Electrochemical (Bio) Sensors Based on Metal–Organic Framework Composites
and Shi Wang *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsINTEREST:
Dear Editor,
The paper titled "Electrochemical (bio)sensors based on metal-organic framework composites" by Ping Li et al. presents a comprehensive review of the synthesis, properties, and applications of MOF-based composites in the field of electrochemical sensing. This is a well-timed and relevant topic given the increasing interest in advanced functional materials for electrochemical applications. While the manuscript provides valuable insights, several issues must be addressed to align with the high-quality standards expected of "Electrochem” Journal from MDPI.
I recommend that the authors address the following issues and suggestions to improve the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of their manuscript (please see my detailed comments below):
COMMENTS:
Comments for authors:
1. The abstract could be improved by including quantitative data or specific examples from the reviewed studies to provide a more robust summary.
2. The introduction effectively establishes the context but lacks a clear rationale for why MOF composites represent a particularly promising direction in electrochemical sensing. This should be expanded.
3. While the manuscript is a review, additional emphasis on the common methodologies for synthesizing MOF composites (e.g., solvothermal, electrodeposition) would enhance the technical depth.
4. Include a summary table comparing different synthesis methods, their advantages, and challenges.
5. The discussion on gold and silver nanoparticles is well-articulated, but a clearer explanation of why specific MOF combinations are chosen for certain applications would provide better insights.
6. Provide more critical analysis of the limitations of metal nanoparticles, such as agglomeration, and how MOFs mitigate these challenges.
7. Figures 1 and 2 provide valuable visual summaries but could benefit from higher resolution and clarity. Also, the authors might consider including a schematic overview comparing different MOF composite types and their applications.
8. The synergy between MOFs and carbon-based materials or polymers is discussed, but quantitative comparisons (e.g., improvements in sensitivity or selectivity) are sporadic. Include more numerical data from cited studies. In addition, discuss challenges in integrating these materials, such as mechanical stability or uniform distribution.
9. The conclusions section effectively summarizes the potential of MOF composites but should incorporate more specific future research directions. If possible. address practical challenges like scalability, environmental impact, and cost of large-scale production.
10. Some references (e.g., [27] and [28]) are outdated or less relevant compared to recent advancements in the field. Ensure all citations reflect the state-of-the-art.
11. The manuscript contains minor grammatical issues and repetitive phrasing. A thorough proofreading is necessary to improve readability. In addition, avoid excessive use of abbreviations (e.g., MOFs/NPs) without clear definitions.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: The abstract could be improved by including quantitative data or specific examples from the reviewed studies to provide a more robust summary.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The abstract has been rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: The introduction effectively establishes the context but lacks a clear rationale for why MOF composites represent a particularly promising direction in electrochemical sensing. This should be expanded.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised introduction to emphasize this point.
Comments 3: While the manuscript is a review, additional emphasis on the common methodologies for synthesizing MOF composites (e.g., solvothermal, electrodeposition) would enhance the technical depth.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, added a section on the synthesis method to emphasize this point.
Comments 4: Include a summary table comparing different synthesis methods, their advantages, and challenges.
Response 4: Agree. In the revised manuscript, we have added Table 1 for comparing different synthesis methods.
Comments 5: The discussion on gold and silver nanoparticles is well-articulated, but a clearer explanation of why specific MOF combinations are chosen for certain applications would provide better insights.
Response 5: Agree. We have, accordingly, added a section on the selection of MOFs composite combinations to emphasize this point.
Comments 6: Provide more critical analysis of the limitations of metal nanoparticles, such as agglomeration, and how MOFs mitigate these challenges.
Response 6: Agree. We have made additions in the MOFs/Metal Nanoparticle Composites section.
Comments 7: Figures 1 and 2 provide valuable visual summaries but could benefit from higher resolution and clarity. Also, the authors might consider including a schematic overview comparing different MOF composite types and their applications.
Response 7: Agree. The clarity of Figures 1 and 2 has been adjusted. We have added the comparison of different MOF composites and hope to get your approval.
Comments 8: The synergy between MOFs and carbon-based materials or polymers is discussed, but quantitative comparisons (e.g., improvements in sensitivity or selectivity) are sporadic. Include more numerical data from cited studies. In addition, discuss challenges in integrating these materials, such as mechanical stability or uniform distribution.
Response 8: We have, accordingly, modified the manuscript to emphasize this point.
Comments 9: The conclusions section effectively summarizes the potential of MOF composites but should incorporate more specific future research directions. If possible. address practical challenges like scalability, environmental impact, and cost of large-scale production.
Response 9: Agree. We made additions in the conclusions section.
Comments 10: Some references (e.g., [27] and [28]) are outdated or less relevant compared to recent advancements in the field. Ensure all citations reflect the state-of-the-art.
Response 10: Agree. We have updated some of the references.
Comments 11: The manuscript contains minor grammatical issues and repetitive phrasing. A thorough proofreading is necessary to improve readability. In addition, avoid excessive use of abbreviations (e.g., MOFs/NPs) without clear definitions.
Response 11: Agree. We have checked the full text of these errors and corrected them.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript with the title of “Electrochemical (bio) sensors based on metal-organic frame- works composites” is well written.
It is interesting that authors list out the synthesized method, parameters and efficiency in a table about all the different types of composites mentioned in the paper for readers to have a clear idea which MOF composite is the best in acting as an electrochemical sensor.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: The manuscript with the title of “Electrochemical (bio) sensors based on metal-organic frame- works composites” is well written.
Response 1: We greatly appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Comments 2: It is interesting that authors list out the synthesized method, parameters and efficiency in a table about all the different types of composites mentioned in the paper for readers to have a clear idea which MOF composite is the best in acting as an electrochemical sensor.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the comparison of different MOF composites and hope to get your approval.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work (electrochem-3256417-peer-review-v2) mainly focus on the metal-organic framework (MOF) based composites used in electrochemical sensors, focusing on the advantages and applications of these innovative materials. MOFs are porous crystalline structures composed of metal centers and organic linkers, known for their high specific surface area and structural versatility, but they have low electrical conductivity. To address this limitation, MOFs are combined with conductive materials such as gold, silver, and platinum nanoparticles, carbon-based materials, and conductive polymers, resulting in more efficient sensors for detecting biomolecules and chemicals. The article details the synthesis and performance of various MOF composites and discusses their practical potential and challenges, including high costs and scalability limitations. In this paper, the topic is novel, the data is reasonable, the analysis is appropriate, it is suggested to accept after minor revision modifications, the specific details are as follows.
1. In the introduction section, I recommend adding a short explanation regarding the relevance and impact of sensors in the industry.
2. I recommend that in section 2 of the article you add a comparative table for the advantages and limitations of each combination of materials, this would help to visualize the differences between the composites more easily.
3. I recommend to adding more bibliographic references, as the current number is small and the literature includes many relevant studies addressing this topic.
4. Methodologies for the synthesis of MOF composites are explained, but some critical experimental details such as concentrations and reaction temperatures for nanoparticle synthesis are missing. These details should be included for reproducibility of experiments.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: In the introduction section, I recommend adding a short explanation regarding the relevance and impact of sensors in the industry.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised introduction to emphasize this point.
Comments 2: I recommend that in section 2 of the article you add a comparative table for the advantages and limitations of each combination of materials, this would help to visualize the differences between the composites more easily.
Response 2: Agree. We have added the comparison of different MOF composites and hope to get your approval.
Comments 3: I recommend to adding more bibliographic references, as the current number is small and the literature includes many relevant studies addressing this topic.
Response 3: Agree. We have updated some of the references.
Comments 4: Methodologies for the synthesis of MOF composites are explained, but some critical experimental details such as concentrations and reaction temperatures for nanoparticle synthesis are missing. These details should be included for reproducibility of experiments.
Response 4: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion on our manuscript. We fully acknowledge the significance of the experimental details you mentioned in ensuring the reproducibility of experiments. The synthesis of nanoparticles is an intricate process, involving a multitude of variables and potential influencing factors. Given the complexity, we chose to focus on the the broader aspects of the composition and electrochemical properties of MOF composites in this review. As a result, we didn't elaborate on the specific nanoparticle synthesis details. Thank you again for your constructive input, which will definitely contribute to the improvement of our work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript is lost and lacks any scholarly discussion. I don't understand at all what the question and innovation of this manuscript is? It has been removed from scientific discussion and has no scientific value. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageBefore reviewing the English Garammer, this manuscript is of poor scientific quality
Author Response
Comments 1: This manuscript is lost and lacks any scholarly discussion. I don't understand at all what the question and innovation of this manuscript is? It has been removed from scientific discussion and has no scientific value.
Response 1: We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Comments 2: Before reviewing the English Garammer, this manuscript is of poor scientific quality.
Response 2: Thank you again for your time. We will make efforts to improve the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
The authors have effectively addressed my previous questions, significantly improving the manuscript's quality and clarity. The revisions align with my feedback and enhance the study's rigor and impact. Therefore, now, I can recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.
