All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for addressing the minor revisions requested. Now your manuscript is accepted in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing (e.g. "This method uses two gas chromatography (GC) equipments and needs to compare compounds between the two chromatograms, and it is tedious and costly."). Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
Please take into consideration the section editor comments and provide back a point-by-point rebuttal letter addressing those concerns:
"It would be good to have an overall aim and objectives/ questions explicitly identified in the final paragraph of the introduction"
Please take into consideration the reviewer’s comments and provide back a point-by-point rebuttal letter addressing those concerns.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The authors do not seem to realize that this technique was reported almost 20 years ago, for example, see:
Weissbecker B, Holighaus G, Schütz S. Gas chromatography with mass spectrometric and electroantennographic detection: analysis of wood odorants by direct coupling of insect olfaction and mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2004 Nov 12;1056(1-2):209-16. PMID: 15595552.
Cai L, Koziel JA, O'Neal ME. Determination of characteristic odorants from Harmonia axyridis beetles using in vivo solid-phase microextraction and multidimensional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-olfactometry. J Chromatogr A. 2007 Apr 13;1147(1):66-78. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.02.044. Epub 2007 Feb 20. PMID: 17359983.
Sebastian Paczkowski, Marta Paczkowska, Stefan Dippel, Norman Schulze, Stefan Schütz, Tilman Sauerwald, Alexander Weiß, Marco Bauer, Jörg Gottschald, Claus-Dieter Kohl,
The olfaction of a fire beetle leads to new concepts for early fire warning systems,
Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical,
Volume 183,
2013,
Pages 273-282,
ISSN 0925-4005,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2013.03.123.
See comments under 1
See comments under 1
The coupling of GC/MS and EAD was reported almost 20 years ago, see references above. Thus, this work is not novel, and at the least, the authors must cite the previous work, and then explain how their method is different, or better, or what advantages it has over the previously published methods of coupling GC/MS and EAD
This MS may be is the first work that assembling gas chromatography (GC) to electroantennography (EAD), and mass spectrometry (MS) to identify semiochemicals. I think that is necessary that the authors explain the objective of the work, because there is no new information in the MS. Weissbecker et al. (2004) reported the first GC-MS/EAD with antennae of the old house borer Hylotrupes bajulus, a widespread insect pest of coniferous timbers. I think that is not correct that the authors do not include in the references of his work the paper of Weissbecker et al. (2004).The MS requires major changes, before acceptance in PeerJ. For instances, results of many of the figures do not contribute with quality of the paper, I think that they can be selected a new insects pest to demonstrate the use of GC-EAD/MS, or with the information of the fig. 2 or 3, demonstrate what is the lower amount injected of the sample to stimulate the insect antenna.
No comment
No comment
The MS requires major changes, before acceptance in PeerJ. For instances, results of many of the figures do not contribute with quality of the paper, I think that they can be selected a new insects pest to demonstrate the use of GC-EAD/MS, or with the information of the fig. 2 or 3, demonstrate what is the lower amount injected of the sample to stimulate the insect antenna.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.