4,4′-([2,2′-Bithiophene]-5,5′-diylbis(ethyne-2,1-diyl))bis(1-methylpyridin-1-ium) Iodide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Review of Manuscript "4,4'-([2,2'-Bithiophene]-5,5'-Diylbis(ethyne-2,1-diyl))bis(1-methylpyridin-1-ium) iodide"

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "4,4'-([2,2'-Bithiophene]-5,5'-Diylbis(ethyne-2,1-diyl))bis(1-methylpyridin-1-ium) iodide" and find it suitable for the journal's objectives. The manuscript is well-written, and the compounds are described fully. I recommend its publication with some minor modifications that I believe can enhance the quality of the work.

1. It is recommended to perform integrations in the 1H NMR spectrum (S1).

2. For signal assignment, it should be considered to use two-dimensional proton-carbon spectra. However, in this case, I believe that the structural characteristics permit the assignment of NMR signals. Nevertheless, the authors should mention in the text that, although two-dimensional experiments were not performed, they propose signal assignments.

3. The manuscript should be reviewed to ensure there are spaces before and after the equal sign (=) and to correct other minor spelling errors.

4. The use of this compound as a fluorescent probe is not adequately justified in the work. I suggest that the authors rephrase the last sentence in the conclusion section to leave it more open-ended.

5. It would be beneficial to review the references and incorporate more recent ones. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for reading the manuscript and for the useful suggestions. Below the point-to point response to Reviewer's requests (our replies in italic):

1. It is recommended to perform integrations in the 1H NMR spectrum (S1).

Integrations done.

2. For signal assignment, it should be considered to use two-dimensional proton-carbon spectra. However, in this case, I believe that the structural characteristics permit the assignment of NMR signals. Nevertheless, the authors should mention in the text that, although two-dimensional experiments were not performed, they propose signal assignments.

The manuscript was amended according to Reviewer's suggestion.

3. The manuscript should be reviewed to ensure there are spaces before and after the equal sign (=) and to correct other minor spelling errors.

Corrections done.

4. The use of this compound as a fluorescent probe is not adequately justified in the work. I suggest that the authors rephrase the last sentence in the conclusion section to leave it more open-ended.

The sentence was rephrased.

5. It would be beneficial to review the references and incorporate more recent ones. 

The references were reviewed and more recent ones were added.