Reviewer #1:
there are few concerns the authors need to address.
1. The figure quality has to improve.
6. Line 177-190, the authors have discussed about mechanism, how could it be different from excited state hydrogen atom abstraction as reported by Pischel et al (Photochemistry and Photobiology, 81 (2), 310-317, 2006), authors should discuss it critically citing above and related literature work.
Reviewer #2:I have a few comments. General opinion is follows:
The data, which are provided, show that this is a pilot study and for this reason the analytical part must be supplemented.
1) Introduction should contains more examples about current analytical methods which are used for determination in biological samples. Apart from this, it is necessary to show levels in these samples.
6) Figure 2. The 0.1 g/ml concentration belongs to top of range. Please to give data for smaller concentration of proposal range, for example: 0.01 g/ml. Then the results will be reliable.
请问有经验的虫友该怎样回复啊,审稿人1第6个问题看不懂那篇文献该怎么讨论啊,审稿人2那句分析部分必须被补充,还要再回答吗?还是就对着6个问题逐一回答啊。另外,第6个问题我没有超出范围啊,审稿人说超过了,该怎么回复。初次投稿,请大家多帮助,怎么写回复啊。 |