Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review of manuscript entitled "Microfluidic Mixer with Automated Electrode Switching for Sensing Applications" by Maria L. Braunger et al.

 

This paper developed an electronic tongue based on a passive and 3D-printed microfluidic mixer and embedded PCB electrode, which enables fast and reliable data collection while being less susceptible to human error. To understand the originality and significance of the manuscript it should be revised. Some suggestions are described next.

 

In Section “Results and Discussion”, the first paragraph describes that when the flow rate is reduced from 20 mL/h to 1 mL/h, the mixing is greatly improved. Is there a chart or experimental data to support this conclusion?

 

Compared with the traditional electronic tongue, what advantages does the electronic tongue mentioned in the manuscript have?

 

The article relates to the microfluidic mixer, the literature named as “Optofluidic marine phosphate detection with enhanced absorption using Fabry-Pérot resonator” may provide references for it.

 

4. In Section “References”, there are some mistakes in ref. 18. Please modify it.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The choice of the electrode materials (CuTsPc, MMt-K, PEDOT, PSS) should also be explained in the Introduction.

2) Some information regarding the characterization of the working electrode surface should also be provided.

3) This novelty of this sensor compared to other e-tongues reported in the literature should be described in more detail in section 4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf