Recent Advances in Spectroscopy Technology for Trace Analysis of Persistent Organic Pollutants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review by Li Wang and Gang Zhou entitled ‘Recent advances in spectroscopy technologies for trace analysis of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)’ briefly introduces the reader to three ‘non-conventional’ technologies (surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy, surface plasmon resonance and fluorescence technology) that can be used for the detection of traces of persistent organic pollutants. Its novelty is in Table 1 that brings an overview of studies using these spectroscopy technologies on particular POPs.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major point

Republished figures and figure legends contain many unexplained abbreviations (BaP, FTO, MNPs, SAMs, OSA, NPG). Please simplify the figures so that not necessary content is not present or improve the figure legends it is clearer.

Minor points

Abstract: Statement “recently attracted increasing attention” is too strong.

POPs have attracted attention for decades. It is almost 50 years the widespread use of such chemicals in agriculture and industry resulted in public outcry and restrictions in use.It dates back to 1970s and 1980s, agriculture and industrial use of first chemicals of this category was banned in developed countries. The Stockholm Convention on POPs was signed in 2001.

page 2, line 1

   “great toxicity”    Again, to strong, misleading statement.

POPs comprise very heterogeneous substances. Mostly they have low acute toxicity. What makes them potentially dangerous is their “chemical stability”, persistence in the environment. Banned many years ago and still present in ultra-traces as contaminants in food…Their lipohilic nature results in bioaccumulation. POPs are suspicious from really many long-term health effects (endocrine disruptors, obesogens, diabetogens)

page 2, line 7

“threat to our human health”   It doesn’t look like scientific style. I would remove the personal ‘our’, just “threat to human health”

PCB congeners are identified by the numbers, e.g. 3,3',4,4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl = PCB-77.

I suggest you add these congener numbers into the Table 1 additional to the chemical name.

   Carefully check spelling throughout the manuscript.

         e.g.   abstract, line 17   strategyies

                                 line 24   future e outlook

                page 4, line 2: refered -> referred

                   page 13, line 13: Accorddingly -> Accordingly

List of references combines different formatting styles.

        e.g. Du J, Xu J, Sun Z, et al.       vs.    Olatunji O. S., Fatoki O. S., Opeolu B. O., Ximba, B.J.

          ref [39] missing auhors

ref [16] and ref [58] seem to be the same

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your suggestions about the manuscript. 

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper summarizes the latest achievements in spectroscopy technologies, consisting generally of SERS, surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and fluorescence, in detection of low-concentration POPs in different matrices. The sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility of these spectroscopy technologies in practical applications was discussed in details. Additionally, the challenges and future outlook concerning their application environmental analysis and monitoring was presented. The paper is well written and contains a lot of valuable information related to methodology used for trace analysis of  persistent organic pollutants(POPs) as well as methods used for the enhancement of their sensitivity. The abstract and the introduction section are very comprehensive and they are directly related to the manuscript scope. Section No. 2 and subsections are also very comprehensive with a proper reference to the published so far papers in the field of spectroscopy technology in detection of POPs. One thing is that each of the subchapters should be summarized with the table – the same as in the case of  subchapter No. 2.1. In such review articles this type of presentation enables the reader better comparison of the described dependencies. Moreover, more detailed description of the data presented in such tables should be provided. Authors should also made an attempt to propose general graphical abstract which will reflect the content of the manuscript. Manuscript contains also some minor editorial mistakes – I suggest to use black font onto Figure 2; page 12 line 14 is: “wang et al.” and should be “Wang et al.”. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions about the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc