Do aqueous solutions contain net charge?

Tao Ye; Gerald H. Pollack

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275953

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 4, 2022
23 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Ajaya Bhattarai, Editor PONE-D-22-00156Do aqueous solutions contain net charge?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ye, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: The major revision is required on the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript soon May 07 2022 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, Ajaya Bhattarai 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: (Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf." NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.) At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. Additional Editor Comments: One reviewer suggested for major revision and another is rejected. The academic editor wants from the author to revise the manuscript. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: 1. The title of the manuscript gives an impression that we are asking the question to the Google engine. Isn’t it possible to change the title with more appealing pattern? 2. In Abstract at “ ..solutions that were more acidic were more positively charged, while solutions that were more basic were more negatively charged”, my suggestion to change it with “ acidic solutions were positively charged while basic solutions were negatively charged”. 3. Normally we use the salt solution having the cations and anions which have similar mobility in solution but different from the ions present in our test solutions. But in this manuscript, sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), and potassium sulfate (K2SO4) were used while as the salt bridge cotton string soaked with saturated KCl solution was used. If my belief is wrong, I want to see the logic behind it. 4. Regarding the data presented in Tables 1, 2: Just check the Table 1 (a) of electrical potential differences between acids (HCl) with differing pH values at different times to test stability. In cases of pH values 2 and 4, the potentials were found increased with increasing time from 1 min. to 6 min. while in cases of pH values 12 and 14 the potentials were found in decreasing order with time elapsed (though not sharply in case of pH 14). Such type of order was not obeyed in case of the solution having pH 10. In another case the data shown in Table 1 (b) regarding the electrical potential differences between acids (HNO3) and neutral solutions at different times to test stability. The potentials were found decreased with increasing time from 1 min. to 6 min. in cases of the solutions with pH values 2, 4, 12 and 14 but why not the trend was followed in case of the solution having pH 10? 5. The results regarding the salt solutions of NaCl, KCl, Na2SO4 and K2SO4. Authors have mentioned that all these salt solutions at high concentrations had negative electrical potentials. The first logic gave for such controversial result as “the periodic table may be incomplete, and that some elements may themselves bear charge”. This logic is much more controversial than the result mentioned. My suggestion to Authors that prior to write such paper why don’t they redefine the Periodic Table and publish their logic? 6. I suggest the authors to see the book: Bickmore B.R., Wander M.C.F. (2018) Aqueous Solutions. In: White W.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Geochemistry. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39312-4_3 Reviewer #2: After going through the manuscript I found it to interesting but the authors reported only some data of their experimental work and based on these data they claimed the title of the manuscript to taken as granted scientifically, which according to me will not be scientifically justified right now. The work is premature and needs more extensive experimental and theoretical basis before the titled remark becomes scientifically established. ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r001
Revision 1
20 Apr 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers: Do aqueous solutions contain net charge? Reviewer 1 1. The title of the manuscript gives an impression that we are asking the question to the Google engine. Isn’t it possible to change the title with more appealing pattern? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree with the reviewer that this is a general question that people may search answers using Google. This is the reason why we believe this question is very important. We specifically discussed this situation in the first paragraph in Introduction. Therefore, we believe this simple and straightforward title may be a good choice. 2. In Abstract at “..solutions that were more acidic were more positively charged, while solutions that were more basic were more negatively charged”, my suggestion to change it with “acidic solutions were positively charged while basic solutions were negatively charged”. We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. The sentence was changed in the Abstract. “We found much the same when standard acids and bases were compared to reference solutions: acidic solutions were positively charged while basic solutions were negatively charged.” 3. Normally we use the salt solution having the cations and anions which have similar mobility in solution but different from the ions present in our test solutions. But in this manuscript, sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCl), sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), and potassium sulfate (K2SO4) were used while as the salt bridge cotton string soaked with saturated KCl solution was used. If my belief is wrong, I want to see the logic behind it. Thank you for the reminder. We partly agree with the reviewer. We tried to Google what salt bridge solution we should use before we conducted the experiments. We found KCl very common (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_bridge). We probably all know that the insertion of a concentrated KCl aqueous solution between two dilute aqueous electrolyte solutions can effectively eliminate the liquid junction potential (LJP), but there has virtually been no choice but a concentrated aqueous potassium chloride solution to minimize the LJP between two aqueous electrolyte solutions of different compositions.1 “Normally we use the salt solution having the cations and anions that have similar mobility in solution”. We are testing four: NaCl, KCl, Na2SO4, and K2SO4 solutions, hence, KCl should be an ideal salt solution because it has similar mobility to these solutions. On-going research in our lab will consider using other salts as suggested by the reviewers. The following sentence is added in the manuscript. “The insertion of a concentrated KCl aqueous solution between two dilute aqueous electrolyte solutions can effectively eliminate the liquid junction potential. Therefore, salt bridges were all soaked in saturated KCl before use.” 4. Regarding the data presented in Tables 1, 2: Just check the Table 1 (a) of electrical potential differences between acids (HCl) with differing pH values at different times to test stability. In cases of pH values 2 and 4, the potentials were found increased with increasing time from 1 min. to 6 min. while in cases of pH values 12 and 14 the potentials were found in decreasing order with time elapsed (though not sharply in case of pH 14). Such type of order was not obeyed in case of the solution having pH 10. In another case the data shown in Table 1 (b) regarding the electrical potential differences between acids (HNO3) and neutral solutions at different times to test stability. The potentials were found decreased with increasing time from 1 min. to 6 min. in cases of the solutions with pH values 2, 4, 12 and 14 but why not the trend was followed in case of the solution having pH 10? We thank the reviewer for the comment. We noticed it as well that in the pH 10 tests (Tables 1 & 2), the potentials registered fluctuated and the difference from 1-6 min was not as significant as other pHs that were tested. The phenomenon is very interesting. We are not sure what is the exact reason behind it. It can be that the ionic strength or pH difference between the left beaker solution (positive terminal, pH 10, NaOH) and the right beaker solution (negative terminal, 1 µM NaCl) was not significant. Or as suggested in previous comment, it can be the salt bridge solution. But the authors would like to mention that the potential registered may eventually stabilize, although it may take a long time. Further research will be done in our on-going project. The following sentences were added in the manuscript. “We noticed that in the pH 10 tests (Tables 1 & 2), the potentials registered fluctuated and the difference from 1-6 min was not as significant as other pHs that were tested. We are not sure what is the exact reason behind it. It can be that the ionic strength or pH difference between the left beaker solution (positive terminal, pH 10, NaOH) and the right beaker solution (negative terminal, 1 µM NaCl) was not significant.” 5. The results regarding the salt solutions of NaCl, KCl, Na2SO4 and K2SO4. Authors have mentioned that all these salt solutions at high concentrations had negative electrical potentials. The first logic gave for such controversial result as “the periodic table may be incomplete, and that some elements may themselves bear charge”. This logic is much more controversial than the result mentioned. My suggestion to Authors that prior to write such paper why don’t they redefine the Periodic Table and publish their logic? Plans are actually underway for one of the authors (GP) to write a book on the subject. Although the book draft is nearly complete, we expect, from experience, two to three years before it is finally published. Evidence will be presented to show that not all entries in the periodic table are necessarily correct, and that some elements may actually bear charge. Here, we merely allude to that possibility. The current work seems to us to be important enough that we hesitate to wait several years before it can be published. 6. I suggest the authors to see the book: Bickmore B.R., Wander M.C.F. (2018) Aqueous Solutions. In: White W.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Geochemistry. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 39312-4_3 We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We also thank the reviewer for the time and effort on reviewing the manuscript. Reviewer 2 After going through the manuscript I found it to interesting but the authors reported only some data of their experimental work and based on these data they claimed the title of the manuscript to taken as granted scientifically, which according to me will not be scientifically justified right now. The work is premature and needs more extensive experimental and theoretical basis before the titled remark becomes scientifically established. We thank the reviewer for the time and effort on reviewing the manuscript. Yes, from experience, we do understand that gaining community acceptance will take time. Nevertheless, we believe we have included all the data necessary to draw the conclusions that we draw. As mentioned in the first paragraph of the Introduction, “does a high pH value imply net negative charge?” or “does a low pH value imply net positive charge?” are questions that consistently puzzle people. We believe our manuscript answers these questions scientifically, although we agree that it will take time for the scientific community to evaluate, and hopefully accept our conclusions. 1. Takashi, K.; Takahiro, Y., A New Salt Bridge Based on the Hydrophobic Room-Temperature Molten Salt. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 2006, 79, (7), 1017-1024. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r002
9 May 2022 Decision Letter - Ajaya Bhattarai, Editor PONE-D-22-00156R1 Do aqueous solutions contain net charge? PLOS ONE Dear Dr.Tao Ye, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected. Specifically, I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision. Kind regards, Ajaya Bhattarai Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Comments from the reviewer Dear Professor Bhattarai, Regarding the manuscript which I reviewed earlier and then you sent to me as the revised version, I still have many objections some of which are: 1. Regarding the quarry of title: Though not satisfied with the logic of Author, it doesn't make any sense to deny for publication on such basis. 2. Correction done in accordance with my suggestion. 3. Regarding the use of salt solution in salt bridge: I am not satisfied at all. Furthermore writing "On-going research in our lab will consider using other salts as suggested by the reviewers." can't be taken as the positive token to consider the present manuscript. 4. Regarding electrical potential difference: I am not satisfied with the explanation as "Further research will be done in our on-going project. 5. Regarding controversial statement related with Periodic Table: The author has mentioned as "Plans are actually underway for one of the authors (GP) to write a book on the subject. Although the book draft is nearly complete, we expect, from experience, two to three years before it is finally published." On this ground if we accept author's logic right now, it can be disaster. Thus my final decision on this manuscript is, Please REJECT it and with such controversial logic it is wise to keep apart. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.] - - - - - For journal use only: PONEDEC3 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r003
Revision 2
3 Jun 2022 Author Response Detailed respond is provided in the Rebuttal letter. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r004
17 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Abbas Farmany, Editor PONE-D-22-00156R2 Do aqueous solutions contain net charge? PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ye, 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. Water net charge may be due to molecular polarity of water or a common-ion effect of measurements for example HCl and NaCl etc... or other known/unknown effect, as reviewer noted, at this version of manuscript, no any direct data of net charge is presented. It is better that author change the title to a more appropriate one for example Do aqueous solutions contain a semi-net charge? etc... Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2022 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, Abbas Farmany Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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 #3: (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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: No ****** 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 #3: 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 #3: It is an interesting paper with clear experimental setup. However, no any data related to the direct net charge measurement is reported. So, it is better to change the title or prepare the direct net charge data. Also, some figures cited in the text, are missed in the manuscript! Some part of discussion is better to be removed "Logic implies at least two possible interpretations. The first is that the periodic table may be incomplete, and that some elements may themselves bear charge. The presumption of neutrality is largely conjectural, and could, in some instances, be inaccurate". At all, the polarity of water as a polar molecule, creates a slightly negative charge on oxygen and slightly positive charge on hydrogen. This contributes water's properties of attraction. It seems that water charge is generated because oxygen electronegativity instead of hydrogen. ****** 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 #3: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r005
Revision 3
3 Sep 2022 Author Response Please see the respond to review file. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r006
27 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Abbas Farmany, Editor Do aqueous solutions contain net charge? PONE-D-22-00156R3 Dear Dr. Ye, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Abbas Farmany 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 #3: 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 #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: This paper addressed a primary hypothesis that aqueous solutions may be charged electrically. Answering to this question would seem to open a window in our understanding of nature. The current version of manuscript can be accepted for publication. ****** 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 #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r007
Formally Accepted
19 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Abbas Farmany, Editor PONE-D-22-00156R3 Do aqueous solutions contain net charge? Dear Dr. Ye: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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 Dr. Abbas Farmany Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275953.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .