Peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers with median rating of 9.5/20. Review process was triple-blinded.
Round 1 (11/20)
Round 2 (9.5/20)
Conceptual advance and Impact5
The authors seem to assume the commercial supplier has supplied the correct material. I think that is unfortunate but maybe acceptable for Matters. Some grammatical revisions would help.
I think aggregation is not very interesting but it will be of practical importance to many experiments.
Results & Discussion
"A feasible explanation that justifies the NH morphological modification results in a parallelism with surfactants." I cannot understand this sentence. Probably the grammar needs adjustment.
Can you compare your results to doi:10.1016/S0009-2614(99)00642-9