Peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers with median rating of 12/20. Review process was triple-blinded.
Round 1 (14/20)
Round 2 (10.5/20)
Round 3 (12/20)
Conceptual advance and Impact10
This paper deals with chemical identification of vapors of water, ethanol, toluene and ethyl acetate using carbon nanotubes (CNTs) vertically aligned as a detector. However, I am concerned with data treatment. I strongly recommend avoiding subtracting the baseline obtained from nitrogen atmosphere from that obtained with the vapor-enriched atmosphere. Such procedure goes against the fundamental concepts to analyses the impedance.
In the legend, please, put the signal Volt after the numbers 0.01 V , 0.05 V, 0.1 V and so on.
Further, plate c is not consistent with plate d.
The author states
" Impedance spectrum alterations were calculated by subtracting the impedance spectrum of the device during exposure to chemical analyte from the baseline spectrum of the device taken immediately prior under a flow of dry nitrogen"
I have never heard such a procedure for analyzing IS (Impedance spectroscopy).
Impedance spectroscopy is very distinguished from other spectroscopic methods.
I strongly recommend avoiding subtracting the baseline.
Please, correct the figure 1 accordingly.
Conceptual advance and Impact8
It would be good to add atleast a hypothesis on why ethylacetate causes a distinct shift compared to other analytes.
The paper is well written and the study is very interesting.
Details on the number of replicates done should be included in the methods.
There are references missing after the first few statements in the introduction.
Results & Discussion
Are these results reproducible. Where the experiments run in replicates.
Is there any reason why ethylacetate produces a different result compared to the other solvents tested. Is there a charge effect or is it related to the length of the alkyl chain.