Electrochemical Digitization of Biological Fluids Samples
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I found the article to be overall well written and much of it to be well described. I felt confident that the author performed careful and thorough analyses throughout.
Minor comments:
1) I was not able to access the supplementary video that is mentioned in the manuscript. Please ensure that this link is correct.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/xxx/Video S1: 3D chromatogram.mp4
2) Resolution of Figure 9 is low and needs to be improved.
3) Highly recommended that raw data of the analytical techniques be attached in supplementary as it would help people reproduce the findings.
4) The following concluding statements need to be elaborated on and discussed in more detail.
"The amount of information received in the active measurement is proportional to the decrease in entropy in the object under study (electrochemical cell). Generalization of Carnot's theorem to information processes allows us to find the threshold rate of transformation of the decreased (Bolded font is a correction) entropy into information. The maximum conversion coefficient is achieved during an equilibrium or a quasi-equilibrium process. The presence of feedback, using the information obtained in the measurement process to con-trol the object (electrochemical cell), significantly increases the amount of information received."
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Sokolkov et al., submitted the manuscript entitled “Electrochemical sensors for Digital Medicine and Biology Electrochemical digitization of analytical information biological fluids samples”, to be published in “Electrochem”. This manuscript outlines analytical information regarding electrochemical based sensors towards Digital Medicine and Biology Electrochemical digitization. This work can be accepted after addressing the queries.
- Avoid citing the references in the Abstract.
- Abbreviations for symbols in equations are not clarified for the readers. Improve the discussion as well. In many sections, this manuscript looks like review paper rather than discussion on experimental results.
- Add relevant references in Sections 2-6.
- Improve the resolution of Figures. Especially, resolution of Figures 5 and 9 are not up to journal’s standard.
- Reference section must be updated with latest references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper reports "Electrochemical digitization of analytical information biological fluids samples". The results show that the informative paradigm of this measurement has many advantages over classical electrochemical analysis. The results are interesting and will be of interest to researchers in the field of electrochemical sensors. However, the article requires minor revision before it is accepted for publication, taking into account the following comments:
1. The authors should revise the abstract and conclusion statement, adding highlights of the study and method, and presenting some statistical results to demonstrate the validity of the method. Instead of just..."It is shown that potentiostatic control of the sensor is physically impacted by the electromechanical instability of the electrical double layer, which is the main source of sensor signal noise. ............." .
2. Figure 2 and Figure 3 do not have any statement in the text, only a brief description under the title of the figure, please confirm and add.
3. Figure 4 and Figure 5 (a, b) in the text are similar to Figure 1 and Figure 2 (a, b) in Reference 3. Are the research methods and results the same? Or are they new research results? If they are the same, a reference must be added Literature source. please confirm.
4. Figure 5(a-d) is not clearly explained in the text, please confirm?
5. Figure 6 is not clearly explained and marked in the text, please confirm?
6. Figure 7, the results shown are not clear (y-axis coordinate), no description can be found in the text, and a clear explanation is required.
7. Figure 8, and Figure 9 are not clearly explained in the text, please confirm?
8. Is there any consideration of interference in the electrochemical experiment? Also, how is the reproducibility?
9. In electrochemical research, the influence of diffusion, mass transfer, ion, electrolytic solution and pH value is often encountered, which leads to the deterioration of detection sensitivity. Can the three-dimensional visualization proposed by the author effectively improve the detection sensitivity? Please state in Results and Discussion or Conclusion.
10. References are not enough to claim thoroughly done literature research. People are working in this field for years. Above that, you have at least 5 self-citations on 21 references 23.8%.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
