Nanosensors for Exhaled Breath Condensate: Explored Models, Analytes, and Prospects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear editor
The manuscript entitled "Nanosensors for Exhaled Breath Condensate: Explored Models, Analytes,and Prospects" discusses about application of nanoparticles in fibrication of sensors for detection of biomarkers in exhaled breath condensate. This review can be considered for publication after major revision and addressing the following comments point by point:
1-Please reconstruct the sentences such as
.....as a biological sample for biobanking and a diagnostic gateway for lung diseases, but also for lung microbiota dysbiosis....
.....include gases (H2O2 and VOCs), cations (polyamines), fatty acids [1], carcinogenic antigens, cytokines, and aldehydes with almost half of the studies tracing drug and antibiotics....
2- Please Remove citation from abstract
3-Althogh the subject is about nanosensors but it seems nonsignificant all over the text. It should be highlighted. So it can be highly suggested to add more contents about sensors and biosensors to the text specially introduction
4- The classifications of biosensors such as optical, electrochemical, magnetic,... are not mentioned in the text.
5- The manuscript is poorly graphically produced. For each section ( nanoparticles) add figures from literature with complying copyright.
6-Why was HPLC method mentioned in table 1.2 while title is about nanosensors ?!
7- According to section 2, it seems this review is systematic. Why is flowchart of data collection missed?
8- It is highly suggested to prepare a schematic figure includes subject
9- The discussion is poorly written. Please add more critical topics
10- The conclusion is poorly written. Please
complete it.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The english should be polished
Author Response
Rebuttal Letter
Journal name: Journal of Nanotheranostics
Manuscript ID: jnt-3586220
Type of manuscript: Review
Title: Nanosensors for Exhaled Breath Condensate: Explored Models, Analytes,
and Prospects
Authors: Esther Ghanem *
Response to Reviewers’ Comments
|
||
Summary |
|
|
I would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to provide their comments and recommendations to improve the quality of this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses (point-by-point; in blue) below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
Comments 1: The manuscript entitled "Nanosensors for Exhaled Breath Condensate: Explored Models, Analytes,and Prospects" discusses about application of nanoparticles in fibrication of sensors for detection of biomarkers in exhaled breath condensate. This review can be considered for publication after major revision and addressing the following comments point by point:
1-Please reconstruct the sentences such as .....as a biological sample for biobanking and a diagnostic gateway for lung diseases, but also for lung microbiota dysbiosis.... Thank you. I hope the statement reads better now as revised in lines 8,9 as per your recommendation. .....include gases (H2O2 and VOCs), cations (polyamines), fatty acids [1], carcinogenic antigens, cytokines, and aldehydes with almost half of the studies tracing drug and antibiotics.... thank you for highlighting this unclear statement. It was revised as depicted in lines 14,15. 2- Please Remove citation from abstract The first citation is removed from the abstract, thanks for pointing out this mistake. 3-Althogh the subject is about nanosensors but it seems nonsignificant all over the text. It should be highlighted. So it can be highly suggested to add more contents about sensors and biosensors to the text specially introduction The introduction focuses on the description of EBC and modes of collection ending with the use of nanomaterial to reveal EBC signature. I added general information about nanosensors with more focus on nanosensors design and properties throughout the entire document. [Page 2; Lines 63- 82] 4- The classifications of biosensors such as optical, electrochemical, magnetic,... are not mentioned in the text. The nanosensors were categorized based on their core elements, such as silver, gold, cupper.. Such properties are tabulated in either section (a) or (b) of corresponding sensor type and read-out method. Yet, I added general description of such classification in the introduction as per your recommendation. p.2; lines 75,76 5- The manuscript is poorly graphically produced. For each section (nanoparticles) add figures from literature with complying copyright. Definitely, schematic drawings can help visualize the design of nanosensors with their functionalized part and detection mode. Yet, due to the time restriction in resubmitting the revised version of the manuscript, I am afraid securing copyrights and preparing for compiled figure is out of reach. 6-Why was HPLC method mentioned in table 1.2 while title is about nanosensors ?! HPLC is the read-out method of the collected metabolites by the magnetic NPs. The nanosensor detected and extracted the metabolites from EBC. 7- According to section 2, it seems this review is systematic. Why is flowchart of data collection missed? The exclusion and inclusion criteria to select the studies are mentioned. A flowchart would help if this review were to run a meta-analysis with data quantification. The review just describes existing selected methods while evaluating the quality of the findings. 8- It is highly suggested to prepare a schematic figure includes subject True, an illustration of the subjects or biomarkers can help the reader assimilate the content. If deemed necessary, I can ask the editor for an additional revision period to illustrate this figure. However, I added a graphical abstract in figure 1 as depicted in p.2. 9- The discussion is poorly written. Please add more critical topics Thank you for pointing this out. Few adjustments are added, with the hope it reads better now. 10- The conclusion is poorly written. Please complete it. Thank you for raising your concern. A short paragraph was shifted from the discussion to the conclusion section to present our final comments and future perspectives. Hope it reads better now. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a review of the use of nanosensors to analyze EBCs as a non-invasive technique for detecting different diseases. It explains the different types of nanomaterials used in these sensors and the detection mechanisms to identify various biomarkers. In this way, it aims to detect oxidative stress, tissue damage, and respiratory diseases.
As the author herself points out, this kind of review is not easy to carry out because the literature includes a wide variety of studies without a shared methodology, standardized sample collection, homogeneous populations, or consistent types of sensors and materials. For this reason, it is more difficult to draw clear conclusions.
I think it is a good paper with a very detailed and thorough literature review, but I found some areas that could be improved. Here are some suggestions:
-
It would be helpful to include the fabrication techniques used in the studies described, as well as other fabrication details like nanoparticle size, layer thickness, or type of functionalization—if this information is available in the original sources. This would improve the comparison between studies.
-
It would also be useful to clarify whether the samples analyzed in each study are in vivo or if the studies use gas mixtures with the biomarkers being studied (as could be the case with VOCs).
-
In the studies that focus on VOCs, it would be helpful to specify which volatile compounds were identified as biomarkers, when this information is available. Even though many articles use a "smell fingerprint" to analyze samples, specific VOCs are sometimes identified through other analytical techniques.
-
Some inconsistencies were found in the use of units and notation throughout the paper, which should be revised. Here are some examples:
-
In Table 1.1, in the first row with “Commercial RTube technique”, the column "Outcomes" mentions “20 L of formic acid”, which seems to be an error—it might refer to 20 µL.
-
In Table 4.1, the population of newborns or premature babies is associated with vancomycin detection levels of 0.56 g/mL. However, in Table 4.2 and on page 17, the levels are shown in µg/mL.
-
-
To improve the comparison between studies, it is recommended to include the same kind of information in Tables 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1. For example, population data (number of samples, age ranges), diseases studied, and references for each study.
-
It's recommended to include references in every table, even if the main researcher’s name is already mentioned (as in Tables 1.2 to 5.2). This would make reading and consulting the paper easier.
-
The relationship between the tables ending in ‘.1’ and ‘.2’ is not clearly explained in the text. I assume that the ‘.1’ tables group several studies, which are then detailed in the ‘.2’ tables, but it would be good to clarify this.
-
Several cases were found where the reference in the text doesn’t seem to match the citation. I suggest doing a careful review of the references to make sure they are correct. Here are some examples:
-
Citation [1] on page 12 (line 168) and in Table 5.2 appears to be wrong. The text refers to “Hasanzadeh et al.”, but the reference doesn’t match.
-
Citation [2] on page 3 (line 109) also seems incorrect—it’s about safety in biological sample preservation and transport. Also, citation [2] is repeated in the “Linear range” column in Tables 1.2, 3.2, and 4.2, which might be an error.
-
In section 4, citations like [71] in line 60, [75] in line 61, [71] again in line 87, or [63] in line 88 seem to be incorrectly linked with the text.
-
-
Please make sure that all acronyms are defined the first time they appear in the text and are also included in the list of abbreviations. For example, I think LR and DEF are not explained. Also, avoid repeating acronyms already defined, like EBC, which appears both in the abstract and again in line 27 (first line of the introduction).
Formatting comments:
-
There is a page numbering error starting from page 17, and the line numbers stop and restart several times. This makes it hard to refer to specific parts of the text. It’s recommended to fix this.
-
Please revise the formatting of chemical formulas, ions, and scientific notation to make sure subscript and superscript are used correctly (e.g., H₂O₂, Fe₃O₄, Tb³⁺, CO₂, N₂, NO, NH₃).
-
Please review the formatting of the tables (e.g., vertical borders and font style/size). Tables 2.1 and 2.2 don’t match the style of the others. Also, check column alignment, as in Table 5.1 where “Condenser” and “Type” are not correctly placed under their headers.
-
In Table 2.2, bullet points are used even when there's only one item in a cell. It’s better to remove them in those cases for a cleaner look.
-
Please correct unit typos, such as writing ‘ml’ instead of ‘mL’, or using ◦C instead of °C throughout the document.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to provide their comments and recommendations to improve the quality of this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses (point-by-point) below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files. Comments 2: This paper presents a review of the use of nanosensors to analyze EBCs as a non-invasive technique for detecting different diseases. It explains the different types of nanomaterials used in these sensors and the detection mechanisms to identify various biomarkers. In this way, it aims to detect oxidative stress, tissue damage, and respiratory diseases. As the author herself points out, this kind of review is not easy to carry out because the literature includes a wide variety of studies without a shared methodology, standardized sample collection, homogeneous populations, or consistent types of sensors and materials. For this reason, it is more difficult to draw clear conclusions. I think it is a good paper with a very detailed and thorough literature review, but I found some areas that could be improved. Here are some suggestions:
True, in the nanosensor part of the tables, major properties, if applicable, are inserted. The nanosensor column is shifted to the second table (b) for better visibility.
Across all studies, air was collected either using a mouthpiece, Rtube device, or in a bag and various biomarkers were examined. Table section (a) depicts such details.
I agree, being able to specify typical VOCs from a breath sample is vital for diagnostic/therapeutic uses of the nanosensors; yet, most of the read-out methods did not reply on GC-MS/SPME analysis after EBC collection. I couldn’t find enough sources. Moreover, having tens if not hundreds of various VOCs/ breath would make it even harder to enlist them.
Thank you for pointing out this important notice. The units and notations were revised as recommended.
Due to space limit and for a better vision of the data, the age and sample size were removed to focus mainly on the method of EBC extraction and the nanosensor outcomes. The condenser type is shifted to table .b.
Thank you for your suggestion. References are added to all tables.
A brief explanation is added in p.3.; lines 152-154: “Each table is divided into two sections: (a) Parameters Used in the EBC Methodology and Nanosensor-Based Analysis, and (b) Performance of the Categorized Nanosensor System.”
The citations were all checked and properly matched in the text and table.
LR abbreviation is enlisted in line 596 DEF abbreviation added in line 590 EBC and other acronyms are checked throughout the document. Formatting comments:
I fixed the issue by setting the page and line numbers to ‘continue from the previous section’ and applying continuous line numbering across the entire document. Just one page shows the line numbering to the left (p17, lines 323 to 361). Thank you for spotting this problem.
Thank you for raising this important point; indeed, such corrections are a must.
Thank you for pointing out the formatting inconsistencies in the tables. I have reviewed and updated all tables to ensure a consistent font size, style, and border format throughout.
Sure, your suggestion is taken into consideration. The appearance of cells looks better without the bullet points. This was applied to all tables.
Based on the SI unit, milliliter is abbreviated as mL (Milliliter (mL) Unit Definition | Math Converse). I prefer to keep it as such. Regarding the degree Celsius, the typos are put in place.
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
The manuscript was checked by an external reader, with English language edits tracked and highlighted in red where applicable. |
|
5. Additional clarifications based to the comments received by email: |
1. Subtables are not recommended; if necessary, subtables could be Additionally, use the format of Table 1a,b in the main text. As suggested, tables numbering is adjusted.
2. Please insert all authors in the references part, not only one author. |
As recommended, the author list is expanded to include all authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is modified according to the comments as well and can be published in the present form.
Author Response
Thank you for approving the revisions as submitted. Your time and feedback are truly appreciated!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for sending a revised version and for your detailed response to my comments. I have read the document again, and you have addressed all my suggestions. I would just like to add a couple of minor revisions:
-
Regarding comment no. 2 from the first review, I understand that you decided to remove the information about the population (number of samples, age ranges, disease studied, etc.) due to space limitations. However, I think this is important information for the reader, at least the disease studied. Please consider including this information in the supplementary material if you think it does not fit in the paper.
-
About the formatting, there are a few things that I think should be corrected, although I suppose you will be solved in the final version:
-
Pages 9 to 14 and page 18 are in landscape format, and some of them include text, not only tables.
-
From page 16 onwards, the page numbering is incorrect. Some pages do not have a number, and the numbering restarts.
-
In the list of abbreviations, the last four entries are centered, instead of left-aligned like the others.
-
Author Response
Reviewer 2: Thank you for sending a revised version and for your detailed response to my comments. I have read the document again, and you have addressed all my suggestions. I would just like to add a couple of minor revisions:
Thank you for taking the time to review the changes and providing additional feedback. Your input will certainly enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.
- Regarding comment no. 2 from the first review, I understand that you decided to remove the information about the population (number of samples, age ranges, disease studied, etc.) due to space limitations. However, I think this is important information for the reader, at least the disease studied. Please consider including this information in the supplementary material if you think it does not fit in the paper. Thank you for pointing out this point. I re-inserted the information in section b of each table. And added a sentence related to this amendment in lines 99-100 (p.3). Hope this adjustment is accepted!
- About the formatting, there are a few things that I think should be corrected, although I suppose you will be solved in the final version: • Pages 9 to 14 and page 18 are in landscape format, and some of them include text, not only tables. Well spotted. As recommended, all the pages are now shifted to portrait.
- • From page 16 onwards, the page numbering is incorrect. Some pages do not have a number, and the numbering restarts. True, this was due to page breaks used to introduce landscapes for the tables. Now, the issue is resolved with the removal of landscape pages.
- In the list of abbreviations, the last four entries are centered, instead of left-aligned like the others. Sharp eyes, thank you! I used the Format Painter’s brush to apply the same format across all the list.