Theoretical and Cyclic Voltammetric Analysis of Asparagine and Glutamine Electrocatalytic Activities for Dopamine Sensing Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reported a comparative study based on theoretical and cyclic voltammetric analysis of asparagine and glutamine electrocatalytic activities to detect dopamine. Cyclic voltammetric results confirmed that the asparagine shows higher electrocatalytic activities than the glutamine modified carbon paste electrode for dopamine sensing. Meanwhile, the DFT study revealed that dopamine requires lesser energy to bind with asparagine when compared to glutamine. The presentation and reported data were satisfactory to me. However, the following minor comments need to be revised before publication.

Comments to the authors;

Line 129, find the mistakes in the following sentence; “Five different ASP concentrations (2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mg) were spiked on the carbon…” It should be GLU not ASP.

The authors should provide the discussion based on the delta Ep of the CV curves in Fig. 2 and Fig.3

“With the help of 0.1 M PBS DA injections were diluted.” What is the ratio?

 

The standard deviation of the relative number of experiments should be indicated on the real sample analysis.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Theoretical and cyclic voltammetric analysis of asparagine and glutamine electrocatalytic activities for dopamine sensing applications” shows great results of theorical and experimental issue as a electrocatalyst for dopamine sensing. There are some comments to the authors for improving the work for further publication.

 

Abstract

1) Should be a summary of the whole text showing the importance of studying asparagine and glutamine at carbon paste electrode. It must be improved.

Introduction

2) In second paragraph, authors are encouraged to added more actual references about the methods of DA monitoring. There are few references of 2022, for example.

3) The authors are encouraging to show more actual references about the use modified carbon paste electrodes to detect dopamine, such as:

10.1016/j.bej.2022.108565; 10.1016/j.microc.2021.107141; 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107649

4) The authors should show the chemical structure of ASP and GLU to show the difference of both.

5) Authors must add a text considering the advantages of carbon paste electrodes, such as: A carbon paste electrode (CPE) is an interesting electrochemical device with the advantages of a wide potential range, low cost, ease of fabrication, stability, and surface reproducibility. To increase the sensitivity of the CPE, various compounds (organic and inorganic) can be mixed with the carbon paste. (10.3390/chemosensors10090357). This phrase may justify the use of ASP and GLU.

Materials and Methods

6) Section 2.3 and 2.4 are poor described; the authors should improve. It could be interesting the authors show some scheme, drawing the steps of construction the modified electrode.

Results and discussion and conclusion

7) The section 3.1 must start with some text and not with a Figure.

8) I think the authors have changed the order of the text. Section 3.1 should be after Section 3.2.

9) The authors should show the study of supporting electrolyte.

10) The authors should show the electrochemical reaction of dopamine on the electrode surface, showing the interactions of amino acids and dopamine, with the redox reaction.

11) Why the authors don’t use a pulse voltammetric technique to dopamine determination?

12) Authors must show some interference studies such as, ascorbic acid, uric acid, glucose, fructose. (10.1590/S0103-50532000000400015)

13) The authors must take a table of different dopamine electrosensors to compare the efficiency of the proposed electrodes with the literature, considering different electrodic platforms, such as biosensors, nanomaterials based modifiers, i.e; 10.1039/C5AN01784J; 10.1016/j.microc.2022.107713; 10.3390/bioengineering9030087; 10.3390/mi13111834; 10.3390/min12091145.

14) Conclusions must be improved.

 

 

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have been improved the manuscript with the suggestions. Therefore, I recommend the publication in Catalysts.