A Molecularly Imprinted Polymer Based SPR Sensor for 2-Furaldehyde Determination in Oil Matrices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Authors are required to demonstrate the repeatability of the sensor after the washing process.
- How about the temperature characteristic of the sensor?
- Is the MIP reusable?
Author Response
We would like to warmly thank the reviewers for the very helpful and constructive observations. Here are the punctual responses to the points raised. We hope to have properly met all of them.
Reviewer 1
1. Authors are required to demonstrate the repeatability of the sensor after the washing process.
Reply
We demonstrated the repeatability of the measurements by the same sensor by repeating three times in a month (once each ten days, the sensor was stored in the air between the successive measurements) the dose-response curve for 2-FAL in a vegetable oil, and evaluating the parameters of the curve. That of the affinity constant Kaff is good, while that of rλmax is somewhat worse, which could show some degradation of the MIP layer during storage in air. We added the required information in the text, p.12 l.341.
2. How about the temperature characteristic of the sensor?
Reply
Thank you for the question. This is a very relevant point, nevertheless in the present work all the measurements were performed in the lab at ambient temperature (25°C) since we wanted to focus on other variables, in particular the structure of the MIP layer. We added the information about the working temperature in the experimental part on p.4 l. 163.
3. Is the MIP reusable?
Reply
The whole sensor has a good reusability, included the receptor layer, i.e. the MIP. May be this is one of the best characteristics of this kind of artificial receptors.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled with “A molecularly imprinted polymer based SPR sensor for furaldehyde determination in oil matrices” submitted to Applied Sciences. This work presents the SPR detection of 2-furaldehyde using molecularly imprinted polymers. Although the presented data based on the SPR detections are interesting, there seems to be the following points, which should be considered in the revised manuscript.
Minor problems:
It would be helpful to correct the typos in the manuscript for instance.
-Line 11: “2-furhaldehide” -> “2-furhaldehyde”.
-Line 23: “…industrial diagnostic. The effect of the MIP layer thickness and of the…” -> “…industrial diagnostics. The effects of the MIP layer thickness and the…”.
-Line 32: “In the industrial field too a wide interest…” should be rephrased.
-Line 60-61, on page 2: “surface plasmon resonance (SPR)” -> “SPR”.
-Line 61, on page 2: “POFs” -> “plastic optical fibers (POFs)” instead of that in line 204.
-Line 95-100: “Cas No.” and “Sigma-Aldrich Part No.” are missing.
-Line 102 and 105: “mg l-1” and “ug l-1” -> “mg L-1” and “mg L-1”.
-Fig. 1: “SMA connector” -> “sub-miniature version (SMA) connector”.
-Line 135: “(b) picture” -> “(b) Picture”
-Line 208-209: “between 500 e 510nm and at about 600nm (average value 603.5 (2.8) nm” -> “between 500-510 nm and at about 600 nm (average value 603.5 (±2.8) nm”.
-Line 216: “n=1,33” -> “n=1.33”, likewise, the numbers of in the horizontal axis.
-Line 259, 273, 280, 331, 336: “MIPEGDMA sensor” -> “MIP EGDMA sensor”.
-In Materials and Methods, (Company name, City, Country) should be written in a consistent way.
-Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the horizontal (vertical) axis may have wider spacings with the larger font sizes of captions.
-In References, please check the followings and follow the guidelines in a consistent way.
(a) The title of the papers should be written in a consistent way in terms of upper and lower cases. For example, the title in (3) is different from those in (1) and (2).
(b) Journal abbreviations, for instance (3). The same journal of (9) and (10).
(c) DOI number in only (3) and (14).
In my opinion, this article seems interesting but should be revised prior to the acceptance.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to warmly thank the reviewers for the very helpful and constructive observations. Here are the punctual responses to the points raised. We hope to have properly met all of them.
Reviewer 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review the article titled with “A molecularly imprinted polymer based SPR sensor for furaldehyde determination in oil matrices” submitted to Applied Sciences. This work presents the SPR detection of 2-furaldehyde using molecularly imprinted polymers. Although the presented data based on the SPR detections are interesting, there seems to be the following points, which should be considered in the revised manuscript.
Minor problems:
It would be helpful to correct the typos in the manuscript for instance.
-Line 11: “2-furhaldehide” -> “2-furhaldehyde”.
Reply
The spelling for 2-furaldehyde has been checked and corrected throughout the whole manuscript.
-Line 23: “…industrial diagnostic. The effect of the MIP layer thickness and of the…” -> “…industrial diagnostics. The effects of the MIP layer thickness and the…”.
Reply
Done.
-Line 32: “In the industrial field too a wide interest…” should be rephrased.
Reply
Done.
-Line 60-61, on page 2: “surface plasmon resonance (SPR)” -> “SPR”.
Reply
Changed according to the suggestion.
-Line 61, on page 2: “POFs” -> “plastic optical fibers (POFs)” instead of that in line 204.
Reply
It has been modified.
-Line 95-100: “Cas No.” and “Sigma-Aldrich Part No.” are missing.
Reply
This part has been modified according to the suggestion. The CAS number has been specified for all the considered reagents
-Line 102 and 105: “mg l-1” and “ug l-1” -> “mg L-1” and “mg L-1”.
Reply
Corrections performed.
-Fig. 1: “SMA connector” -> “sub-miniature version (SMA) connector”.
Reply
This has been introduced in the caption of Fig.1 on line 133.
-Line 135: “(b) picture” -> “(b) Picture”
Reply
Done.
-Line 208-209: “between 500 e 510nm and at about 600nm (average value 603.5 (2.8) nm” -> “between 500-510 nm and at about 600 nm (average value 603.5 (±2.8) nm”.
Reply
Done.
-Line 259, 273, 280, 331, 336: “MIPEGDMA sensor” -> “MIP EGDMA sensor”.
Reply
This modification has been done in all the appropriate places.
-In Materials and Methods, (Company name, City, Country) should be written in a consistent way.
Reply
Done
-Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the horizontal (vertical) axis may have wider spacings with the larger font sizes of captions.
Reply
All the Figures have been revised in order to make them consistent each with the others. In particular, the name of the platforms has been adjusted, and, accordingly, the captions have been revised too. This has been made in the text too. Also, we have made the style of the two Tables conform.
-In References, please check the followings and follow the guidelines in a consistent way.
(a) The title of the papers should be written in a consistent way in terms of upper and lower cases. For example, the title in (3) is different from those in (1) and (2).
Reply
The titles have been conformed.
(b) Journal abbreviations, for instance (3). The same journal of (9) and (10).
Reply
Done.
(c) DOI number in only (3) and (14).
Reply
These references have been conformed.
