Design of a Sensory Device for the Characterization of the Volatile Organic Compounds Fingerprint in the Breath of Dairy Cattle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The authors used TGS 822 and TGS 2620 sensors to measure acetone. Although obtained the good effect , however, does this approach work as well in real scenarios? I mean, there are lots of other gases in the cattle barns that may reduce accuracy of acetone test accuracy.

2.How to use this device in practice? Is it installed directly in the cattle barns? How to determine its distance from the cattle ?

3.The authors only obtained the results in the range of 17-21℃. In practice, the temperature is far beyond this range, suggesting that the authors add the comparison between different temperatures, such as 10-30 ℃.

4.Line 186, the authors mentioned "it ranges from 2.3 to 20ppm", thus, why not cover a concentration of 20ppm?

5.Why choose to use 3 of each sensor? How to arrange these sensors? Is the Voltage 3 measuring result different from the others due to the sensor position?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no recommendations

There is no ethical approval statement

VOCs—detailed then appreviated

Abstract:

There are no highlights and graphical abstract

There is no simple summary as all MDPI journals?

LN/14---symptoms or signs ---and why? I think signs as symptoms use for humans as a patient complain

LN/16—explain the pathogenesis (how)

LN/18—VOCs—again detail then abbreviate, especially for the ordinary readers

LN/22---ketosis –more details from the side of cause/pathogenesis/signs and treatment –etc.

LN/21---1-10 ppm—why and how???

LN/22—non-invasive---means no blood collection or injection---wright or not???

All advantages and disadvantages of this device should be tabulated with mention the theory of acting

Huge number of abbreviations were detected ---it is better to create a separate table for this

What is/are the difference of the normal collected milk and that collected from animals suffered ketosis? quality/morphological criteria/color/taste—etc

Abstract should be divided into the followings: -backgrounds/aims/methods/results and conclusion

LN/30---add dairy cattle/animal welfare/ketosis -diagnostic device /managements to the keywords

Introduction:

From LN/33-43—it a very long sentence and without any references

LN/45-47—explain the pathogenesis or mechanisms

LN/52---KB in the circulation –what the other methods used for diagnosis of ketosis? KB resulted from what—mention its cycle

LN/55—SCK—what about the ammoniacal odor with breath and the other signs

LN/58---explain in details

LN/64/74/76/97/103---add references

LN/67---compare between the 2 methods of chromatography

LN/70—manoeuvre---clarify this  

Introduction is very long , repeated without need---reconstruct it again

Aims need to be more cleared

Novelty needs to be more highlighted

What is /are the creativity of this work?

Materials and methods:

The most descriptive methodologies are without references

There is no plan for the study location

LN/118-132---tell us about the potential theory that based upon

LN/137-146—add reference

Write as Table (1):--------Fig.(1):-----etc—apply for all

LN/177—is this reference or not???

M&M is very long

Results:

Are there any abnormal behavioral on animals tried on?

LN/351---figure 12---then LN/364---figure 10---how does it comes—be more adjusted

14 figures—more than enough

All data under tables should be more summarize

Discussion:

Is very long --- rewrite it again and be more summarize

LN/416-430---repeated

LN/432-435—more details are requested

Conclusions:

Repeated

More than enough

All abbreviations should be tabulated

References:

Some of cited references need to be more update

Some of cited references contained more than 6 authors(16/17/28/44—etc)—why? Should be 6 at the maximum plus etal with the last ones—apply for all

As volume/issue/page/number---available—so no need for the link(s)—apply for all

Huge number of references were used (45)??? Why

Delete all PP/Vol/Pages

LN/515—write as 2024/14:816—etc

Some journal names were written abbreviated, while others were not—why ??? same style should be –apply for all

There are no gross figures

=======================================

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a comprehensive study on the design and application of an electronic nose for detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particularly acetone, as a biomarker for subclinical ketosis in dairy cattle. The study is highly relevant to the growing field of precision livestock management and aligns with current trends in non-invasive diagnostic technologies.

The manuscript is well-structured, with a clear explanation of the device's development, experimental design, and results. However, there are some technical, methodological, and clarity issues that require attention. Addressing these issues will strengthen the manuscript's contribution to the field.

1. Abstract Clarity: Expand on the implications of your findings for practical on-farm applications.

2. Introduction: Provide more recent references on advancements in electronic nose technology applied to livestock health monitoring.

3. Introduction: Clarify how the proposed device improves upon existing diagnostic tools for subclinical ketosis.

4. Explicitly state the unique contribution of this research to the field of veterinary diagnostics.

5. Methods: Provide a detailed description of the calibration process for the sensors to ensure reproducibility of results. Specify the rationale for choosing the six metal oxide sensors and how their selection is optimized for acetone detection.

6. Include data on sensor durability and stability over time, especially under varying environmental conditions.

7. Provide more details on the statistical tests used for PCA, LDA, and QDA. Clarify whether cross-validation was performed to ensure the robustness of the classification models.

8. Discuss why the device exhibited reduced sensitivity on Days 2 and 3 and suggest potential solutions to mitigate such fluctuations.

9. Include a comparative discussion of the accuracy, cost, and practicality of the electronic nose relative to conventional diagnostic methods for ketosis

 

10. Strengthen the discussion on the broader implications of integrating this technology with herd management systems. Highlight the device's potential contribution to sustainable livestock farming practices.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author added the description of the relevant problems, I have no questions

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable comments. Further modifications have also been made to the Introduction, Material and Conclusion section in accordance with a reviewer's suggestions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Conclusions ---more than enough

Tabulate all abbreviations

References--as it is no do any corrections

The introduction is extremely very long

Materials and methods---disorganized

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Okay

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf