Peer-Review Record
Lab-on-Paper Devices for Diagnosis of Human Diseases Using Urine Samples—A Review
Biosensors 2021, 11(8), 260; https://doi.org/10.3390/bios11080260
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Biosensors 2021, 11(8), 260; https://doi.org/10.3390/bios11080260
Submission received: 6 July 2021
/
Revised: 26 July 2021
/
Accepted: 29 July 2021
/
Published: 3 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosensors Based on Microfluidic Devices)
- Round 1
- Reviewer 1 Report
- The authors of this review article have shown a well-written and relevant manuscript about the use of microfluidic paper-based devices for urine sample analysis. The references of this review were well chosen and the overall sequencies of the text was precisely organized. Therefore, I have just few comments that should be considered to improve the quality of the review before publication.
- Comments:
- I believe some information about other noninvasive biological fluids should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction of the manuscript or at the beginning of topic 3, to highlight the relevance and advantages of urine for this kind of analysis. It would be interesting to read about the differences (advantages and disadvantages) of using urine among other noninvasive biological fluids like sweat, tears or saliva, for instance.
- I think some information about the pH are missing in the manuscript. It is well known that the pH of the sample may affect the result and urine samples has not a fixed pH.
- Continuing about pH…some sensors you mentioned in the manuscript worked only in alkaline medium. Is there some issue that researchers should be aware when designing the sensor for analysis of urine samples when the sensor works only in extreme pH?
- I would like to see more figures showing the design of different systems and possibilities of these paper-based devices.
- Author Response
- Reviewer #1:
The authors of this review article have shown a well-written and relevant manuscript about the use of microfluidic paper-based devices for urine sample analysis. The references of this review were well chosen and the overall sequencies of the text was precisely organized. Therefore, I have just few comments that should be considered to improve the quality of the review before publication. - Comments:
- I believe some information about other noninvasive biological fluids should be mentioned somewhere in the introduction of the manuscript or at the beginning of topic 3, to highlight the relevance and advantages of urine for this kind of analysis. It would be interesting to read about the differences (advantages and disadvantages) of using urine among other noninvasive biological fluids like sweat, tears or saliva, for instance.
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have added a Table 1 in the Section 3 to compare human samples used for detection. (Page 5)
- Table 1 Comparison of detection using human samples
|
Human sample |
Blood |
Urine |
Saliva |
Sweat |
|
Sample type |
Invasive |
Non-invasive |
Non-invasive |
Non-invasive |
|
Sampling |
Difficult |
Easy |
Easy |
Easy |
|
Sample volume |
Lots |
Lots |
Little |
Little |
|
Sample pretreatment |
Complicated |
Easy |
Easy |
Easy |
|
Detection accuracy |
High |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
Detection cost |
High |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
Detectable items |
Diversity |
Diversity |
Limited |
Limited |
- I think some information about the pH are missing in the manuscript. It is well known that the pH of the sample may affect the result and urine samples has not a fixed pH.
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have added an example and a reference in section 3.5 to illustrate the method and importance of the pH value of urine samples. (Page 13)
- “In addition, the detection of pH in urine is also very important, and it is also one of the main indicators for determining urine detection [160]. Galanis et al. [101] developed a stacked four-layer cellulose paper and made a 3D multi-layer lab-on-paper device (see Figure 6c). The lab-on-paper device can detect BSA, glucose, nitrite and the pH value of test samples mixed in artificial urine. The pH value test uses bromothymol blue as the indicator, dilutes the red chemical dye with deionized water, and the detectable range is 6.0~7.6.“
- Continuing about pH…some sensors you mentioned in the manuscript worked only in alkaline medium. Is there some issue that researchers should be aware when designing the sensor for analysis of urine samples when the sensor works only in extreme pH?
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. This is an example [106] of detecting the concentration of Cre in urine sample. The main reason is that the reaction reagent picric acid must be under alkaline conditions to produce the Jaffé reaction. Since the pH of human urine is between 5~8, it is rarely under extreme pH conditions. Therefore, the current design of lab-on-paper device in the literature to detect the pH value falls within this range, and there are not too many problems.
- I would like to see more figures showing the design of different systems and possibilities of these paper-based devices.
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have added some figures (Figure 3c, Figure 5b and
- Author Response File:
Author Response.pdf - Reviewer 2 Report
- A well written review or paper chips and reviews.
- Few remarks:
- 1) As the authors present the urine angle I suggest to remove any blood-related or alternative sample origins/biofluids to not defocus their well prepared literature research
- 2) Add diagnostic range relevant for urine to Table 2 on uPADs nxt to detection limit
- 3) Any implications of paper based devices for virus infection or titer detection out of urine? COVID or influenza? zika? etc
- Author Response
- Reviewer #2:
A well written review or paper chips and reviews. - Few remarks:
- 1) As the authors present the urine angle I suggest to remove any blood-related or alternative sample origins/biofluids to not defocus their well prepared literature research
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have revised some of the references and focused on the literature of urine samples. Such as Ref.[10],[23], [25], [30], [44], [54], [55], [56], and [56].
- 2) Add diagnostic range relevant for urine to Table 2 on uPADs nxt to detection limit.
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have added the detection range to Table 2 and Table 3. (Pages 9, 14 and 15)
- 3) Any implications of paper based devices for virus infection or titer detection out of urine? COVID or influenza? zika? etc
- Reply: Thanks to the reviewer. Authors have added a paragraph in the Conclusion section to explain the future outlook of the link between the Lab-on-paper and amplification system or immunosensor. (Page. 16)
- “In addition, lap-on-paper has insufficient research on virus infection or COVID in urine sample, mainly due to the detection limit. If lap-on-paper can be combined with amplification system [77] or immunosensor [174], it is a research that can be developed.”
- Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
