Dear Dr. Akita,

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 11 2025 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.

• 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,

Muammar Qadafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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.  To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. 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.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This study was partly supported by non-restricted funds from the Shabondama Soap CO., Ltd.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was partly supported by non-restricted funds from the Shabondama Soap CO., Ltd. “

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 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.

7. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

8. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

9. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate ""supporting information"" files

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Natural Soap is Less Toxic and More Biodegradable in Aquatic Organisms and Human Skin Cells than Synthetic Detergents and clinicallyefficient (suggest revise due to minor spelling and sentencing errors)

Abstract: well written

Introduction: well written

Materials & methods: Generally well written, suggest to provide abbreviation list. slight proofreading needed for the statistics section.

Results:

* Mostly well written,

* Need a compiled list of abbreviations,

* Once a term is abbreviated (i.e., sodium oleate (C18:1Na)), suggest to keep using the abbreviated version, instead of constantly keeping them in brackets.

* Suggest to review some sentences for grammatical errors.

Images used are a bit blurry, suggest to substitute with at least 300dpi images.

* Sections 2.2.1/2.2.2/2.2.3 : Result write-up should refer to the respective table immediately at the end of sentences or at the end of the paragraph, instead of at the end of the section.

* Section 2.5: The results provided should refer to a graph/table instead of to a bibliographic reference [6]

Discussion

- Generally well-written but had a heavy focus on results that have been presented well in the results section

- Suggest to make comparisons from the literature on similar studies and their findings.

- Suggest to add relevant environmental, economical, community & health impacts of the research

- Suggest to include the study strength and limitation as well as suggestions for future improvement etc

Reference:

Inadequate references for an original paper. Suggest to expand the discussion section which will eventually expand the numbers of references.

Conclusion:

- a good study and a generally well written manuscript, but needs improvement & expansion in the discussion to strengthen the manuscript further

Reviewer #2: 1. Research Title: The title "Natural Soap is Less Toxic and More Biodegradable in Aquatic Organisms and Human Skin Cells than Synthetic Detergents and Clinically Efficient" suggests a conclusion that natural soap is indeed less toxic and more biodegradable, while the aim of the study is to explore these aspects. Would it be better to use a title such as: “Comparative Study on the Toxicity and Biodegradability of Natural Soap versus Synthetic Detergents in …” to better align with the study's objectives?

2. [Introduction]: This study has outlined various aspects of the differences between natural and synthetic soaps, including toxicity, biodegradability, effects on aquatic organisms, and impacts on human health and the environment. However, the research gap has not been explicitly stated. It would be beneficial to include a statement explaining what has not been thoroughly studied and why it is important.

3. [Methodology]: In section 1.2.1, please explain the basis for determining the number of replicates, specifically the 3 replicates for treatments and 6 replicates for the control group.

4. [Methodology]: In section 1.4.3, concerning the LC50 equation [mM], is the use of log-log (double logarithmic) correct, or is it just a single logarithm? Please clarify.

5. [Methodology]: In section 1.5, it is stated that the inclusion and exclusion criteria are in Table 3, but I could not find Table 3 in your submission. Please verify and include it.

6. [Methodology]: In section 1.5, it is mentioned that there are 50 study participants, including 4 other conditions. Please provide an explanation of these other conditions, as they represent variables in the study that need to be detailed.

7. [Methodology]: What type of statistics did you use in the analysis? Did you perform a test for differences in values? If so, please clarify which values were tested for differences.

8. [Results]: I also could not find Table 1 and Table 2 in your submission, making it impossible for me to check the contents of these tables. Kindly include the tables in the submission.

9. [Results]: This study primarily focuses on assessing the toxicity of natural soap components on aquatic organisms, its biodegradability, and its cytotoxic effects on human keratinocytes. However, does this natural soap also provide superior antibacterial effectiveness compared to synthetic soap, given that the main function of soap is antibacterial, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic background? It would be useful to include literature studies supporting the sustainability of your findings.

10. [Conclusion]: I could not find a conclusion section in this submission. Please add a conclusion that includes the main findings and their implications.

11. Figure 5: The title is simply "Research of Questionnaires." The title of Figure 5 should be more descriptive, such as "Results of Questionnaire on the Effects of Natural Soap and Synthetic Detergents," and include explanations and units for each value from 1 to 4 to improve clarity.

12. I could not find an explanation of the abbreviation HBSS in the article. It would be helpful to define HBSS when it is first mentioned in the article, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.

Thank you,

February 17, 2025.

**********

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:  INTAN SUHANA ZULKAFLI

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comment, feb 17 2025.docx

Natural soap is clinically effective and less toxic and more biodegradable in aquatic organisms and human skin cells than synthetic detergents

PONE-D-25-01183R1

Dear Dr. Akita,

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,

Muammar Qadafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Comments from Reviewer 2 should be addressed during the final proof.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the response provided. All comments have been addressed to improve the quality of the article. However, I have noticed that there are still several sentences with excessive spacing, making the text appear untidy. Kindly review and revise the entire article to ensure proper formatting.

In addition, we have also reviewed Table 3, particularly point 5, where a percentage value of "-3" is shown. Please recheck whether this value is indeed a negative number or if it is a typographical error.

**********

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 #2: No

**********