The Biomass of Pig-Blood-Derived Carbon as a Novel Electrode Material for Hydrogen Peroxide Electrochemical Sensing
, Yue Cao 3,*, Weimeng Si 3, Haoran Wei 5, Zhongfang Li 2 and Fagang Wang 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a brief study describing the preparation of a carbon-based electrode from pig blood biomass and its application to detect H2O2 voltammetrically and/or amperometrically at various concentration levels, sometimes in the presence of some interferences. Preparation of electrode materials from renewable biomass is a topic of interest, however this manuscript needs to be seriously improved before acceptance for publication.
Observations below range from minor to major:
Title needs rephrasing: "Carbon derived from pig blood biomass as novel [...]"
Line 12: material (no "s")
Line 15: "broad" and "extra-long" are redundant. Choose one!
Line 49: rephrase to "attractiveness for two main aspects"
Line 76: I believe the preliminary results presented in this work were meant to take this material beyond the level of mere "hope". Avoid the word "hope"!
Line 79: Please mention the source of fresh pig blood, specific breed and age of pigs slaughtered, nutrition/meals received (blood chemical composition likely differs between breeds, age of animal, diet etc. and the resulting electrode material could be affected as such)
Also, the Experimental part in general is way too brief. Only the preparation of electrode material is presented. Vendor and purity of all reagents used must be indicated, preparation of solutions and buffers, electrochemical assembly (counter and/or reference electrodes), potentiostat/galvanostat used, software used for acquisition and analysis, SEM/TEM/Raman instrumentation and settings etc.
This is needed for clarity/for understanding remaining parts of the paper, not just for reproducibility by other scientists. For example, you state "0.1 M pH 5.0 KOH" in several figure captions; how can a 0.1 M KOH solution have a pH of 5? The expected pH is around 13!
Line 83: min to the "-1" (superscript font needed)
Line 87: HCl (little "l" needed here)
Figure 1 caption: indicate the difference between figs (C) and (D), i.e. the level of magnification
So many acronyms are used throughout the paper, but they are nowhere defined: SEM, TEM, EDS, BC, GCE, ID/IG, CV, PBS, Ip, Epc, AA, BPA, DA. Not all of them are well-known acronyms, and even so, they should still be defined at the time of their first occurrence.
Line 133: "100 mV s -1" should be moved to the end of this line
Line 141: 0.1 M PBS? Figure 4B caption reads "0.1 M pH 5.0 KOH". Which one is it then?
Line 145-154: I do not fully understand this part. In figure 4B the most prominent reduction current is for BC-900/GCE (curve d), not for Fe-BC-900/GCE (curve c), but this discussion part states the opposite.
Figure 5 caption: superscripts and subscripts must be used appropriately here
Line 164 vs. line 167: Again, I am confused. Is the slope of logIpc=f(logv) 0.575 as stated on line 164 or 0.86 as stated on line 167. The value 0.575 is much closer to 0.5 than to 1 and the whole discussion part here would become questionable.
Line 174: Laviron's formula is incorrect (the slope of the logv term is missing) and all terms that appear in this equation must be explained. The slope of the logv term is essential for the calculation of "n" and all assumptions made for this calculation must be stated clearly (e.g. the rounding of the charge transfer coefficient alpha to 0.5).
Line 195: "interferometry experiment"? Definitely NOT! Perhaps "interference testing experiment", as "interferometry" means something else.
Line 207: "linear range" - correction needed!
Some references do not indicate volume and page numbers of the respective articles. Please check all bibliography thoroughly!
Author Response
thanks for the reviewer's kind comments, specific responses are shown in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ID: catalysts-1957969 - Peer Review Status Update: “The Biomass of Pig Blood Derived Carbon as Novel Electrode Material for Hydrogen Peroxide Electrochemical Sensing”
Comment #01: Please describe how long the pig blood was at 300, 600 and 900°C.
Comment #02: What is the average size of the described nanomaterials, perform a pore size distribution curve
Comment #03: Figure 2 (F-I) you need to identify which figure corresponds to which elements (N, S, C and Fe), since the reader has to be able to clearly identify them.
Comment #04: Line 114 it mentions figure 2 L, but it does not exist in the paper
Comment #05: In the text you do not mention Figure 2 B, please add information, it is confusing to which it belongs.
Comment #06: Figure 4 mentions that the supporting electrolyte is 0.1 M KOH, however you mention that its pH is 5, that is impossible, please check the pH.
Comment #07: Line 141 mentions another electrolyte support (PBS), please check and correctly inform which is the support electrolyte,
Comment #08: Lines 145-147. Rewrite the paragraph that is not fully understood
Comment #09: Lines 151. “25” corresponds to reference 25 or 2,5?
Comment #10: Lines 156-157. typographical errors “mVs-1” and “H2O2”
Comment #11: I find that the article was written in a rush, since it contains serious errors such as Line 167 "sexual fit".
Comment #12: Lines 172-173. “17” corresponds to reference 17 or 1,7?
Comment #13: Calibration plot with error bars needs adding in the main paper
Comment #14: Standard addition plot needs adding
Comment #15: The electrodebefore and after needsbenchmarking, for example, determine A Real, and % A Real to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.105629
Comment #16: Why was this rather complicated substance chosen as catalyst? it is unlikely to be a random choice.
Comment #17: Add an equivalent circuit to EIS section as an inset figure and show the rule of each component.
Comment #18: I suggest evaluating which is the most suitable pH for the reduction of H2O2 using the Fe-BC-900/GCE.
Comment #19: As there are many oxygen reduction papers published in the literature, the performances of the composites prepared in this study should be compared with the results reported in the literature. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2020.114763, https://doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41980K, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2017.03.023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.10.004, https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ab9c83
Author Response
thanks for the reviewer's kind comments, specific responses are shown in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All required changes were performed.
Still, there are many typos in the new text în red (big instead of pig blood in the beginning of the abstract, working electrode not work electrode, as follows missing the final s, etc.).
Author Response
Thank you very much for the valuable comments from the reviewers, we have revised it according to your request.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors corrected all comments
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments.
