Imprinted-Zeolite-X-Based Sensor for Non-Enzymatic Detection of Blood Glucose by Potentiometry
, Usreg Sri Handajani 1, Akhsin Mastura 1 and Eka Yunicha Sari 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have presented the use of imprinted zeolite electrode for detection of blood glucose. They recommend this methodology for routine analysis of blood glucose in the medical industry. They have published a similar idea in Indonesian Journal of Chemistry in June 2020. The idea is apparently not intended for non-invasive glucose detection.
The following is a list of discovered issues which should be corrected before publication:
1) In the introduction section, the last paragraph that reads "The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight .........for further details on references." should be removed.
2) In the introduction section, I found it very hard to read the last sentence of the 4th paragraph. How about breaking it into multiple statements? Also, Also, the authors should explain how avoidance of swelling can lead to increase in sensitivity and selectivity:
"The suitability of the IZ pore size with the glucose molecule.....makes it not prone to experience swelling in water so that it can provide high sensitivity and selectivity in detecting glucose."
3) Figure 4 of this article and Figure 1 of your previously published paper in Indonesian Journal of Chemistry [1] are almost identical. Strictly, this can be considered as a figure plagiarism. The authors should either further modify Figure 4, or indicate clearly in the caption that Figure 4 was reproduced from [1].
4) The results and discussion section is Section 3. The conclusion is Section 5. Where is Section 4?
5) In the PDF version of the manuscript available for peer review, Column 1 of Table 1 was filled with line numbers. I am not sure if this would potentially affect the published version.
6) In Figure 6, the yellow and grey curves have not been labelled.
7) Can the authors give more explanation for Figure 8?
8) I have read the authors' previously published paper in Indonesian Journal of Chemistry [1]. It is unclear what the major innovations in this paper are. Ideally, the authors should come up with a list of novelties in the introduction section.
References
[1] Khasanah, M.; Widati, A.A.; Handajani, U.S.; Harsini, M.; Ilmiah, B.; Oktavia, I.D. Imprinted Zeolite Modified Carbon Paste 575 Electrode as a Selective Sensor for Blood Glucose Analysis by Potentiometry. Indones. J. Chem. 2020, vol 20, pp 1301–1310
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we appreciate for the time and efforts to review our manuscript. Thank you so much for your kind cooperation. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript can be considered to publish in ChemEngineering.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Miratul Khasanah, Alfa Akustia Widati, Usreg Sri Handajani, Akhsin Mastura, and Eka Yunicha Sari has detailed the experimental setup to demonstrate that imprinted Zeolite X based Sensor can be used for non-enzymatic detection of blood glucose by potentiometry. This was confirmed by testing the electrode response time in a glucose solution at 0.0004-0.01 M concentration range. In summary, the contributions in this work can be separated into two separate topics, which consist of (1) synthesis of an imprinted zeolite X based Sensor and (2) evaluation of the performance characteristic of the above Sensor. However, the manuscript is not very well written although the results are carefully presented. Therefore, the authors are encouraged to address the following editorial issues.
1) For lines 44-45, the authors should consider replacing the word “disturbed” with “complicated”.
2) For lines 52-54, the authors should consider revising the two sentences for clarity.
3) For lines 50, the authors should consider defining the term “IZ” the first time it appears and retain the initialisation throughout the manuscript.
4) For lines 87-95, the authors should consider replacing or deleting the entire paragraph it is appears to be instructions cut and pasted.
5) For lines 317-321, 335-338 and 354-359 the authors should consider revising the sentence construction for clarity and to remove repetition.
6) For Figure 6, please include legends to indicate the degree of variation of electrode potential with glucose concentration.
7) The authors should consider revising the sentence construction of lines 371-374 for clarity.
8) For line 378, the authors should consider replacing the word “greater” with “higher”.
9) For lines 393-396, the authors should consider revising the sentence construction for clarity.
10) For lines 407-411, the authors should consider revising the sentence construction for clarity.
11) For lines 427-430, the authors should consider revising the sentence construction for clarity.
12) For lines 443-451, the authors should consider revising the sentence construction for clarity.
13) For line 498, the authors should consider revising the title to remove the term "results" as this is part of the result section.
14) The authors are encouraged to include a discussion part that is very well thought out and provides depth analysis of the presented results.
15) The authors should consider revising the conclusion to provide sharp focus to the manuscript.
16) The authors should consider revising the manuscript so that there is consistent referencing style.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and referees to review this manuscript. Thank you so much for your kind cooperation. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript can be considered to publish in ChemEngineering Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This work aimed at detecting blood glucose concentration via Zeolite X-based sensors. They studied the material properties, working mechanism and device performance. Overall, I think this manuscript presented an effective method for future glucose detection. However, the research background in their introduction part is weak and insufficient, and must be improved. In addition, the following issues should be addressed before being accepted.
-page 2, line 84. Chemical formula should be corrected, such as Al2O3, not Al2O3 as presented in their manuscript. Please correct them all.
-page 2, line 87-95. This paragraph should be removed before submission.
-The authors should demonstrate the structure of Zeolite X, as well as other types of Zeolite as a new figure to provide direct information.
-Previous works on Zeolite X, as well as the main problem/obstacle of this strategy must be discussed. Please include them.
-For non-enzymatic glucose detection, there are some other alternate strategies that the authors may need to introduce. Some nice references are also recommended to be cited, such as https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c02218, https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst10030186.
-page 5. Standard XRD pattern should also be added in Figure 2 to make better comparison. In addition, what is the impurity in the sample?
-The format and quality of Figure 5 should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate the time and efforts by the editor and referees to review this manuscript. Thank you so much for your kind cooperation. Please see the attachment. We hope that our revised manuscript can be considered to publish in ChemEngineering Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There is nothing truly novel in this article. It is no more than another review paper. The author should focus more on the novelties.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
We appreciate for the corrections and great suggestion from reviewers. We have revised our manuscript based on the reviewer’s feedback. Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe the revised version of the manuscript is a significant improvement over the first version. The revised manuscript now warrants publication after undergoing moderate English changes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thanks for many suggestion to our manuscript. We have improved the English languange of this article to the English Editing Service. Thank you so much.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised their manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestion. Therefore, I recommond its publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thanks for many suggestion to our manuscript. To make sure our English languange, we have used the English Editing Service to check our English languange. Thank you so much.
