Molecularly Imprinted Polymers for Dispersive (Micro)Solid Phase Extraction: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please change use numbers for references
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this review manuscript a general overview of the imprinted polymers applied to the micro solid extraction with membrane-protected sorbents and dispersive (micro)solid phase extraction have been provided. Brief introduction connected with application of MIPs in SPE techniques was described and the importance of MIPs was showed. Despite all the previously mentioned, there are some aspects that should be considered and modified before considering this manuscript for publication.
- One imprtant review study connected with membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers in SPE should be described in this review: A.Martín-Esteban, Membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers: Towards selectivity improvement of liquid-phase microextraction, TrAC, 2021, 138, 116236
- An important aspect to be considered is the fact that tables have not been included. Tables summarizing and highlighting the most important aspects of the articles found in the literature provide valuable and clear information to the reader. This is extremely necessary in order to provide and demonstrate a suitable and complete revision of the literature.
- Despite English is quite good, some minor grammatical mistakes should be corrected (espetially forms of verbs (eg. Line 365 and 366) or tenses.
- Line 21. Revise the sentence.
- Revise abbreviation, in some cases when they appeared firstly, then they are not used, eg. VTMOS - line 304 and 395, 349 – MAA (I did not find another use of this abbreviation).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript describes some development in MIP literature and particularly membrane-protected MIPs, and. MIP-dispersive SPE. There are several major issue with this review paper that makes this work, which is only a summary of papers and not a critical assessment, unsuitable for publication.
- Introduction is poorly written. In review papers, authors need to mention the background particularly the recent review articles published in the field. Then the problem statement should be made after describing the gap in the knowledge that makes it necessary to write such a review.
Please see below articles which are well written in MIP area:
- Talanta 167 (2017) 470–485
- Journal of Chromatography A 1614 (2020) 460603
- Analytica Chimica Acta 974 (2017) 1-26
- The second section “2. Membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers based MIMSPE” is redundant while authors only mentioned some highlights while there is already an excellent review available entitled “Membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers: Towards selectivity improvement of liquid-phase microextraction” Trends in Analytical Chemistry 138 (2021) 116236 as authors cited. This papers describes basics, developments, advantages and shortcoming of this extraction methods/materials. Therefore, the reviewer does not find any benefit in publishing this part and it is only a repeated section unless authors provide some critical overview.
Secondly why principles of LPME which is a crucial part of membrane based extraction is not described here.
- Section 3 which relates mostly to preparation of MIP particles and their application including magnetic and non-magnetic could be a publishable section if authors put an effort into writing and describing the techniques and methods in a compelling way. There is no table or figure regarding this section, and it is only a summary of other work on dispersive SPE using MIPs. If authors want reader to enjoy reading and cite this work, they must provide some background and gaps in MIP-particle reviews like Anal. Methods, 2012, 4, 2613
- It is also worth mentioning that the two microextraction techniques are not properly provided in the same theme and follows different mechanism and principles. Which implies the fact that these are the interests to the authors.
Specific comments:
- Line 9: please explain “batch” in “batch solid phase extraction procedures”
- line 125-126: Please advise on quantitative scales. What is the meaning on few or very few? In “few milligrams or very few milligrams”.
- What are the disadvantages of membrane protected MIPs?
- Line 151: Please change “applying ultrasounds” to “applying ultrasonic dispersion”
- Line 207: Please change “higher enrichment factors” to “higher efficiency “ because enrichment factors depend on sample volume and eluent volume in addition to efficiency.
- Reference: please follow journal guidelines for numbering the reference which should be based on Arabic numerals set
- There are several literatures regarding direct analysis using MIPs
- Please consider making suggestions for direct analysis using magnetic MIPs. Please employ the below article: Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 7, 4762–4770
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revision is performed well, however this paper lacks visual aspects of MIPs which is essential for the readers in the field particularly with the main theme of the work which is comparing various preparation methods of MIPs. Therefore, I recommend a minor revision by adding some graphics either from published articles or new drawings.
Specific comment:
Please edit “This review imitates to provide snapshot of current state-of-art of the use of MIMSPE in sample preparation, describing the several batch MIMSPE approaches such as membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers and dispersive (micro)solid phase extraction with magnetic MIPs and non-magnetic MIPs.” Membrane based MIP is not part of this review anymore.
Table 4. please align the references in a single raw
Author Response
Reviewer’s comment: The revision is performed well, however this paper lacks visual aspects of MIPs which is essential for the readers in the field particularly with the main theme of the work which is comparing various preparation methods of MIPs. Therefore, I recommend a minor revision by adding some graphics either from published articles or new drawings.
Response: In accordance with reviewer’s comment, four figures regarding MIP based composite preparation have been inserted (these figures are published figures from some cited references under permission by the editorials). In addition a figure regarding DSPE procedures has been also inserted. Please see the changes throughout the manuscript.
Specific comment:
Reviewer’s comment: Please edit “This review imitates to provide snapshot of current state-of-art of the use of MIMSPE in sample preparation, describing the several batch MIMSPE approaches such as membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers and dispersive (micro)solid phase extraction with magnetic MIPs and non-magnetic MIPs.” Membrane based MIP is not part of this review anymore.
Response: The end of the Introduction has already been edited and revised in the first revision of the manuscript, and the information regarding membrane-protected molecularly imprinted polymers has already been eliminated. Please see the changes:
“This review imitates to provide snapshot of current state-of-art of the use MIPs (magnetic and non-magnetic composites) for dSPE and D-µ-SPE. Information inherent to the preparation of the MIP composites, mainly the magnetic core functionalization, has been shown and new trends for surface functionalization, such as the use of boronic acids, have been highlighted.”
Reviewer’s comment: Table 4. please align the references in a single raw
Response: References are aligned in Table 4 in the original manuscript. Changes must be attributed to the uploading system.
