remove bottom information and leave the magnification only kV values, align the letters with one another. Further, increase magnification to allow reader to appreciate the structural features discussed in the main text. This can be achieved by having a zoom-in smaller figure within each individual SEM image.
 -Pore size distribution must be included to further support the absorption findings.
-Figure 3, data is hard to appreciate given the composition of the figure. Color label and combine all data into one figure Combine all data into one figure. Further, provide a control crystallinity pattern of amylose and/or amylopectin molecules.
-Data provided by figure 4 is a very big component of the story, as authors use this technique to guarantee the presence of MeSA within RF and RH. Regardless of the peak positioning discussed in the main text, authors should color label each spectrum for better interpretation of the results. FTIR spectrum of pristine MeSA lacks a stretch at approximately 2900 cm-1. Further, given the overlapping of the spectra, the fingerprint of the MeSA is impossible to interpret.
-Reviewer recommends authors to elaborate on how TGA findings correlate to the absorption data obtained. Further, sample preparation should be revisited to eliminate water loss during the ramping of the temperature.
- Reviewer invites authors to include pictures of the bananas before, during, and after the postharvest testing to visually support your findings.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONTROLLED RELEASE OF METHYL SALICYLATE BY BIOSORBENTS DELAYS THE RIPENING OF BANANA FRUIT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: all comments have been addressed by the author.
Experimental design: all comments have been addressed by the author.
Validity of the findings: all comments have been addressed by the author.
Additional comments: all comments have been addressed by the author.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONTROLLED RELEASE OF METHYL SALICYLATE BY BIOSORBENTS DELAYS THE RIPENING OF BANANA FRUIT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYDROTHERMAL SYNTHESIS OF CARBON AND SULFUR MONO-DOPED SODIUM TANTALATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comments
Experimental design: No Comments
Validity of the findings: No Comments
Additional comments: The manuscript discusses the sulfur and carbon mono-doped sodium tantalate nanocubes in rich alkaline atmosphere by low temperature hydrothermal process. Sodium tantalate, carbon doped sodium tantalite and sulfur doped sodium tantalate were found to have perovskite cubic crystal structure (Pm-3m space group) with an average size of 38 nm, 45 nm and 40 nm, and band gap values of 3.94 eV, 3.8 eV and 3.52 eV respectively. The manuscript is written well and composed of the justified studies, however, it would be good addition if authors may justify the sulphur and carbon doping using XPS studies and changes in Raman studies (if possible) over sodium tantalates. Lack of some relevant references could be seen whose addition may increase the impact of the studies such as Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 57 (1), 18-41, 2018; ACS Omega, 4, 19408-19419, 2019; Scientific Reports, 9, 4488 (1-17), 2019; Desalination and Water Treatment, 162, 303-312, 2019. The manuscript may be considered after addressing the above issues.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYDROTHERMAL SYNTHESIS OF CARBON AND SULFUR MONO-DOPED SODIUM TANTALATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NO
Experimental design: Synthesis is not controlled.
Validity of the findings: Poor validity of the findings are present
Additional comments: This work presents the hydrothermal synthesis of photocatalytic C and S doped NaTaO3 for MB degradation. SEM, EDS, XRD, UV-Visible and TGA techniques are utilized as characterization. However, the characterization techniques are insufficient to confirm the doping of C and S in NaTaO3. Lack of evidences has been observed with poor validity of interpreted results. The degradation results ambiguous and lacks with accuracy. I hereby reject the paper in its present form. However, suitable rebuttle of comments, one can acces for its publication.
1. License number of VESTA-software is required
2. EDS analysis required the atomic percent ratios of the synthesized photocatalysts.
3. XPS, Raman analyses or alternative techniques are required to support the doping of C and S successfully as the XRD is the only technique used for the purpose and it seems insufficient.
4. Line 140 stoke solution should be stock solution
5. What is the intensity used for the source light and how is it calibrated?
6. In XRD, C doping should shrink the lattice structure and S should Expand the lattice structure of NaTaO3 but the peaks shiftings are not showing the stated trend and not confirming the doping in lattice structure but may be at the interstices.
7. Thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) and DTA in Figure 15 shows the degradation of impurities from the glucose residue and sodium thiosulphate residue and may refer as impurity not doping!
8. In figure 17, how can the MB degrade without catalyst? In other words, why balnk run showing degradation?
9. In any case if it shows degradation, will the blank run effects or data was subtracted from the photocatalysts data?
10. PL and IPCE studies should also be present.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HYDROTHERMAL SYNTHESIS OF CARBON AND SULFUR MONO-DOPED SODIUM TANTALATES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comments
Experimental design: No Comments
Validity of the findings: No Comments
Additional comments: No Comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EFFECT OF OXIDE SCALE STRUCTURE ON SHOT-BLASTING OF HOT-ROLLED STRIP STEEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the effect of oxide scale composition of hot-rolled strip steel on shot blasting.
Experimental design: An innovative acidless descaling technology has been proposed using slot blasting and high-pressure jet.
Validity of the findings: The research findings are interesting and significant, and the discussion has been well organised.
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors investigated the effect of oxide scale composition of hot-rolled strip steel on shot blasting. An innovative acidless descaling technology has been proposed using slot blasting and high-pressure jet. The research findings are interesting and significant, and the discussion has been well organised. However, this manuscript requires revision based on the comments below.
1. Please indicate resin, oxide scale and steel substrate in all the SEM images.
2. In Fig. 3, the thickness of oxide scale in sample groups 1 and 2 is quite different. After using the abrasive under the same weight and shot blasting time, it is easy to understand that sample 2 has more oxides retained due to thicker oxide scale. Except for oxide scale composition, other influences such as hardness and compactness of oxide scale on shot blasting should also be considered.
3. In Fig. 4, please correct the Chinese characters in Y axes.
4. In Fig. 5, it is hard to distinguish the different amounts of cracks after shot blasting with 2 kg of abrasive in sample groups 1 and 2. Please indicate the cracks in the SEM images.
5. In Fig. 6, please use the same magnification in the images for a clear comparison. To see the cracks more clearly, it is better to add enlarged images focusing on the interface of oxide scale/steel substrate.
6. In Figs. 7 and 8, please use consistent magnifications to well compare the descaling effects in sample groups 1 and 2. Please also indicate the exact zones in Figs. 7A and 8A for an enlarged observation in Figs. 7B and 8B, respectively.
7. In Figs. 10 and 12, it is better to use consistent magnification to compare the EDS mapping of Oxygen.