Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper presents an  interesting. I recommend major revision.

first, too many english problems in the paper. For the chemial formula, The number should always be lowr case, such as NO₃ and so on. All the paper shall revise this. 

Second, the cation of the figure in themain part are not right. Fig.6A and Fig.7B are used, but no A or B are shown in the picture. Fig 9 and 10 is the same type. The table is not the same form, such as Table 1-3, very different style , very different size of numbers.

Third, there is not any proof of the success fabrication of the electrochemial sensors. Please add more data on the materials of electrochemical sensors, convincing that the experiment is success.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english should be improved more.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The paper presents an interesting. I recommend major revision.

Response 1: Thank you. We have made revisions.

Comment 2: First, too many English problems in the paper. For the chemical formula, the number should always be lower case, such as NO3 and so on. All the paper shall revise this.

Response 2: Thank you for the assessment we have revised all the chemical names and the formulas in the paper.

Comment 3: Second, the caption of the figure in the main part are not right. Fig. 6A and Fig.7B are used, but no A or B are shown in the picture. Fig 9 and 10 is the same type. The table is not the same form, such as Table 1-3, very different style , very different size of numbers.

Response 3: The tables and captions are revised and updated.

Comment 4: Third, there is not any proof of the success fabrication of the electrochemial sensors. Please add more data on the materials of electrochemical sensors, convincing that the experiment is success.

Response 4: The sensor fabrication is added, and the electrochemical characterization is already published by our team and we have included the reference [21].

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment 5: The English should be improved more.

Response 5: The grammar and the language have been polished and updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, Jayachandran and colleagues have carried out a detailed study on the measurement of the magnitude of nutrient loss through the development of a novel molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs)-based electrochemical sensor, which were selectively able to detect the nitrates and phosphates in soil runoff. This is a well-organized manuscript supported by a good amount of experimental work. The study revealed that these sensor-based results allow farmers to treat the soil to fulfill nutrient deficiency. This work should encourage the development of more creative designs of novel sensors in agriculture to test soil. The general attraction with soil testing and estimating the nutrient levels in different soil types should make this paper of interest to the readership of AgriEngineering. I recommend publication with minor revisions.

1. Line 36. "Nitrogen is taken by the plants in the form of nitrates…" authors should modify this statement as “Most of nitrogen is taken by the plants in the form of nitrates because nitrogen is also uptake as ammonium (urea) and nitrogen fixation.
2. Authors should draw a chemical structure of polypyrrole with a selective chemical recognition site for nitrate and phosphate. What is the driving force for binding nitrate and phosphate?
3. Authors are encouraged to briefly explain the recyclability of the sensor with the help of a systematic diagram.
4. 3.6: Please mention which standard methods were used.
5. Please compare the data from the present work with those from any of the standard methods (ICP-MS/HPLC/calorimetry, etc.).
6. Authors are encouraged to provide supporting information.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: In the manuscript, Jayachandran and colleagues have carried out a detailed study on the measurement of the magnitude of nutrient loss through the development of a novel molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs)-based electrochemical sensor, which were selectively able to detect the nitrates and phosphates in soil runoff. This is a well-organized manuscript supported by a good amount of experimental work. The study revealed that these sensor-based results allow farmers to treat the soil to fulfill nutrient deficiency. This work should encourage the development of more creative designs of novel sensors in agriculture to test soil. The general attraction with soil testing and estimating the nutrient levels in different soil types should make this paper of interest to the readership of AgriEngineering. I recommend publication with minor revisions.

Response1: Thank you

Comment 2: Line 36. "Nitrogen is taken by the plants in the form of nitrates…" authors should modify this statement as “Most of nitrogen is taken by the plants in the form of nitrates because nitrogen is also uptake as ammonium (urea) and nitrogen fixation.

Response 2: Line 36 has been modified per the reviewer suggestion.

Comment 3: Authors should draw a chemical structure of polypyrrole with a selective chemical recognition site for nitrate and phosphate. What is the driving force for binding nitrate and phosphate?

Response 3: As suggested by the reviewer, the chemical structure of poly-pyrrole and the binding of the analyte is added with schematic diagram and description.

Comment 4: Authors are encouraged to briefly explain the recyclability of the sensor with the help of a systematic diagram.

Response 4: The fabricated sensor was tested for single use. Although our previous paper demonstrated that the sensor can be used up to seven times, for this specific study we did not test for recyclability. However, the reproducibility of this sensor showed that the sensor results are consistent under similar conditions.

Comment 5: 3.6: Please mention which standard methods were used.

Please compare the data from the present work with those from any of the standard methods (ICP-MS/HPLC/calorimetry, etc.).

Authors are encouraged to provide supporting information.

Response 5: The standard testing of the nutrients was performed commercially by LSU soil testing laboratory. The raw data of the obtained results are added to the supplementary data.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abbreviations are followed by the full name when they first appear and then replaced by abbreviations. For example, “CV”.
2. Many of the key to symbols in this paper are lacking, e.g., Fig. 4B, 5A, 7A, and so on. The figure sequence number and corresponding notes are incorrect.
3. Chemical formula writing is not standardized, there is generally a space between the value and the unit, R2 writing to be standardized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing should be further polishing for well reading.

Author Response

Comment 1: Abbreviations are followed by the full name when they first appear and then replaced by abbreviations. For example, “CV”.

Response 1: The abbreviations are updated and are listed at their first appearance. 

Comment 2: Many of the key to symbols in this paper are lacking, e.g., Fig. 4B, 5A, 7A, and so on. The figure sequence number and corresponding notes are incorrect.

Response 2: Thank you for the assessment, all the tables are revised and updated.

Comment 3: Chemical formula writing is not standardized, there is generally a space between the value and the unit, R2 writing to be standardized.

Response 3: The chemical formulas are standardized and updated.

Comment 4: Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing should be further polishing for well reading.

Response 4: The grammar and the language have been polished and revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the paper can be published in the present form.