PONE-D-22-07435Synthesis of encapsulated ZnO nanowires provide low impedance alternatives for microelectrodes 

Dear Dr. Maddah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:The comments received from reviewers are given below:

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 April, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr. Sandeep Arya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (3709273/UOA1510). We would also greatly acknowledge the support from Victoria University of Wellington, the University of Auckland and the MacDiarmid Institute of New Zealand."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"Mohsen Maddah: This research was supported by the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (3709273/UOA1510)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Comments from Reviewer 2:

Authors carried out their work on -Synthesis of encapsulated ZnO nanowires provide low impedance alternatives for microelectrodes. The manuscript is technically good but there are certain queries that need to be addressed as follows:

1. Authors should give a detailed description of the fabrication step of the microelectrode as the complete manuscript revolves around it.

2. Experiment conditions should be optimized, including the pH values and concentration of precursors.

3. Figure 1 is very poorly described. This figure should be better described.

4. SEM analysis needs more elaboration. Why were some nanowires protruding from the outer edges of the seed layer?

5. Why the TEM and SEAD analyses were not done? Why the point-EDS analyses were not done?

6. XRD should also be included in the manuscript.

7. Authors should add high quality figures in the manuscript.

8. Authors should explain the reasons that lead to lowest electrochemical impedance on encapsulation of ZnO NW microelectrodes with thin layer of Ti or Pt?

9. Authors should also encapsulate ZnO NW microelectrode with thin layer of Au, as their control study.

10. Some related papers based on nanowires and electrochemical sensors should be cited to give a broader view of the corresponding research field such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.104858,

https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/abdee8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.10.024,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-018-1968-8.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this research article author has synthesized encapsulated ZnO nanowires which is used as a low impedance microelectrode. However, there are various shortcoming in the manuscript which are mentioned below. After major revision this manuscript is suitable for publishing.

1. XRD of synthesized ZnO nanowires is not present in the manuscript. Without XRD how author claim that the synthesized material is ZnO. XRD should be required in the revised manuscript.

2. All the Figures have very low Quality. Enhancement in the quality of images is required in the manuscript.

3. The comparison table of the synthesized materials with the previously reported literature must be required in the revised version.

4. How the improvement in redox reaction of the NWs affect only the Faradaic impedance.

5. How ZnO nanowires provide low impedance, authors are required to describe its mechanism.

6. Authors had tried to explain the results of Figure 6, but the explanation is not sufficient related with these results.

7. In the section of “Modified Randles equivalent circuit model of microelectrodes for electrochemical impedance modelling” author have not given any reference. And the explanation of these equivalent circuit needs some support from the previously reported work.

8. Add some latest reference in the manuscript like ACS Applied Electronic Materials 2, 3522−3529: ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology 10, 023002: IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics 10 (6), 1744-1749: Journal of Alloys and Compounds 814, 152292: Optical Materials 79, 115-119

Reviewer #3: (Research Article): PLOS ONE, PONE-D-22-07435

Synthesis of encapsulated ZnO nanowires provide low impedance alternatives for microelectrodes

Comments:

The author presented the synthesis of Ti and Pt encapsulated ZnO nanowires (Ti-ZnO NWs and Pt-ZnO NWs). And their application as Microelectrodes has been presented.

The manuscript is fascinating and well prepared.

My comments are not critical but could help to improve the manuscript.

1. In abstract, author mentioned the “seminal work of Ryu et al. by demonstrating h….” (Page 7, line 20). I think it is good to not to mention the reference. It could cover in the last of introduction part.

2. It is a bit confusing about the control sample. Why there are three control samples, planar Cr/Au, pristine ZnO NWs and Cr/Au-ZnO NWs)?

3. The synthesis part is a bit confusing. It could be good to prepare a separate section in experimental details part to cover the synthesis part.

4. It is good to replace the “Our group” by mentioned the author name et al. Please check, Line number 235, Page 16.

5. It is good to put the Ryu et al. and author comparative values into a Table.

6. A few Figures are not clear. Please check their quality.

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Synthesis of encapsulated ZnO nanowires provide low impedance alternatives for microelectrodes

PONE-D-22-07435R1

Dear Dr. Mohsen Maddah,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dr. Sandeep Arya

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

NA

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Author have revised the manuscript with greater precision, Now the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********