Sensitive Electrochemical Non-Enzymatic Detection of Glucose Based on Wireless Data Transmission

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Initially, I congratulate the authors for the manuscript presented.

I will make 2 considerations about the manuscript:
1. Application to real samples: I suggest that the authors apply to real samples.
2. Validation studies: I suggest authors to insert validation studies in the manuscript.

Based on these 2 aspects, I do not recommend the publication of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the  attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After carefully reading the manuscript, I recommend its publication after some necessary revisions. Detailed comments are listed as follows:

(1) "Introduction" needs to be more complete with some investigations, such as relevant articles especially published for non-enzymatic glucose sensors. Improve the introduction section by including the further references.

(2) The color of scale bars in Figure 4 is similar to that in SEM images, which makes it difficult to see clearly. The authors should recalibrate it.

(3) The element symbols in Figure 5 are not clear. The authors should modify them.

(4) How is the repeatability of the glucose sensor? And the long-term storage stability of the sensor should be evaluated.

(5) The author should evaluate the reliability of the proposed enzyme-free glucose sensor in human blood serum for practical application.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript describes the development of a non-enzymatic sensor based on microneedles modified with black-Pt and recovery with Nafion. The results show promising results. However, below are some suggestions that may be considered before publication:

1. It is unclear how the sensor can selectively act in glucose determination. I suggest that the authors add more information about this, including possible mechanism.
2. It would be important for the authors to add a figure with the glucose measurement with and without nafion, including in the selectivity test, to verify its efficiency in this parameter.
3. I suggest a figure with electrochemical characterization of material in each step of construction
4. The current response for 5 mM glucose in selectivity study is very higher than obtained in calibration curve. Do the authors have an explanation for this?
5. I suggest authors add a recovery test preferably on real sample.
6. I think it would be important for the authors to add data from other studies by this research group involving similar non-enzymatic sensors (references 5-7). And still in the introduction, the difference of the proposed sensor in relation to the others of this research group could be highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered all questions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript shows great improvement.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no comment, and this revised manuscript can bes accepted.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors did the corrections suggested