Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 10;19(5):e0303359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303359

UV-Vis quantification of the iron content in iteratively steam and HCl purified single-walled carbon nanotubes

Markus Martincic 1, Gerard Tobías-Rossell 1,*
Editor: Amitava Mukherjee2
PMCID: PMC11086872  PMID: 38728321

Abstract

As-produced carbon nanotubes contain impurities which can dominate the properties of the material and are thus undesired. Herein we present a multi-step purification treatment that combines the use of steam and hydrochloric acid in an iterative manner. This allows the reduction of the iron content down to 0.2 wt. % in samples of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs). Remarkably, Raman spectroscopy analysis reveals that this purification strategy does not introduce structural defects into the SWCNTs’ backbone. To complete the study, we also report on a simplified approach for the quantitative assessment of iron using UV-Vis spectroscopy. The amount of metal in SWCNTs is assessed by dissolving in HCl the residue obtained after the complete combustion of the sample. This leads to the creation of hexaaquairon(III) chloride which allows the determination of the amount of iron, from the catalyst, by UV-Vis spectroscopy. The main advantage of the proposed strategy is that it does not require the use of additional complexing agents.

Introduction

Nanotechnology offers new strategies to improve or even overcome some of the limitations of traditional materials [18]. Among the different types of nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) can be employed in a wide variety of applications that range from nanoelectronics, sensors, catalysis, composite materials and cancer therapy to name some [918]. The synthesis of CNTs results in samples that also contain both carbonaceous and non-carbonaceous impurities. These are typically amorphous carbon, fullerenes, graphitic onions, catalytic nanoparticles and catalytic particles. Furthermore, the catalytic particles could be coated by graphitic shells that protects them from direct dissolution. The presence of metal catalyst might not only induce toxicity [19,20] but, along with graphitic particles, can also affect and even dominate the electrochemical response of the sample [2124]. High purity carbon nanotubes are indeed needed, for instance, for their application in the biomedical field to avoid undesired side effects [2528]. The removal of impurities from the as-produced material is necessary for the application of carbon nanotubes in different fields, and various methods for this purpose have already been proposed [2936]. The most widely employed strategies involve the use of strong oxidizing acids, such as nitric acid, which can induce structural damage to the nanotube walls. Other strategies for the purification of carbon nanotubes include their treatment in oxidizing atmospheres such as air or oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, microwave heating, ultrasounds, electro-purification and magnetic separation to name some [3740]. High temperature annealing has proven to be efficient in the removal of metal catalysts from multi-walled CNT samples [41], but it can pose a problem when dealing with single-walled CNTs because (SWCNTs), at high temperature, coalescence of SWCNTs has been observed forming multi-walled CNTs [42,43]. There is not a best strategy to purify CNTs, because it largely depends on the targeted application. For instance, the presence of functional groups introduced by nitric acid treatment, increases the dispersability and processability of the material and cross-links between the individual carbon nanotubes [44]. This can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the final application. Acid treated CNTs are of interest for their further derivatization with functional groups, doping, and as anchoring points for the in-situ growth of inorganic nanoparticles [4548]. Recently, Tanaka et al. reported on a damage-less dry-purification of carbon nanotubes using FeCl3 vapor [49]. A low degree of structural defects is for instance desired for nanoelectronic devices and to prevent the undesired leakage of encapsulated materials when dealing with filled carbon nanotubes. We have placed our attention on the use of steam to efficiently eliminate impurities from carbon nanotubes without compromising their structural integrity and without introducing functional groups. Steam provides a gentle oxidizing atmosphere that effectively eliminates amorphous carbon and also graphitic particles, which might in turn contain metal catalysts in their interior. Following the steam purification, these metal particles become exposed (free from their protective graphitic coating) and can be readily dissolved in HCl [50]. Steam treatment has also been employed for the purification of highly aligned arrays of carbon nanotubes. A significant improvement in both quality, with respect to defect density, and in crystallinity, was observed resulting in an increased resistance to oxidation [51]. These super resilient carbon nanotubes were shown to withstand temperatures above 900°C under ambient conditions. The use of steam also results in the end opening of carbon nanotubes [52] thus allowing their posterior filling with a wide variety of payloads [5355]. The carbon nanotube ends can then be sealed/closed thus allowing to remove the compounds that have not been encapsulated [5659]. The confinement of materials inside the cavities of carbon nanotubes not only allows the formation of unprecedented structures but also expands their range of application [6064]. Due to its gentle oxidizing properties, employing steam reduces the likelihood of introducing functional moieties or structural defects on the CNT structure [65].

Various techniques are employed to determine the amount of catalyst present in carbon nanotube samples, being inductively coupled plasma (ICP), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), and SQUID the most frequently used. Agustina et al. reported on a colorimetric assay for quantifying iron in carbon nanotube samples [66]. In their study, the authors compared different acids for the complete digestion of the sample. Once digested, 1,10-phenanthroline was employed to form a red-orange complex with iron which could then be quantified. Herein, we propose a simplified approach that does not require the addition of a complexing agent to determine the amount of catalyst by ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy. The proposed strategy requires the use of a minimal amount of sample. For instance, the remaining residue after thermogravimetric analysis can be employed for its subsequent characterization by UV-Vis spectroscopy. UV-Vis is widely available in most laboratories and provides reliable data with a fast acquisition time. We also report for the first time a multi-step purification approach consisting on an iterative steam-HCl treatment that can effectively reduce the catalyst content in the samples.

Materials and methods

Single-walled carbon nanotubes, ca. 200 mg, synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Elicarb, Thomas Swan Ltd.) were ground with an agate mortar and pestle. The ground SWCNTs were then introduced into a 4 cm silica tube, which was used as sample holder, and placed in the middle of a furnace. Argon was bubbled through hot water and the resulting argon/steam gas was introduced into the furnace and allowed to react with the carbon nanotubes at 900°C during for 4 h to eliminate amorphous carbon and graphitic particles. To dissolve the now exposed metal catalyst, the sample was treated with 200 mL of 6 M HCl (Panreac) at 110°C overnight. The sample was then washed several times with purified water until a neutral pH was achieved (by monitoring the filtrate) and subsequently dried at 80°C. Several purification steps were performed by repeating the argon/steam treatment followed by an HCl wash in an iterative process. To evaluate the effect of fractioning the steam treatment, a set of experiments was designed. In all of them the total amount of steam was kept at 6 hours. Namely, an iterative steam-HCl process was repeated six times (using 1 h steam), three times (using 3h steam), two times (using 3 h steam) and also a single time (6 h steam). The latter was included as a control. In all the cases an HCl wash was performed after each steam treatment to dissolve those metal particles that were exposed (after oxidation of the graphitic shells by steam).

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs), ca. 5 mg, were subjected to thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) using a STA 449 F1 Jupiter (NETZCH) under flowing air. TGA was performed by heating up to 900°C at 10°C min-1 with a gas flow rate of 25 mL min-1. The solid remaining after TGA contains oxidized iron, from the catalyst particles. This residue was recovered, dissolved in conc. HCl (50 mL), and employed for UV-Vis analysis to quantify the metal content (Cary 5.0, using 1 cm quartz cells).

Raman spectra was acquired between 100 and 2000 cm-1 with a wavelength of 632 nm (20 mW He-Ne laser; Lab Ram HR 800 Jobin Yvon). For Raman measurements, samples were sonicated in isopropyl alcohol (Panreac). Few drops were then deposited on a glass substrate and the solvent was slowly evaporated at ca. 85°C.

SQUID measurements were conducted in a Quantum design MPMS XL-7T instrument at 10 K using an external DC field. A magnetic field range of -50,000 to +50,000 Oe was employed. For these measurements, SWCNTs (ca. 6 mg per sample) were placed inside gelatin capsules. Glass wool was employed to prevent any sample movement.

Scanning electron microscopy was performed in a QUANTA FEI 200 FEG-ESEM equipped with an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) detector. Sample for analysis was deposited on top of a carbon tape.

To quantitatively determine the amount of iron using UV-Vis analysis, a calibration curve was generated by measuring five different concentrations of iron(III) oxide, dissolved in conc. hydrochloric acid, within the range of 0.2 to 1 μmol/dm3. To assess the amount of Fe in the SWCNTs after each treatment, the residue obtained after TGA was initially sonicated in few mL of conc. HCl. Subsequently, the volume was raised to 25 mL using volumetric flasks. The absorbance at 243 nm was fitted to the previously prepared calibration curve to determine the concentration of Fe in the different samples.

Results and discussion

In this work we have employed a two-step purification strategy for SWCNTs that consists on an initial thermal annealing of CNTs under argon, in the presence of steam (H2O), followed by an HCl treatment. Steam has been reported to open the ends of CNTs, and to remove the most reactive (defective) CNTs, amorphous carbon and graphitic particles. The graphitic shells might in turn be coating catalytic NPs. After the steam treatment, the now exposed metal nanoparticles can be easily dissolved by HCl, the second step of the purification process. In fact, the acidic solution turns yellow due to the dissolution of the iron particles. The dissolved iron can subsequently be eliminated through filtration, and the SWCNTs can be recovered as a solid powder on top of the filter membrane.

Initially, we treated as-received SWCNTs for different periods of time with steam, followed by HCl. We will refer to this set of samples as “direct purification”. As it can be seen in Fig 1A, the application of steam on SWCNTs for a given time, with a subsequent HCl wash, yields samples with varying levels of inorganic residue. This is attributed to the presence of iron in the samples, as previously determined in Elicarb® SWCNTs by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis [50]. Initially, a decrease is observed up to three hours, followed by the subsequent apparent increase in the metal content. The minimum amount of iron (catalyst) was obtained after 3 h (1.1 wt% Fe) for this single-step steam treatment as determined by TGA (Fig 1A).

Fig 1. Iron content in as-received and purified SWCNTs.

Fig 1

a) Amount of iron in samples of SWCNTs, which underwent a single steam treatment, “direct purification”, as assessed by TGA; all values were recorded after treating the sample with HCl. Both as-received SWCNTs (0 h) and steam (2 h, 3 h, 4 h, 5 h, 6 h) and HCl purified SWCNTs are included. b) Amount of iron determined by SQUID for both as-received SWCNTs (0 h) and iteratively purified SWCNTs. In this case, the steam treatment was conducted either one time for a given duration (“direct purification”) or in an iterative manner (1, 2, or 3 h steps), with a total steam treatment of 6 h. It is worth noting that two distinct batches of SWCNTs were used for the studies reported in (a) and (b).

Iron in samples of SWCNTs can be quantitatively determined from the amount of residue present after TGA, using stoichiometric conversion. Iron undergoes oxidation to iron(III) oxide during the analysis in the presence of flowing air. As mentioned, after achieving the minimum metal content, an apparent rise of iron can be observed as the time of steam treatment increases. This phenomenon has been previously reported [50,52], and has been attributed to the fact that steam is more effective in oxidizing other carbonaceous species rather than the graphitic shells covering metal particles. TGA does not discern catalytic impurities from other inorganic compounds that can be present in the sample. Therefore, SQUID was next used to measure the amount of magnetic species, iron in the present study, in the samples. SQUID is considered an ultrasensitive technique that allows the quantitative determination of magnetic compounds in CNTs. The obtained data is presented in Fig 1B (solid black squares). In agreement with TGA, the obtained SQUID data also shows a decrease in the iron content after the purification treatment (steam + HCl) with respect to as-received SWCNTs. Noteworthy, the iron content remains practically constant, after 2 h of steam, within experimental error. Thus, the observed continuous increase of TGA residue, inorganic component of the sample, at 4 h, 5 h and 6 h might be due to the existence of additional inorganic compounds used in either the production of CNTs or their purification. Previous studies have identified the presence of alumina and silica in CNT samples produced through chemical vapor deposition [52,66].

In order to further reduce the iron content in SWCNT samples, the 6 h steam treatment was fractioned in two treatments of 3 h, with an HCl wash after each of them. Data shown in Fig 1B, indicated as “3-hour step” and denoted by solid red dots. A more significant reduction in catalyst content was observed with respect to the direct 6 h steam purification, even when the total treatment time was the same. This suggests a more efficient elimination of catalytic particles in the sample through the fragmentation of the purification process. Encouraged by this result, the steam treatment was further divided. The total exposure time of SWCNT samples to steam remained constant at 6 h, but the samples were collected either (i) every 1 h, from the steam purification system, (green solid triangles down-facing, Fig 1B) or (ii) every 2 h (blue solid triangles up-facing, Fig 1B). After each individual steam treatment, samples underwent an HCl wash. The amount of catalyst, in this case iron, was then quantified using SQUID. Notably, the lowest amount of Fe in the SWCNT samples was achieved by increasing the amount of iterations. This observation becomes most evident at the endpoints, in the samples that had received a total steam treatment of six hours (6-hour points in Fig 1B). The amount of catalyst could be reduced by approximately 40%, going from ca. 0.5 wt. % of iron with a single 6 h treatment to ca. 0.2 wt. % of iron by performing six independent steam treatments of 1 h. These results provide evidence of the enhanced effectiveness of the multi-step treatment approach compared to the one-step “direct purification”. The more iterations of steam + HCl are performed, using shorter steam treatment times, the lower becomes the amount of Fe in the samples. The reason behind this observation would need further investigation, but it could be due to a higher accessibility of steam to the whole SWCNT sample in the multi-step processing, because the material gets mixed during the acid treatment. Towards this end it would be interesting to perform the steam purification in a rotary tube furnace. Another possibility would be that a certain degree of reaction occurs between steam and SWCNT samples during heating and cooling of the furnace. This would result in slightly longer exposure times of the sample with steam when the purification is fractioned.

Next, we explored the use of UV-Vis spectroscopy for the quantitative assessment of the iron content in the prepared samples, as an alternative to SQUID and TGA, which are the most stablished techniques for the determination of catalyst in CNTs. Taking into account that hexaaquairon(III) chloride is readily formed when iron is dissolved in HCl, and that this iron complex can be directly quantified by UV-Vis spectroscopy, we investigated the use of UV-Vis for the quantitative determination of the amount of Fe present in SWCNT samples without the need of using additional complexing agents.

Initially UV-Vis calibration curves were prepared through the dissolution of known amounts of Fe2O3 in HCl. Fig 2 illustrates the recorded spectra alongside their respective calibration curves. Notably, three distinct peaks are evident. The peak at 243 nm, corresponding to the hexaaquairon(III), provides a more pronounced sensitivity:

Fig 2. UV-Vis calibration curves.

Fig 2

a) UV-Vis spectra obtained for the Fe2O3 standards and b) the resulting calibration curves using the recorded intensities of the three main peaks.

  y243 = 0.0836 x + 0.0336; R2 = 0.9993

than the peaks at 312 nm, and 360 nm:

  y312 = 0.0549 x + 0.0182; R2 = 0.9992

  y360 = 0.056 x + 0.0186; R2 = 0.9990

Therefore, this peak (243 nm) was employed to determine the amount of Fe in the samples.

To assess the sensitivity of the UV-Vis spectroscopic assay for the determination of the Fe content, all samples exposed to 6 h of steam were analyzed using this technique. This includes a single 6 h steam treatment (1 x 6 h) and also those samples that were subjected to multiple shorter steam treatments, namely 6 times 1 h (6 x 1 h), 3 times 2 h (3 x 2 h) and 2 times 3 h (2 x 3 h). Samples for UV-Vis analyses were prepared by treating the collected residue after TGA with HCl. The obtained solution was then analyzed using UV-Vis spectroscopy. Table 1 and Fig 3 provide a summary of the iron content as determined by the different techniques employed in the present study.

Table 1. Amount of Fe determined by different techniques, and ID/IG Raman ratio of SWCNT samples purified with steam for a total cumulative time of 6 h.

This includes a single 6 h steam treatment (1 x 6 h) and also samples that were subjected to multiple shorter treatments, namely 6 times for 1 h (6 x 1 h), 3 times for 2 h (3 x 2 h) and 2 times for 3 h (2 x 3 h). SQUID values correspond to the 6 h points shown in Fig 1B).

Protocol
(repetition x steam time)
TGA
(Fe, wt. %)
SQUID
(Fe, wt. %)
UV-Vis
(Fe, wt. %)
ID/IG
1 x 6 h 1,62 0,51 0,64 0,11 ± 0,04
2 x 3 h 1,34 0,39 0,43 0,14 ± 0,04
3 x 2 h 1,28 0,28 0,39 0,14 ± 0,01
6 x 1 h 1,05 0,21 0,21 0,17 ± 0,07

Fig 3. Quantitative determination of the iron content in SWCNT samples.

Fig 3

Iron content determined by UV-Vis spectroscopy, SQUID, and TGA in purified SWCNT samples. These analyses were conducted following a cumulative 6-hour steam treatment, involving both direct purification (1 x 6 h) and multiple steam-HCl iterative purifications (2 x 3 h, 3 x 2 h, 6 x 1 h). An HCl wash was conducted after each steam treatment.

As observed, the iron content determined by UV-Vis closely aligns with the data obtained from SQUID (Table 1, Fig 3). Nevertheless, the amount of Fe determined by TGA is notably higher, as previously discussed. This difference could be attributed to the presence of other inorganic compounds in the samples, such as alumina or silica, that could have been introduced during the synthesis or purification of SWCNTs. The presence of such impurities contributes to the total amount of inorganic residue, which is detected by TGA.

Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) was next performed in the 6 x 1 h steam and HCl treated sample in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Fig 4A shows a SEM image of purified SWCNTs (6 x 1 h) were several SWCNT bundles can be observed. EDX was performed in different areas of the sample, but due to the low amount of inorganic impurities it was difficult to assess the overall sample composition. An EDX analysis of the purified SWCNTs is shown in Fig 4B. In this specific area the presence of silica impurities can be detected, but this was not the case in other analyzed areas. To get a better overview of the sample composition, the 6 x 1 h treated sample was oxidized under oxygen to remove carbon and the resulting solid residue was analyzed by EDX (Fig 4C). As it can be seen in the analysis both Si and Fe appear to be present as impurities in the sample. The presence of oxygen is attributed to silica and to iron oxide, after the oxidation of the material. A carbon tape was employed as support. Silica and alumina have been previously observed as non-magnetic impurities in carbon nanotube samples, apart from graphitic particles and fullerenes [67], because these materials are widely employed during the growth and/or post-purification of the CNTs [52,66,68].

Fig 4. Determination of morphology and residual impurities in 6 x 1 h steam and HCl purified SWCNTs.

Fig 4

a) SEM image of purified SWCNTs. b) EDX analysis of purified SWCNTs. c) EDX analysis of the solid residue collected after the oxidation of the purified SWCNTs.

Even if silica was present during UV-Vis analysis, the quantitative assessment of iron using UV-Vis spectroscopy remains specifically associated with this element. The same principle applies to SQUID analysis, which exclusively detects magnetic materials and would be, therefore, insensitive to the presence of silica. Consequently, the UV-Vis methodology presented for the quantitative analysis of iron impurities in SWCNT samples, without the need of additional complexing agents, emerges as a straightforward, rapid, and cost-effective alternative to SQUID and TGA.

To complete the study, Raman spectroscopy was employed to examine all the samples that underwent a total of six hours of steam treatment (1 x 6 h, 2 x 3 h, 3 x 2 h, 6 x 1 h). Table 1 provides the calculated D to G band intensity ratios, widely employed to evaluate the degree of structural defects in SWCNTs. The data in the table demonstrates that this ratio remains essentially unchanged, with variations falling within statistical error.

The combination of the above analyses confirms that a multi-step treatment is more efficient for the removal of iron in SWCNT samples, than a single-step treatment with steam for the same total amount of time. Furthermore, it is worth stressing than the multi-step treatment does not result in an increase in the number of structural defects. As mentioned, purified CNTs are of interest for a variety of applications including sensors or their potential use in the biomedical field. CNTs have been advocated as promising materials for drug delivery, biomedical imaging and targeted therapies. The use of nanotubes, and nanoparticles in general, in the biomedical field offer a unique platform to adjust essential properties such as solubility, diffusivity, pharmacokinetic profile, blood-circulation time and toxicity. Therefore, several nanoformulations are being explored in a wide variety of biomedical applications [6975].

When it comes the quantitative determination of the amount of metal in SWCNTs, the present study complements the early work by Agustina et al. [66] on multi-walled CNTs thus validating UV-Vis spectroscopy as a fast an convenient method for the assessment of catalytic particles in both as-received and purified carbon nanotube samples. A simplified method is used herein that does not require the addition of complexing agents and buffers to adjust the pH of the solution. It also does not require the digestion of the sample in solutions of strong acids to oxidize the graphitic particles surrounding the catalysts. It is worth noting that the remaining residue after TGA, under an oxidizing atmosphere, is enough for a precise determination of the metal content. We believe that the proposed strategy is highly versatile and could be employed to evaluate metal content in other types of nanomaterials.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we have shown that a multi-step purification approach, involving iterative steam-HCl treatments, is more efficient in reducing the amount of catalyst in SWCNT samples compared to a single steam and HCl purification. Analysis of the samples reveals that this approach does not introduce structural defects.

We have also proposed a simplified UV-Vis protocol for the quantitative assessment of Fe in samples of SWCNTs that consists on the dissolution, in HCl, of the solid remaining upon the complete combustion of the sample, thus eliminating the need of additional complexing agents.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Thomas Swan Co. Ltd. for providing carbon nanotube material used for this study, and S. Sandoval and A. Cuesta (ICMAB-CSIC) for assisting in the SEM-EDX analyses of the samples.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, PID2020-113805, Dr. Gerard Tobías-Rossell Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, CEX2019-000917-S European Commission, 290023, Dr. Gerard Tobías-Rossell.

References

  • 1.Maignan C, Alauzun JG, Flahaut E, Monconduit L, Boury B. Graphene oxide Composites: A versatile material used as protective layer, solid-state electrolyte, and gel electrolyte in metal batteries. Chem Eng J. 2024;485:149616. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Singh V, Zhang J, Chen J, Salzmann CG, Tiwari MK. Precision Covalent Organic Frameworks for Surface Nucleation Control. Adv Mater. 2023. Sep 1;35(38):2302466. doi: 10.1002/adma.202302466 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zinatloo-Ajabshir S, Baladi M, Salavati-Niasari M. Enhanced visible-light-driven photocatalytic performance for degradation of organic contaminants using PbWO4 nanostructure fabricated by a new, simple and green sonochemical approach. Ultrason Sonochem. 2021;72:105420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Quirós-Díez EP, Herreros-Lucas C, Vila-Fungueiriño JM, Vizcaíno-Anaya L, Sabater-Algarra Y, Giménez-López M del C. Boosting Oxygen Reduction Reaction Selectivity in Metal Nanoparticles with Polyoxometalates. Small Methods. 2024:2301805. doi: 10.1002/smtd.202301805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ebrahimi A, Krivosudský L, Cherevan A, Eder D. Polyoxometalate-based porphyrinic metal-organic frameworks as heterogeneous catalysts. Coord Chem Rev. 2024;508:215764. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ferrer-Ugalde A, Sandoval S, Pulagam KR, Muñoz-Juan A, Laromaine A, Llop J, et al. Radiolabeled Cobaltabis(dicarbollide) Anion–Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites for In Vivo Bioimaging and Boron Delivery. ACS Appl Nano Mater. 2021. Feb 26;4(2):1613–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ashoub MH, Razavi R, Heydaryan K, Salavati-Niasari M, Amiri M. Targeting ferroptosis for leukemia therapy: exploring novel strategies from its mechanisms and role in leukemia based on nanotechnology. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01822-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kadam SA, Sandoval S, Bastl Z, Simkovičová K, Kvítek L, Jašík J, et al. Cyclohexane Oxidative Dehydrogenation on Graphene-Oxide-Supported Cobalt Ferrite Nanohybrids: Effect of Dynamic Nature of Active Sites on Reaction Selectivity. ACS Catal. 2023. Oct 20;13(20):13484–505. doi: 10.1021/acscatal.3c02592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alam RB, Ahmad MH, Islam MR. Improved electrochemical performance of multi-walled carbon nanotube reinforced gelatin biopolymer for transient energy storage applications. PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0288113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bura C, Mocan T, Grapa C, Mocan L. Carbon Nanotubes-Based Assays for Cancer Detection and Screening. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(4):781. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14040781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang JT-W, Klippstein R, Martincic M, Pach E, Feldman R, Šefl M, et al. Neutron Activated 153Sm Sealed in Carbon Nanocapsules for in Vivo Imaging and Tumor Radiotherapy. ACS Nano. 2020;14(1):129. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.9b04898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adorinni S, Rozhin P, Marchesan S. Smart Hydrogels Meet Carbon Nanomaterials for New Frontiers in Medicine. Biomedicines. 2021;9(5):570. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9050570 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gul S, Abdullah M, Zafar M, Ali I, Ullah Khan N, Younas M, et al. Development of hybrid composite by integrating functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (f-MWCNTs) with glass fiber reinforced polyester composite. PLoS One. 2022. Dec 29;17(12):e0279647. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen T-Y, Vedhanarayanan B, Lin S-Y, Shao L-D, Sofer Z, Lin J-Y, et al. Electrodeposited NiSe on a forest of carbon nanotubes as a free-standing electrode for hybrid supercapacitors and overall water splitting. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2020;574:300–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.04.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhang W, Guillén-Soler M, Moreno-Da Silva S, López-Moreno A, González LR, Giménez-López M del C, et al. Mechanical interlocking of SWNTs with N-rich macrocycles for efficient ORR electrocatalysis. Chem Sci. 2022;13(33):9706–12. doi: 10.1039/d2sc02346f [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gonçalves G, Sandoval S, Llenas M, Ballesteros B, Da Ros T, Bortolussi S, et al. Lithium halide filled carbon nanocapsules: Paving the way towards lithium neutron capture therapy (LiNCT). Carbon N Y. 2023;208:148. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Salavati-Niasari M, Badiei A, Saberyan K. Oxovanadium(IV) salophen complex covalently anchored to multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) as heterogeneous catalyst for oxidation of cyclooctene. Chem Eng J. 2011;173(2):651–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Heydariyan Z, Monsef R, Dawi EA, Salavati-Niasari M. EuMnO3/EuMn2O5/MWCNT nanocomposites: Insights into synthesis and application as potential materials for development of hydrogen storage capacity. Fuel. 2023;351:128885. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koyama S, Kim YA, Hayashi T, Takeuchi K, Fujii C, Kuroiwa N, et al. In vivo immunological toxicity in mice of carbon nanotubes with impurities. Carbon N Y. 2009;47(5):1365–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sharma HS, Hussain S, Schlager J, Ali SF, Sharma A. Influence of Nanoparticles on Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability and Brain Edema Formation in Rats BT—Brain Edema XIV. In: Czernicki Z, Baethmann A, Ito U, Katayama Y, Kuroiwa T, Mendelow D, editors. Vienna: Springer Vienna; 2010. p. 359–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stuart E, Pumera M. Impurities within carbon nanotubes govern the electrochemical oxidation of substituted hydrazines. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2011. Jun 14;13:10818–22. doi: 10.1039/c1cp20176j [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Banks CE, Crossley A, Salter C, Wilkins SJ, Compton RG. Carbon Nanotubes Contain Metal Impurities Which Are Responsible for the “Electrocatalysis” Seen at Some Nanotube-Modified Electrodes. Angew Chemie Int Ed. 2006. Apr 10;45(16):2533–7. doi: 10.1002/anie.200600033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pumera M, Miyahara Y. What amount of metallic impurities in carbon nanotubes is small enough not to dominate their redox properties? Nanoscale. 2009. Nov 1;1:260–5. doi: 10.1039/b9nr00071b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Batchelor-McAuley C, Wildgoose GG, Compton RG, Shao L, Green MLH. Copper oxide nanoparticle impurities are responsible for the electroanalytical detection of glucose seen using multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2008;132(1):356–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bussy C, Bianco A, Prato M, Kostarelos K. Primary microglia maintain their capacity to function despite internalisation and intracellular loading with carbon nanotubes. Nanoscale Horizons. 2017;2(5):284–96. doi: 10.1039/c7nh00055c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li D, Al-Jamal KT. siRNA Design and Delivery Based on Carbon Nanotubes BT—Design and Delivery of SiRNA Therapeutics. In: Ditzel HJ, Tuttolomondo M, Kauppinen S, editors. New York, NY: Springer US; 2021. p. 181–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Soligo M, Felsani FM, Da Ros T, Bosi S, Pellizzoni E, Bruni S, et al. Distribution in the brain and possible neuroprotective effects of intranasally delivered multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Nanoscale Adv. 2021;3(2):418–31. doi: 10.1039/d0na00869a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alegret N, Dominguez-Alfaro A, González-Domínguez JM, Arnaiz B, Cossío U, Bosi S, et al. Three-Dimensional Conductive Scaffolds as Neural Prostheses Based on Carbon Nanotubes and Polypyrrole. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018. Dec 19;10(50):43904–14. doi: 10.1021/acsami.8b16462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ribeiro H, Schnitzler MC, da Silva WM, Santos AP. Purification of carbon nanotubes produced by the electric arc-discharge method. Surfaces and Interfaces. 2021;26:101389. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Desforges A, Bridi AV, Kadok J, Flahaut E, Le Normand F, Gleize J, et al. Dramatic enhancement of double-walled carbon nanotube quality through a one-pot tunable purification method. Carbon N Y. 2016;110:292–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ghasemzadeh S, Hosseini-Monfared H, Ghorbanloo M, Beglau THY, Rademacher L, Spieß A, et al. Scalable synthesis of SWCNT via CH4/N2 gas: The effects of purification on photocatalytic properties of CNT/TiO2 nanocomposite. J Environ Chem Eng. 2022;10(5):108440. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Khanbolouki P, Tehrani M. Purification, structural evolutions, and electrical properties of carbon nanotube yarns processed via incandescent annealing. Carbon N Y. 2020;168:710–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Romanov SA, Alekseeva AA, Khabushev EM, Krasnikov D V, Nasibulin AG. Rapid, efficient, and non-destructive purification of single-walled carbon nanotube films from metallic impurities by Joule heating. Carbon N Y. 2020;168:193–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lin Y, Kim J-W, Connell JW, Lebrón-Colón M, Siochi EJ. Purification of Carbon Nanotube Sheets. Adv Eng Mater. 2015. May 1;17(5):674–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Podlesny B, Olszewska B, Yaari Z, Jena P V, Ghahramani G, Feiner R, et al. En route to single-step, two-phase purification of carbon nanotubes facilitated by high-throughput spectroscopy. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10618. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89839-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Galassi T V, Antman-Passig M, Yaari Z, Jessurun J, Schwartz RE, Heller DA. Long-term in vivo biocompatibility of single-walled carbon nanotubes. PLoS One. 2020. May 6;15(5):e0226791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226791 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Gomez V, Irusta S, Lawal OB, Adams W, Hauge RH, Dunnill CW, et al. Enhanced purification of carbon nanotubes by microwave and chlorine cleaning procedures. RSC Adv. 2016;6(14):11895–902. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Qiao Z, Zhao L, Li N, Zhang J, Zhao K, Ji D, et al. Highly efficient and environmental-friendly separation and purification of carbon nanotubes from molten salt via ultrasound-assisted carbonation. Sep Purif Technol. 2023;306:122630. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yang X, Yang M, Zhang H, Zhao J, Zhang X, Li Q. Electro-purification of carbon nanotube networks without damaging the assembly structure and crystallinity. Appl Surf Sci. 2018;442:232–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gurova OA, Arhipov VE, Koroteev VO, Guselnikova TY, Asanov IP, Sedelnikova O V, et al. Purification of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Using Acid Treatment and Magnetic Separation. Phys status solidi. 2019. Sep 1;256(9):1800742. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Andrews R, Jacques D, Qian D, Dickey EC. Purification and structural annealing of multiwalled carbon nanotubes at graphitization temperatures. Carbon N Y. 2001;39(11):1681–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Méténier K, Bonnamy S, Béguin F, Journet C, Bernier P, Lamy de La Chapelle M, et al. Coalescence of single-walled carbon nanotubes and formation of multi-walled carbon nanotubes under high-temperature treatments. Carbon N Y. 2002;40(10):1765–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yudasaka M, Ichihashi T, Kasuya D, Kataura H, Iijima S. Structure changes of single-wall carbon nanotubes and single-wall carbon nanohorns caused by heat treatment. Carbon N Y. 2003;41(6):1273–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Im Y-O, Lee S-H, Kim T, Park J, Lee J, Lee K-H. Utilization of carboxylic functional groups generated during purification of carbon nanotube fiber for its strength improvement. Appl Surf Sci. 2017;392:342–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Battigelli A, Ménard-Moyon C, Da Ros T, Prato M, Bianco A. Endowing carbon nanotubes with biological and biomedical properties by chemical modifications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(15):1899–920. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2013.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Eder D. Carbon nanotube-inorganic hybrids. Chem Rev. 2010;110(3):1348–85. doi: 10.1021/cr800433k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lin C-C, Chu BTT, Tobias G, Sahakalkan S, Roth S, Green MLH, et al. Electron transport behavior of individual zinc oxide coated single-walled carbon nanotubes. Nanotechnology. 2009;20(10):105703. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/20/10/105703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dörling B, Sandoval S, Kankla P, Fuertes A, Tobias G, Campoy-Quiles M. Exploring different doping mechanisms in thermoelectric polymer/carbon nanotube composites. Synth Met. 2017;225:70. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tanaka H, Goto T, Hamada K, Ohashi K, Osawa T, Sugime H, et al. Safe and damage-less dry-purification of carbon nanotubes using FeCl3 vapor. Carbon N Y. 2023;212:118171. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ballesteros B, Tobias G, Shao L, Pellicer E, Nogués J, Mendoza E, et al. Steam purification for the removal of graphitic shells coating catalytic particles and the shortening of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Small. 2008;4(9):1501. doi: 10.1002/smll.200701283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.King SG, McCafferty L, Stolojan V, Silva SRP. Highly aligned arrays of super resilient carbon nanotubes by steam purification. Carbon N Y. 2015;84:130–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cabana L, Ke X, Kepić D, Oro-Solé J, Tobías-Rossell E, Van Tendeloo G, et al. The role of steam treatment on the structure, purity and length distribution of multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Carbon N Y. 2015;93:1059. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sandoval S, Kepić D, Pérez Del Pino Á, György E, Gómez A, Pfannmoeller M, et al. Selective Laser-Assisted Synthesis of Tubular van der Waals Heterostructures of Single-Layered PbI2 within Carbon Nanotubes Exhibiting Carrier Photogeneration. ACS Nano. 2018;12(7):6648–56. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.8b01638 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kierkowicz M, González-Domínguez JM, Pach E, Sandoval S, Ballesteros B, Da Ros T, et al. Filling Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes with Lutetium Chloride: A Sustainable Production of Nanocapsules Free of Nonencapsulated Material. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2017. Mar;5(3):2501–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sandoval S, Tobias G, Flahaut E. Structure of inorganic nanocrystals confined within carbon nanotubes. Inorg Chim Acta. 2019;492:66. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Martincic M, Vranic S, Pach E, Sandoval S, Ballesteros B, Kostarelos K, et al. Non-cytotoxic carbon nanocapsules synthesized via one-pot filling and end-closing of multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Carbon N Y. 2019;141:782–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kierkowicz M, Pach E, Fraile J, Domingo C, Ballesteros B, Tobias G. The Role of Temperature on the Degree of End-Closing and Filling of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(12):3365. doi: 10.3390/nano11123365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sandoval S, Tobias G. Encapsulation of Fullerenes: A Versatile Approach for the Confinement and Release of Materials Within Open-Ended Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:644793. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.644793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shao L, Tobias G, Huh Y, Green MLH. Reversible filling of single walled carbon nanotubes opened by alkali hydroxides. Carbon N Y. 2006;44(13):2855–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kashtiban RJ, Patrick CE, Ramasse Q, Walton RI, Sloan J. Picoperovskites: The Smallest Conceivable Isolated Halide Perovskite Structures Formed within Carbon Nanotubes. Adv Mater. 2023. Mar 1;35(10):2208575. doi: 10.1002/adma.202208575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hart M, Chen J, Michaelides A, Sella A, Shaffer MSP, Salzmann CG. One-Dimensional Pnictogen Allotropes inside Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes. Inorg Chem. 2019. Nov 18;58(22):15216–24. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b02190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kashtiban RJ, Burdanova MG, Vasylenko A, Wynn J, Medeiros PVC, Ramasse Q, et al. Linear and Helical Cesium Iodide Atomic Chains in Ultranarrow Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes: Impact on Optical Properties. ACS Nano. 2021. Aug 24;15(8):13389–98. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.1c03705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Martinati M, Wenseleers W, Shi L, Pratik SM, Rohringer P, Cui W, et al. Electronic structure of confined carbyne from joint wavelength-dependent resonant Raman spectroscopy and density functional theory investigations. Carbon N Y. 2022;189:276–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Kharlamova M V, Kramberger C. Phemenology of Filling, Investigation of Growth Kinetics and Electronic Properties for Applications of Filled Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes. Nanomaterials. 2023;13(2):314. doi: 10.3390/nano13020314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Santidrián A, Kierkowicz M, Pach E, Darvasiová D, Ballesteros B, Tobias G, et al. Charge transfer in steam purified arc discharge single walled carbon nanotubes filled with lutetium halides. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2020;22(18):10063–75. doi: 10.1039/d0cp01408g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Agustina E, Goak J, Lee S, Seo Y, Park J-Y, Lee N. Simple and Precise Quantification of Iron Catalyst Content in Carbon Nanotubes Using UV/Visible Spectroscopy. ChemistryOpen. 2015. Oct 1;4(5):613–9. doi: 10.1002/open.201500096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ambrosi A, Pumera M. Nanographite Impurities Dominate Electrochemistry of Carbon Nanotubes. Chem–A Eur J. 2010. Sep 24;16(36):10946–9. doi: 10.1002/chem.201001584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kolodiazhnyi T, Pumera M. Towards an Ultrasensitive Method for the Determination of Metal Impurities in Carbon Nanotubes. Small. 2008. Sep 1;4(9):1476–84. doi: 10.1002/smll.200800125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mahata MK, De R, Lee KT. Near-Infrared-Triggered Upconverting Nanoparticles for Biomedicine Applications. Biomedicines. 2021;9(7):756. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9070756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Sturm L, Schwemberger B, Menzel U, Häckel S, Albers CE, Plank C, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of a Nanoparticle-Based mRNA Delivery System for Cells in the Joint. Biomedicines. 2021;9(7):794. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9070794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Akhmedov S, Afanasyev S, Trusova M, Postnikov P, Rogovskaya Y, Grakova E, et al. Chemically Modified Biomimetic Carbon-Coated Iron Nanoparticles for Stent Coatings: In Vitro Cytocompatibility and In Vivo Structural Changes in Human Atherosclerotic Plaques. Biomedicines. 2021;9(7):802. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9070802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Oliveira FA, Nucci MP, Mamani JB, Alves AH, Rego GNA, Kondo AT, et al. Multimodal Tracking of Hematopoietic Stem Cells from Young and Old Mice Labeled with Magnetic–Fluorescent Nanoparticles and Their Grafting by Bioluminescence in a Bone Marrow Transplant Model. Biomedicines. 2021;9(7):752. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9070752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Florensa M, Llenas M, Medina-Gutiérrez E, Sandoval S, Tobías-Rossell G. Key Parameters for the Rational Design, Synthesis, and Functionalization of Biocompatible Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(12):2703. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14122703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Pelin M, Lin H, Gazzi A, Sosa S, Ponti C, Ortega A, et al. Partial Reversibility of the Cytotoxic Effect Induced by Graphene-Based Materials in Skin Keratinocytes. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(8):1602. doi: 10.3390/nano10081602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Malanagahalli S, Murera D, Martín C, Lin H, Wadier N, Dumortier H, et al. Few Layer Graphene Does Not Affect Cellular Homeostasis of Mouse Macrophages. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(2):228. doi: 10.3390/nano10020228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Amitava Mukherjee

12 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-37335UV-Vis quantification of the metal content in iteratively purified single-walled carbon nanotubesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tobías-Rossell,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

ERC Consolidator Grant NEST (725743)

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (PID2020-113805 GB-I00)

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (CEX2019-000917-S)

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

This work was supported by the ERC Consolidator Grant NEST (725743) and the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (PID2020-113805 GB-I00 and CEX2019-000917-S). The authors would like to thank Thomas Swan Co. Ltd. for providing carbon nanotube material used for this study. 

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

ERC Consolidator Grant NEST (725743)

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (PID2020-113805 GB-I00)

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain (CEX2019-000917-S)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"No".

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

8. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-37335

UV-Vis quantification of the metal content in iteratively purified single-walled carbon nanotubes

The manuscript entitled "UV-Vis quantification of the metal content in iteratively purified single-walled carbon nanotubes" was reviewed. This paper present a multi-step purification treatment that combines the alternated use of steam and hydrochloric acid. This manuscript can be accepted for publishing “PLOS ONE” but I have some major remarks before it can be publishable.

1. The abstract is unattractive. It is suggested that the importance of this research work be written in detail.

2. The title is informative and relevant, it could be more specific.

3. Authors have claimed “Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) can be employed in a wide variety of applications that range from nanoelectronics, sensors, catalysis, composite materials and cancer therapy to name some.”, I have read and evaluated the manuscript and in my opinion the submission does not yet sufficiently justify publication. The whole generalization for this paper should be given in the introduction. Discuss the shortcomings of previous work and the gaps and how this work intends to fill those gaps. Related references should be cited:

Materials Research Bulletin 48 (4) (2013) 1660-1667; Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 72 (2021), 105420; international journal of hydrogen energy 42 (39) (2017) 24846-24860; Polyhedron 28 (14) (2009) 3005-3009; Journal of Molecular Liquids 242 (2017) 447-455; Journal of alloys and compounds 617 (2014) 627-632; Diamond and Related Materials 79 (2017) 133-144

4. In the Abstract, the authors should emphasize what results the characterizations indicate.

5. The idea of the research seems to be interesting but the set goals are not achieved. What the main significance of paper in comparison is of relates published works? What is the innovation of this article? Please highlight it in the article.

6. Explain about the effective parameters which increase the yield of reactions?

7. Written is very week. In its current state, the level of English throughout the manuscript needs language polishing. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

8. Error bars in figures must be added.

9. It is suggested to evaluate the chemical composition of fabricated sample by other methods such as elemental mapping, to get clear evidence to readers for formation samples without impurities.

10. The Conclusions section is too long. It should be kept short and must be fully supported by the results reported.

I recommend this work for publication after above mentioned revisions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 10;19(5):e0303359. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303359.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Feb 2024

Response to specific reviewer and editor comments have been included in the "Response to Reviewers" and "Cover letter" respectively.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0303359.s001.docx (15.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Amitava Mukherjee

1 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-37335R1UV-Vis quantification of the iron content in iteratively steam and HCl purified single-walled carbon nanotubesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tobías-Rossell,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-37335R1

I will consider publishing your paper entitled "UV-Vis quantification of the iron content in iteratively steam and HCl purified singlewalled carbon nanotubes"; authors present a multi-step purification treatment that combines the use of steam and hydrochloric acid in an iterative manner. After reading authors’ responses, I feel that my initial concerns have been partially addressed, but there are still some major concepts I cannot agree with.

Comments:

For Responses 1 and 2, I am grateful for additional information for the backgrounds.

For Response 3, it is suggested that this paper can provide more lists. The structure of the manuscript might need a major adjustment for a better understanding. To make more convincing, in the discussions, the authors should be considered some publication on the improvement of the explanation such as:

- Fuel, 351 (2023) 128885.

- Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 23 (2023) 3126-3136.

- Applied Surface Science, 255 (2009) 7610-7617.

- Chemical Engineering Journal, 173 (2011) 651-658.

- Separation and Purification Technology, 185 (2017) 140-148.

Journal of Molecular Liquids 242 (2017) 447-455; Journal of alloys and compounds 617 (2014) 627-632; Diamond and Related Materials 79 (2017) 133-144;

For Responses 4-8, I am grateful for additional information for the backgrounds.

For Response 9, in “Result and Discussions” section, the authors explained irrelevant and unnecessary subjects. For the characterizations, the results must be compared with other studies. You are requested to add some to amplify how this research work contributes to forwarding the field of study.

For Response 10, I am grateful for additional information for the backgrounds.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Amitava Mukherjee

24 Apr 2024

UV-Vis quantification of the iron content in iteratively steam and HCl purified single-walled carbon nanotubes

PONE-D-23-37335R2

Dear Dr. Tobías-Rossell,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to Author.The authors have made great revision. It can be accepted now.

It can be accepted now.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: NO NO NO

**********

Acceptance letter

Amitava Mukherjee

29 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-37335R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tobías-Rossell,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0303359.s001.docx (15.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-R2.pdf

    pone.0303359.s002.pdf (567.2KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES