Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the opinion of this referee, the paper is good in form and content and the methodology used is appropriate. However, the application in the samples should be better explained. When the authors have fortified the samples?. At the beginning of the extraction process or in the final extract? If it is on the sample, how do the authors demonstatre that the extraction is quantitative according the procedure used? In case it is about the final extract, this referee recommends removing from the article all the analysis referring to the crucian carps and keeping only the water analysis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, we did not clearly state the procedure of adding ENR to the samples when writing the manuscript. ENR was added to water, milk and carp beforehand, and after mixing and standing overnight at 4 °C, ENR were extracted through the sample analysis procedure and detected by FQISs.
This section has been redescribed in the manuscript at Line 350-357 and marked in red for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The ms reports a study regarding Glutathione-Capped CdTe Quantum Dots based Sensors for Detection of H2O2 and Enrofloxacin in Foods Samples. Overall, the ms is original and interesting with a good set of data and adequate discussion. 

My only question is about the performance of the sensor in the presence of common interferences such as glucose, ascorbic acid etc. which I do not find in the ms. This study is required in order to test the feasibility of the sensor. Common interferences for detection of enrofloxacin should be assessed as well. It would be useful also saying something about the stability and recovery of the sensor.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. The specificity and selectivity analysis is necessary. Based on your suggestion, we have added the results of the specificity and selectivity analysis of the two sensing methods in manuscript line 188-194, and line 304-308, and marked as red. The relevant figure and table are also added to the supplementary materials Figure S3 and Table S1.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I'm happy with the revised version and I recommend acceptance. However, I note that in line 187 there is "k caseine" which i think should be "L-caseine". This can be amended at the time of proof check.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and for pointing out the problem, we will amend at the time of proof check.