3D-Printed Graphene Electrodes Applied in an Impedimetric Electronic Tongue for Soil Analysis
, Marcos Antonio Neris Coutinho 2, Lucas Rios do Amaral 2, Varlei Rodrigues 1 and Antonio Riul, Jr. 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors reported the using of 3D-printed graphene electrodes to fabricate the impedimetric electronic tongue for soil analysis. The e-tongue was fabricated by depositing LBL films on 3D-printed graphene-based electrodes. It was found that the fabricated e-tongue was useful for analyzing the chemical fertility of soil samples. It is an interesting work. This kind of graphene-based nanodevices will have high potential for future food analysis and environmental monitoring. However, the authors are suggested to put more data on the characterizations of 3D-printed electrodes. Therefore, I recommend its publication at Chemosensors after major revisions.
Special comments:
In the “Introduction” part, it is necessary for the authors to add more information on the novelty and significance of this work. In the “Materials and methods” part, it is suggested for the authors to add several sub-sections to introduce their experimental process step-by-step. The detection mechanism of cations by the 3D-printed electrodes should be introduced. It is better for the authors to give a scheme to make it more clear. In Part 3, it is suggested for the authors to provide SEM images of 3D-printed graphene electrode and the LBL films on graphene electrodes. How to evaluate the sensing performance of the fabricated sensors? For instance, the selectivity and the stability? More discussion is needed. What are the advantages of the 3D-printed sensors compared to the traditional detection techniques for soil analysis? More discussion should be given.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Many data is not shown in the manuscript, the necessary data is suggested to provide.
This manuscript is simply presented the data, the mechanism should be discussed.
the process of LBL should be provided as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this revised version, the authors made great improvements according to the comments and suggestions of both referees. I am satisfied with these changes and therefore recommend its publication at the current version.
Reviewer 2 Report
No further questions.
