ScienceGuardians hosts academic institutions too
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
The study uses chloroform and ethyl acetate for Soxhlet extraction of Tamarindus indica seeds and peel, yet it does not justify the choice of these two particular solvents despite their vastly different polarity. Why did the authors not include a more polar solvent such as methanol or aqueous ethanol, which are commonly used in phytochemical extraction and may better represent a broader spectrum of bioactive compounds?
As a fellow researcher who has carefully read your study, I appreciate the effort in investigating the bioactivities of Tamarindus indica seed and peel extracts. However, I would like to raise a few critical points for clarification and improvement.
Firstly, I note that another reader has already questioned the rationale behind the choice of chloroform and ethyl acetate as extraction solvents, especially in the absence of more polar alternatives like methanol or aqueous ethanol, which are commonly used for a broader recovery of bioactive compounds. I fully agree with that concern and emphasize the need for justification, especially given the phytochemical diversity known in tamarind.
Secondly, I observed a methodological inconsistency that requires explanation. In your phytochemical screening (Table 1), the ethyl acetate extract of the peel was reported to contain only terpenoids, with phenols and flavonoids absent. However, your GC-MS analysis (Table 6) clearly identified isovanillic acid, a phenolic compound, in the same extract. This discrepancy raises concerns about the accuracy or sensitivity of the qualitative phytochemical tests employed. Could the authors clarify this inconsistency, and whether quantitative methods were cross-validated?
Lastly, the study would have benefitted from a broader solvent gradient or even a polarity-based fractionation approach. This would allow a more comprehensive assessment of the phytochemical landscape and corresponding bioactivities. Limiting the analysis to two mid-to-low polarity solvents potentially underrepresents the pharmacological potential of T. indica constituents.