Ultraviolet–visible spectral characterization and ANN modeling of aqueous sugar solutions: Clinical and environmental perspectives

Hawraa Fadhil Abd; Yaser Norouzi; S. Mostafa Safavihamami

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335807

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 2, 2025
15 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor Dear Dr. Norouzi, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 30 2025 11:59PM. 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. 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, Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D. 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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “NO” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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? Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No ****** Reviewer #1: 1.The manuscript alternates between g/mL and g/L in different sections (e.g., Abstract vs. Results 3.4). This needs standardization. 2.Novelty emphasis – The Introduction discusses prior work but could better highlight what is new in this study compared to earlier ANN + UV-Vis glucose modeling papers. 3.The description of data preprocessing (baseline correction, smoothing) is brief. Specify which smoothing algorithm was applied, parameters used, and whether preprocessing could affect subtle absorbance trends. 4. Figures are described well, but captions should be fully self-contained (state concentration range, instrument, etc.). Ensure resolution and axis labels are clear enough for publication. 5. Some limitations are mentioned (baseline drift, weak absorbance). Expanding this into a short dedicated subsection would strengthen transparency. 6. The title mentions “environmental applications,” but most discussion centers on glucose in clinical/food settings. Consider either adding environmental case studies or softening the scope. 7. The Results use ANN, PCA, and regression, but quantitative comparisons (e.g., R², MSE across methods) are not tabulated. A summary table would help. 8.Some in-text citations are inconsistent (e.g., “[5,6 and8]” should be “[5,6,8]”). Also, ensure all references follow PLOS ONE style. 9. These are strong, but could be consolidated (some overlap, e.g., PCA-based feature extraction already discussed earlier). 10.A few sentences are wordy or repetitive (e.g., ANN results are described in multiple places). Condensing could improve flow. ****** 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: Yes: Dr Sathish Mohan Botsa ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335807.r002
Revision 1
2 Oct 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-35917 Title: Ultraviolet–Visible Spectral Characterization and ANN Modeling of Aqueous Sugar Solutions: Clinical and Environmental Perspectives Dear Editor and Reviewers, We sincerely thank you for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive feedback provided. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and below we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments. All modifications are highlighted in the version with track changes. Reviewer #1: Dr. Sathish Mohan Botsa Comment 1. The manuscript alternates between g/mL and g/L in different sections (e.g., Abstract vs. Results 3.4). This needs standardization. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have standardized all concentration units to g/mL throughout the manuscript. Comment 2. Novelty emphasis – The Introduction discusses prior work but could better highlight what is new in this study compared to earlier ANN + UV-Vis glucose modeling papers. Response: We expanded the Introduction to emphasize the novelty of this study: (i) combined ANN and PCA analysis in a wide UV–Vis spectral range, (ii) dual clinical and environmental perspectives, and (iii) systematic preprocessing with quantitative model comparisons. Comment 3. The description of data preprocessing (baseline correction, smoothing) is brief. Specify which smoothing algorithm was applied, parameters used, and whether preprocessing could affect subtle absorbance trends. Response: Details have been added in the Methods section (Subsection 2.3). We specified the Savitzky–Golay smoothing algorithm, including window size and polynomial order, and discussed potential influences on subtle absorbance variations. Comment 4. Figures are described well, but captions should be fully self-contained (state concentration range, instrument, etc.). Ensure resolution and axis labels are clear enough for publication. Response: All figure captions have been revised to be self-contained and include concentration ranges, instrument, and preprocessing notes. Figures were re-exported at ≥300 dpi and validated via PACE. Comment 5. Some limitations are mentioned (baseline drift, weak absorbance). Expanding this into a short dedicated subsection would strengthen transparency. Response: We added a new subsection entitled “Study Limitations” in the Discussion, addressing baseline drift, weak absorbance at longer wavelengths, and ANN variability, as well as the importance of larger datasets for generalizability. Comment 6. The title mentions “environmental applications,” but most discussion centers on glucose in clinical/food settings. Consider either adding environmental case studies or softening the scope. Response: The title has been revised to: “Ultraviolet–Visible Spectral Characterization and ANN Modeling of Aqueous Sugar Solutions: Clinical and Environmental Perspectives” Comment 7. The Results use ANN, PCA, and regression, but quantitative comparisons (e.g., R², MSE across methods) are not tabulated. A summary table would help. Response: We added a new Table 1 summarizing R², MSE, and RMSE for ANN, PCA, and regression. In addition, we inserted a new paragraph in the Results section: “To facilitate direct comparison between the different modeling approaches, we summarized the key performance metrics of ANN, PCA, and conventional regression in Table 1. The ANN model demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy with R² > 0.98 and the lowest MSE and RMSE values, followed by PCA-based regression, while conventional regression yielded comparatively lower accuracy. These results highlight the advantage of ANN in capturing nonlinear relationships in the UV–Vis absorbance data.” Comment 8. Some in-text citations are inconsistent (e.g., “[5,6 and 8]” should be “[5,6,8]”). Also, ensure all references follow PLOS ONE style. Response: All references and in-text citations have been revised to follow PLOS ONE style. Comment 9: These are strong, but could be consolidated (some overlap, e.g., PCA-based feature extraction already discussed earlier). Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the revised manuscript, we consolidated overlapping discussions related to PCA-based feature extraction and dimensionality reduction, which had previously appeared in multiple sections. Redundant sentences were removed, and the discussion was streamlined to avoid repetition. This restructuring improves clarity and flow, while maintaining a coherent narrative on the complementary role of PCA in validating ANN-based glucose prediction. Comment 10: A few sentences are wordy or repetitive (e.g., ANN results are described in multiple places). Condensing could improve flow. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we streamlined the Results and Discussion by condensing the description of ANN results into a single, focused subsection. Repetitive sentences were removed, and the narrative was shortened to emphasize the key findings (high correlation, low error, and regression plot in Figure 3) without redundancy. This revision improves readability and ensures a smoother flow of ideas. Comment 11. English language and style require improvement. Response: The manuscript was thoroughly edited for English clarity, grammar, and readability. Journal Requirements • Requirement: Data Availability Statement Response: We deposited all raw and processed data into Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17170571) and updated the Data Availability section. • Requirement: Competing Interests Response: Updated to 'The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.' • Requirement: ORCID Response: The corresponding author’s ORCID iD has been validated in Editorial Manager. We again thank the reviewer and editor for their constructive comments, which have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and presentation of this work. We look forward to your favorable consideration. Sincerely, Yaser Norouzi, on behalf of all co-authors • Additional Note on Comment 5 (Limitations): A new subsection entitled 'Study Limitations' has been added to the Discussion. This section elaborates on baseline drift, weak absorbance signals, and potential ANN variability, as well as the need for larger and more diverse datasets to enhance generalizability. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335807.r003
17 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor Ultraviolet–Visible Spectral Characterization and ANN Modeling of Aqueous Sugar Solutions: Clinical and Environmental Perspectives PONE-D-25-35917R1 Dear Dr. Norouzi, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Congratulations on your efforts into this work, which is highly meets the readers interest in this domain. ****** 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: Yes: Sathish Mohan ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335807.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Amitava Mukherjee, Editor PONE-D-25-35917R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Norouzi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335807.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .