Answers from author to the reviewers questions

To

The Esteemed reviewers

BJPS

sir,

I would like to thank you for reviewing my paper titled Chemometrics assisted stability
indicating RP-HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of acetyl cysteine and
ambroxol hydrochloride in bulk and dosage form with manuscript number 082-16.

I am grateful to you for receiving valuable suggestions that I had overlooked while
submitting this manuscript and I promise you that I shall incorporate all the suggestions in
my future communications too.

The following are the revisions that I incorporated in my paper as per the comments of
both the reviewers:

Answers to reviewer with file name: Trab082-16-Parecer Tcnico-6o.rev

It is need to include de address of the correspondence author.

included the address under the heading Correspondence

The statement of interest conflict is missing.

included the statement under the heading conflict of interest

The manuscript needs an orthographic review, especially in verb tenses, but also it is need

to observe the correct use of commas, spaces and capital letters around the text.

corrected my entire article and incorporated the above suggestions.

The symbol of grade () and the abbreviation of hour and minutes should be corrected.

corrected the symbol for () and the abbreviation of hour and minutes throughout the
article.

Some sentences are broken in the middle, e.g., The values for the limit of detection (LOD)

and limit of quantification (LOQ) were found to be 0.04 g mL-1 and 0.12 g mL-1 for

ACE, and it was 0.14 g mL-1 and 0.44 g mL-1 for AMB respectively. The LOD and LOQ

showed the sensitivity of the method for ACE and AMB.

 corrected the above sentence and also the other broken sentences. I suppose the above
error has occurred due to different versions of MS Office.

HPLC filters porosity should be specified.

I am sorry for overlooking the porosity and I included it as 0.45.

On item System suitability test:

The authors mention that retention time is the average of six replicates, so I suggest the

inclusion of the standard deviation in data.

included the %RSD value as per your suggestion.

FIGURE 4 Letters indicating the stress chromatograms are not uniform in the figure.

corrected as per your suggestion.

FIGURE 5 The position of the Pareto charts must be corrected.

corrected as per your suggestion.

This sentence Retention times of ACE and AMB where the p-value and F-value of the

model were 0.0002 and 42.03 & 0.0001 and 62.36 respectively, is not finished.

I corrected it as The p-value and F-value of the model for ACE are 0.0002 and 42.03
respectively and that for AMB are 0.0001 and 62.36 respectively, demonstrating that
the predicted model fits to the experimental data satisfactorily.

Answers to reviewer with file name: Trab082-16-Parecer Tcnico-3o.rev

See comments in the body of the article. This work needs to be revised to include the most
known impurities of both drugs. See the respective monographs in the Eur. Pharm.

I did not find comments given in the body of article itself except comment on address.
I included the address under the heading Correspondence.
I corrected the entire article as per the suggestions given by the other reviewer in the
body of the article.
I included the reference European Pharmacopoeia.
The impurity analysis was not included in the present work and I look forward to
include impurity analysis in my future submissions.

With regards

author