Review Reports - Recent Developments in Plasmonic Sensors of Phenol and Its Derivatives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provide a comprehensive review about the performance of various plasmonic optical sensors which are used to detect various phenolic compounds. I feel that this review work summarizes an important topic and provides the reader an overview about the topic. I recommend this review report for publication.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The authors provide a comprehensive review about the performance of various plasmonic optical sensors which are used to detect various phenolic compounds. I feel that this review work summarizes an important topic and provides the reader an overview about the topic. I recommend this review report for publication.

→ Thank you for positive comments. As suggested in the mark of required editing and style, we attempted to improve our English by correcting typos and mistakes in the revised manuscript. A further proof reading by consulting a professional academic editor is also conducted for better presentation, as attached in a scanned copy of the certified letter (Unilecture: www.unilecture.com).

Finally, the authors would like to thank Reviewer #1 for giving supportive comments once again. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper does a good job at reviewing the literature on sensors for phenol detection. The illustrations are well done and informative.

I suggest that the paper be published, but with a good English editing because it has too many grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The paper does a good job at reviewing the literature on sensors for phenol detection. The illustrations are well done and informative. I suggest that the paper be published, but with a good English editing because it has too many grammatical mistakes.

→ The authors would like to thank Reviewer #2 for giving helpful comments. As suggested by the Reviewer #2, we attempted to improve our English by correcting typos and grammatical mistakes in the revised manuscript. A proof reading by consulting a professional academic editor is also conducted for better presentation, as attached in a scanned copy of the certified letter (Unilecture: www.unilecture.com).

Finally, the authors would like to thank Reviewer #2 for giving supportive comments once again. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Phenolic compounds contamination may arise environmental concerns due to the toxic nature that would threat plants, animals, and human-beings. Development of technologies for detecting such compounds is highly required. This manuscript reviews the state-of-the-art of the plasmonic resonance nanomaterials that are applied in several optical sensors, including colorimetric, fluorescence, localized surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and optical Raman spectroscopy. Great efforts of literature reviewing were made for preparing this mini-review, which are appreciated, although, the disorder and distraction of the text structure may affect its broader dissemination. A major revision is needed before it can be accepted.

Major concerns:

The manuscript reviews the Phenolic compounds and derivatives detection using colorimetric, fluorescence, LSPR methodologies. However, the review of Raman based sensing technologies seems entering another category and the correlation of this part to the main line is not clearly described. It is suggested that the authors should conceive a sound logic line of different part rather than a tough turn.
Page 3, Line 118, the authors argue that “Notably, there is no report on Raman-based sensors for detecting phenolic substances despite their universal application.” I have scrutinized the related literatures and found several works that might question the argument, e.g. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical315 (2020): 128135.; Analytical chemistry22 (2010): 9299-9305; Optical Materials 94 (2019): 305-310. Please explain why those works above-mentioned are excluded.
The argument also leads to a contradiction regarding the Table 1.

Minor comments:

The resolution of the figures is not satisfied.
Quite a lot of English errors are found, e. g.,

-Line 113, “these methodologies have been often required more techniques” should read “these methodologies often require more techniques”

-Line 119, an error usage in grammar

-Line 115, “effect on economy and environment” refers to?

-Line 116, “whereas Raman-based analyses may lack specificity” but in Line 70, “Raman method based on plasmonic resonance nanomaterials are interesting due to high specific, selective and sensitive detection.” The two sentences may lead to confusion.

Line 332, “Raman-based sensing is as a second application in which the localized SPR plays a significant role”, “second application” refers to ?

Line 502, “This review focused on recent techniques in optical sensors including colorimetric, fluorescence, localized SPR and Raman scattering using to determine phenol and phenolic compounds” -“using” should read “used”

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Phenolic compounds contamination may arise environmental concerns due to the toxic nature that would threat plants, animals, and human-beings. Development of technologies for detecting such compounds is highly required. This manuscript reviews the state-of-the-art of the plasmonic resonance nanomaterials that are applied in several optical sensors, including colorimetric, fluorescence, localized surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and optical Raman spectroscopy. Great efforts of literature reviewing were made for preparing this mini-review, which are appreciated, although, the disorder and distraction of the text structure may affect its broader dissemination. A major revision is needed before it can be accepted.

→ Thank you for positive comments. We revised the manuscript according to the points raised by Reviewer #3 as follows:

Major concerns:

The manuscript reviews the Phenolic compounds and derivatives detection using colorimetric, fluorescence, LSPR methodologies. However, the review of Raman based sensing technologies seems entering another category and the correlation of this part to the main line is not clearly described. It is suggested that the authors should conceive a sound logic line of different part rather than a tough turn.

→ Thank you for the good comments. We attempted to provide more sound logic line from colorimetric, fluorescence, and LSPR methodologies to Raman-based sensing. The manuscript is revised as follows:

(i) The following sentences were added at the 114-119^th lines of page 3 in the revised manuscript.

“Raman sensing based on the plasmonic resonance phenomenon has emerged as a scientific issue for detecting analytes using of Raman vibrations on nanomaterial surfaces [59]. Raman-based sensing is as a supplementary application in which the LSPR plays a significant role [60]. Raman technology based on noble metal surfaces has been connected with LSPR in terms of introducing nanogap-enhanced plasmonic behaviors [61].”

(ii) At the section “Plasmonic resonance-based Raman sensors for phenolic compounds detection”, The words of “plasmon resonance” are added in front of “Raman spectroscopy” for providing better context.

Page 3, Line 118, the authors argue that “Notably, there is no report on Raman-based sensors for detecting phenolic substances despite their universal application.” I have scrutinized the related literatures and found several works that might question the argument, e.g. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical315 (2020): 128135.; Analytical chemistry 22 (2010) 9299-9305; Optical Materials 94 (2019): 305-310. Please explain why those works above-mentioned are excluded.

The argument also leads to a contradiction regarding the Table 1.

→ We revised our manuscript according to the comments as follows:

(i) The following sentences were added at the 119-121^st lines of page 3 in the revised manuscript.

“Although there have been several reports on surface plasmon-based Raman sensors for detecting phenolic substances [59-61], there is no literature review despite their universal application.”

The references are newly added in the revised manuscript

Li, N.; Chen, H.; Zhang, M.; Zha, Y.; Mu, Z.; Ma, Y.; Chen, P. A universal ultrasensitive platform for enzyme-linked immunoassay based on responsive surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2020, 315, 128135.
Hariharan, A.; Chelli, S. M.; Muthukumar V, S.; Belliraj, S. K.; Ferrari, M.; Narasimha, N. K.; Vishnubhatla, K. C. Paper-microfluidics based SERS substrate for PPB level detection of catechol. Opt. Mater. 2019, 94, 305–310.
Li, D.; Li, D-W.; Fossey, J. S.; Long, Y-T. Portable surface-enhanced Raman scattering sensor for rapid detection of aniline and phenol derivatives by on-site electrostatic preconcentration. Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 9299–9305.

Minor comments:

The resolution of the figures is not satisfied.

Quite a lot of English errors are found, e. g.,

-Line 113, “these methodologies have been often required more techniques” should read “these methodologies often require more techniques”

→ The sentence was rephrased into “…these methodologies often require more techniques...”.

-Line 119, an error usage in grammar

→ The sentences were rephrased into “Although there have been several reports on plasmon-based Raman sensors for detecting phenolic substances [59-61], there is no literature review despite their universal application”.

-Line 115, “effects on economy and environment” refers to?

→ The sentence was rephrased into “adverse effects on the environment”.

-Line 116, “whereas Raman-based analyses may lack specificity” but in Line 70, “Raman

method based on plasmonic resonance nanomaterials are interesting due to high specific, selective and sensitive detection.” The two sentences may lead to confusion.

→ The phrase of “…whereas Raman-based analyses may lack specificity …” is omitted in the revised manuscript.

-Line 332, “Raman-based sensing is as a second application in which the localized SPR plays a significant role”, “second application” refers to ?

→The sentence was rephrased into “…supplementary application…”.

-Line 502, “This review focused on recent techniques in optical sensors including colorimetric, fluorescence, localized SPR and Raman scattering using to determine phenol and phenolic compounds” -“using” should read “used”

→ “using” was corrected to “used”.

As suggested in the mark of required editing and style, we attempted to improve our English by correcting typos and mistakes in the revised manuscript. A further proof reading by consulting a professional academic editor is also conducted for better presentation, as attached in a scanned copy of the certified letter (Unilecture: www.unilecture.com).

Finally, the authors would like to thank Reviewer #3 for giving valuable comments. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The characteristics of typical plasmonic based optical sensors have been reviewed and discussed for the recently reported works. The sensing performance have been compared to explain the perspectives in future. I recommend its publication after minor revision.

Figs2, 10, 12 are not clear enough, please fix them;

This review aims to discuss the developments of “sensors”, however, in some cited works, the targets were determined by the color or fluorescence change of the liquid without using any special sensor chips or probe. These works maybe not fit very well with the scope, or the authors should explain how to integrate the mechanism on miniature devices, or named sensors.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The characteristics of typical plasmonic based optical sensors have been reviewed and discussed for the recently reported works. The sensing performance have been compared to explain the perspectives in future. I recommend its publication after minor revision.

→ The authors deeply appreciate the Reviewer #4 for giving helpful comments.

Figs2, 10, 12 are not clear enough, please fix them.

→ Thank you for the good comments. We provide better Figures 2, 10 and 12 in revised manuscript.

Finally, the authors would like to thank Reviewer #4 for giving positive comments once again. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised manuscript, I find my concerns are well-addressed. It can be accepted for publication.