Next Article in Journal
Advances in Colorimetric Assay Based on AuNPs Modified by Proteins and Nucleic Acid Aptamers
Next Article in Special Issue
Electrochemical Sensing of Idarubicin—DNA Interaction Using Electropolymerized Azure B and Methylene Blue Mediation
Previous Article in Journal
Advances in Chirality Sensing with Macrocyclic Molecules
Previous Article in Special Issue
Methodology of Selecting the Optimal Receptor to Create an Electrochemical Immunosensor for Equine Arteritis Virus Protein Detection
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Electrosynthesized Poly(o-aminophenol) Films as Biomimetic Coatings for Dopamine Detection on Pt Substrates

Chemosensors 2021, 9(10), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors9100280
by Rosanna Ciriello *, Martina Graziano, Giuliana Bianco and Antonio Guerrieri
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Chemosensors 2021, 9(10), 280; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors9100280
Submission received: 7 September 2021 / Revised: 23 September 2021 / Accepted: 27 September 2021 / Published: 30 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Electrochemical Biosensors for Medical Diagnosis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Ciriello et al. reports an eletrochemistry sensor for dopamine detection, using an MIP coated Pt eletrode. In my opnion, the major advance of this work is to employ PoAP as the target recognition unit. However, the advantage of PoAP should be highlighted and demonstrated, before further consideration of publication. Please find below some comments:

  1. It is still not clear what the advantage of PoAP is, compared with poly(pyrrole) used in Ref 20. The advantages should be demonstrated experimentally.
  2. The selectivity of this sensor should be demonstrated by testing AA, UA, SER,TYR before testing the mixtures.
  3. The abstract is too long. I suggest pointing out the novelty more straightforwardly.
  4. Pay attention to some errors in English, e.g. 'easy of operation'.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I think that your work is well written and presented. Also, your scientific activity appears to be solid. I only have two marginal suggestions to give you:

-) Par. 2.2: please add the main parameters’ values for the DPV measurements.

-) Fig.2 and 4: please add colors or arrows to the various lines to indicate the progress of the experiments.

-) Fig. 6: in these experiments, the measured current is much smaller than that recorded in previous experiments, e.g., Fig. 5. Also, the values are now negative, and this could induce confusion in the casual reader. I suggest that you add few lines to explain these differences with respect to the previous presented data.

Kind regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the questions and I suggest publication as it is.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for suggesting the manuscript publication as it is. We have performed the minor spell check required.

Back to TopTop