RESPONSE TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS
Reviewer: Lonchin Suguna
S/N
1.
2.
3.
4.
REVIEWER’S COMMENT
AUTHORS’ RESPONSE
CHANGES INSERTED IN TEXT ON
PAGE NO.
Under introduction, paragraph 2, line Reference number 14 is inserted as the 2
number 15 mentioning about the toxicity of reference which mentioned the toxicity of
T. villosa, the statement has to be T. villosa.
substantiated with references.
Why have the authors used different types The choice of solvent to use is based on
how the plants are used traditionally. C.
of extracts for the two plants studied?
mucronata is used with water (polar
solvent) or mixed with coconut oil (non
polar solvent). Therefore in this study,
ethanol was used to extract polar
compounds while dichloromethane was
used to extract non polar compounds.
Traditionally T. villosa is used with water
(polar solvent), therefore in this study,
ethanol was used as a polar solvent.
What does aerial part mean for C. The word aerial part for C. mucronata is 3
mucronata? Does it include fruits, leaves, used to mean leaves and twigs. The
twigs only or some other parts like stems definition is now included in page 3.
and buds?
Under larvicidal test, in materials and The concentrations (500, 250, 100 and 50 4
methods, page 2, line 23, it is mentioned µg/mL) were not the stock solutions but
that stock solutions were prepared by using were the testing concentrations. The stock
different concentrations of the plant extracts solution of each extract was 50mg/mL.
(500, 250, 100 and 50 µg/mL). But in Table Therefore, the LC50 values were calculated
1, the LC50 value for different parts of the from the four concentrations and not from
two extracts is given for a single the single concentration.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
concentration? The authors have to clearly
mention for what concentration, has the
LC50 been calculated?
Table 1 can be divided in two, one giving
details about the larvicidal activity and the
other, mentioning about the Brine Shrimp
Test as these tests are performed to prove
different pharmacological aspects of the
plant extracts.
The regression coefficient and equation
along with the fiducial limits at 95% CI can
be included in table.
What does LC50BST/LC50 larvicidal activity
after 24h of exposure indicate in Table 1
mean (last column)? Why some values are
given as NA (Not applicable) in the same
column?
The results will be more appealing if the
authors present the results as % mortality at
different time interval for larvicidal activity.
Why CMRD excluded from the antimicrobial
table (Table 2)
Level of interest
An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English
Acceptable
Statistical review
No, the manuscript does not need to be
Table 1 is divided into two tables, table 1 Tables presented as appendix
and table 2. Table 1 presents larvicidal
activity and Table 2 presents brine shrimp
activity.
Table 2 presenting larvicidal
address these comments
activity Table 2 presented as appendix
LC50BST/LC50 larvicidal activity was Presented as appendix
included to show some selectivity of the
extract between mosquito larvae and brine
shrimp larvae. Some changes were made
in this table 1.
For us we think the presentation of our
results as LC50 is better.
CMRD was found to be not active against Table 3 presented as appendix
all bacteria and fungi test. The results are
now included in Table 3.
seen by a statistician
Declaration of competing interests
I declare that i have no competing interest