Microbial Biosensors for Wastewater Monitoring: Mini-Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented study does not provide any new insight into the field of biosensors in WWTPs. Moreover, the paper mostly focuses on the statistics of the publication search outcomes. Even though different search equations  were used in them. The results are predictable – search in various databases obviously will include duplicates. The review does not include recent important papers in the field (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116787; https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2019.1682964 ). The authors do not motivate their study and do not present convincing background for their conclusions, the biggest disadvantage of the paper is its focus on the number of the publications and their content.

 

In the current form, the article does not meet the standards for scientific publication and I recommend to reject it.

Author Response

I hope you have a good day, dear colleague. 
Your comment will be taken into account by the authors of the manuscript. And a small comment has been added at the end of the manuscript with the two references sent.
Also, although the papers submitted have good information; our work is up to date and the importance of it lies there. Also indicate that due to the great variety of database used, it has great potential to be cited and used by other researchers.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer¢s Report

Manuscript ID: processes-1876650

Title: Microbial biosensor for wastewater monitoring: mini-review

Journal: Processes

In this study, the authors have conducted a substantial literature search and systematic analysis regarding microbial biosensors for wastewater monitoring, during the period 2017 to July 2022

Authors have used relevant search platforms such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ebsco host, Springer Link, Scopus, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), and Proquest.

This review summarized recently published information about the applicability and advantages of the use of microbial biosensors.  

This study has a high potential to be cited. 

 

Therefore, I recommend that the Editorial office consider this manuscript for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Dear colleague, thank you for your comment on our research.
best regards 

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is appropriate as a minireview and highlights an important issue with its state of the art. I consider it appropriate to relieve, in this way, the studies referred to the topic

however, quantitative measures are limited.

For example, in line 155-156 described the figure 3 showing the decrese of number of publication in the period 2020-2022. the decrease occurred only from 9 to 7 numbers And, 2022 is not finalized. The incorporation of previous years could reinforce this conclusion to visualize a trend despite the fact that it is not the focus of the study.

it could be useful to incorporate in table 2 the country of the laboratory that carried out the study and which was developed with real matrices

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are in good health.
He was considered only the last 5 years because the authors wanted to give an updated point of view, also other reviewers suggested us that he was fine with the last five years. But we see his point of view as important, which is why we considered placing that note that the year 2022 is due to the fact that he has not yet finished.
On the other hand, the countries of origin were placed in the requested table.
Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

it would be wise to address the reviewers' comments one by one and include the suggested changes in the revised version of the manuscript. Otherwise reviewers do not have base for new recommendations.

Author Response

Dear Colleague. 
The papers pointed out by you were placed in reference 80 and 81, after a reading of the two suggested papers. 
While the referee two suggested publishing in its original state, because the statistical point of view of the manuscript gives a value to the scientific community. On the other hand, referee 3 also suggested improvements in the English language and nothing else.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea of publication and the meticulous work that was carried out based on data libraries is remarkable. HoweverThe idea of publication and the meticulous work that was carried out based on data libraries is remarkable. However, I believe that to have greater confidence in the data, is suggestible wait until the end of the current year and cross data with the countries of publication, quality of publication, etc. compare with other periods of equal time (5 years).

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are well.
The data for the end of the year may vary, as the data for the middle of next year may also vary. Because the status and trends in research are variable, because of this it is argued that the publication of the hard work done in the preparation of the manuscript should be published.
And it could be compared with other research work by the end of the year, to see how it has changed.
I hope that the answer is to your liking.
Best regards dear colleague.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting review of the microbial biosensor literature. I consider that it is a work that allows to think  new works about the impact and application about the use of this technologies.