Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 15th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 14th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 18th, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 24th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jan 24, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Done in first review

Experimental design

Good

Validity of the findings

During the first review, there were multiple comments and suggested correction. The revised manuscript, the authors has taken care of all of them. Now the manuscript is ready to publish.

Additional comments

During the first review, there were multiple comments and suggested correction. The revised manuscript, the authors has taken care of all of them. Now the manuscript is ready to publish.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 14, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please carefully address the reviewers' comments.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The authors here describe a protocol of extracting lipids from wet and dried Spirulina platensis microalgae using ionic liquids. This is indeed an interesting work towards a step to follow green methodology for finding resources of biofuels. The manuscript may be published in the PeerJ Analytical Chemistry after considering the points mentioned in the detailed report.

Experimental design

In some cases, the authors have mentioned the experimental procedure to be found in literatures, such as, 'Soxhlet extraction'. Authors may consider to provide a brief description of all such methods to help the readers to immediately have an idea while going through the paper.

Validity of the findings

The results are interesting which are validated by reproducible data set.

Additional comments

1. The authors may clarify if the ionic liquids (ILs) used in the study are the room temperature ILs. Mentioning their melting point is important as a reader may find different uses of these molecules.

2. All the ILs have same cation but differing in their anions. The different effectiveness of extracting lipids seems to depend on the type of anions. Why so?

3. The authors primarily have described their extracted lipids to be used for biofuel. Are they suitable for preparing model membrane, such as, vesicles? A discussion may be added to extend the uses of the lipids.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Species names should be properly mentioned (following the guidelines and put in italic, etc).
Furthermore, I suggest the authors not to overgeneralize the statement from literature and I invite the authors to perform critical reflections on the results.

Experimental design

The water content was unfortunatley not reported, thus the different ionic liquids are not directly comparable.
I especially disagree with the method to determine the yield, which I address several times in the annotated PDF. This could result in misleading interpretation, serious claims and wrong conclusion.

Validity of the findings

Due to the improper method (described above), the authors obtained peculiar data, which seems to be 'too good to be true'. A critical reflection on the obtained results is not observed from the report.
Replicates or standard deviation in some sections were not reported.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.