A High-Response Electrochemical As(III) Sensor Using Fe3O4–rGO Nanocomposite Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The basis of the paper is not bad. However, the paper is full of grammatical, typig, logical and expoerimental errors so that it cannot be published in this form. It can be published (if at all) only after very major revision reflecting comments inserted as yelow notes into attached pdf of submitted manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your comments on the revision of the paper. I have revised the paper. The replies to related questions are in the attachment. The new manuscript has also been uploaded. Thank you for reviewing.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reports on an electrochemical sensor for the detection of arsenic in water. Fe3O4-rGO nanocomposites were synthesized for the modification of glassy carbon electrodes. The authors characterized this composite. This sensor possesses excellent performance. I think this paper can be accepted for publication after the major revision.
Specific comments:
- The authors should introduce other detection techniques and their limitations in the Introduction.
- There are many formatting errors in the article, such as missing spaces, etc.
- When interpreting the Raman and FTIR results, the authors should have to cite the corresponding literature.
- I suggest the author to bold all the curves in the figures.
- How did the authors determine that the composite material synthesized according to this method has optimal properties? I do not see the authors performing optimization of the composite ratios.
- Why does the SWV curve look jittery, when it should be a smooth curve in normal conditions? Did the author not optimize the parameters?
- Based on the comparisons in Table 1, this sensor assembled by the authors does not seem to be particularly superior.
- Graphene-related electrochemical sensors are very commonly studied, and authors can cite the following literature in Introduction: Journal of The Electrochemical Society 166.4(2019):B266;
ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 7.24(2019):19537;
Talanta. 2018, 180, 248;
Ionics. 2018, 24(9), 2821.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your comments on the revision of the paper. I have revised the paper. The replies to related questions are in the attachment. The new manuscript has also been uploaded. Thank you for reviewing.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript Number: 1242012
Title: A high-responseelectrochemical sensor of As(III) using Fe3O4-rGO nanocomposite materials
The manuscript entitles “ A high-responseelectrochemical sensor of As(III) using Fe3O4-rGO nanocomposite materials” is very interesting and could have an impact on the science community. The manuscript is very well organized, and all experiments are conducted following the analytical standards, but some issues should be corrected before publications.
How did the authors decide the composition of this membrane? Is this a rational criterion, or did the authors followed a specific model, or is the choice based just on your experience?
How did the authors select the interferent ions? Other compounds could interfere.
Sensor lifetime should be presented.
Also, unfortunately, the Authors did not provide experiments and validation of optimized methods on real samples, thus if they have such results they should add them to the manuscript together with the appropriate description of methods for sample preparations.
There are some typos and omitted space in the text. The text of manuscript should be carefully checked.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your comments on the revision of the paper. I have revised the paper. The replies to related questions are in the attachment. The new manuscript has also been uploaded. Thank you for reviewing.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English is still very bad and must be improved. See comments inserted as yelow notes into attached pdf of submitted revision .
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions for amendments to my paper. I have revised the paper accordingly. Please see the attachment. Hope you review it again.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version can be accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions for amendments to my paper. I have revised the paper accordingly. Please see the attachment. Hope you review it again.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your suggestions for amendments to my paper. I have revised the paper accordingly. Please see the attachment. Hope you review it again.
Yours sincerely
Lu Wenjie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
