PLoS ONEplosplosonePLOS ONE1932-6203Public Library of ScienceSan Francisco, CA USA10.1371/journal.pone.0259760PONE-D-21-25118Lab ProtocolPhysical sciencesChemistryChemical compoundsOrganic compoundsUreaPhysical sciencesChemistryOrganic chemistryOrganic compoundsUreaPhysical sciencesChemistryChemical compoundsAmmoniaPhysical sciencesChemistryChemical reactionsHydrolysisBiology and life sciencesBiochemistryEnzymologyEnzymesUreasesBiology and life sciencesBiochemistryProteinsEnzymesUreasesBiology and life sciencesAnatomyBody fluidsUrineMedicine and health sciencesAnatomyBody fluidsUrineBiology and life sciencesPhysiologyBody fluidsUrinePhysical sciencesChemistryChemical compoundsAcidsPhosphoric acidsPhysical sciencesChemistryChemical compoundsChloridesBiology and life sciencesNeuroscienceCognitive scienceCognitive neuroscienceReaction timeBiology and life sciencesNeuroscienceCognitive neuroscienceReaction timeColorimetric determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime with strong acidsColorimetric determination of ureahttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0267-2965LangenfeldNoah JamesConceptualizationInvestigationWriting – original draft*PayneLauren ElizabethInvestigationWriting – original draftBugbeeBruceWriting – review & editingDepartment of Plants, Soils, and Climate, Crop Physiology Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States of AmericaSignoreGiovanniEditorFondazione Pisana per la Scienza, ITALY
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: noah.langenfeld@usu.edu811202120211611e02597601182021231020212021Langenfeld et alThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Urea is a byproduct of the urea cycle in metabolism and is excreted through urine and sweat. Ammonia, which is toxic at low levels, is converted to the safe storage form of urea, which represents the largest efflux of nitrogen from many organisms. Urea is an important nitrogen source in agriculture, is added to many industrial products, and is a large component in wastewater. The enzyme urease hydrolyzes urea to ammonia and bicarbonate. This reaction is microbially mediated in soils, hydroponic solutions, and wastewater recycling and is catalyzed in vivo in plants using native urease, making measurement of urea environmentally important. Both direct and indirect methods to measure urea exist. This protocol uses diacetyl monoxime to directly determine the concentration of urea in solution. The protocol provides repeatable results and stable reagents with good color stability and simple measurement techniques for use in any lab with a spectrophotometer. The reaction between diacetyl monoxime and urea in the presence of sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, thiosemicarbazide, and ferric chloride produces a chromophore with a peak absorbance at 520 nm and a linear relationship between concentration and absorbance from 0.4 to 5.0 mM urea in this protocol. The lack of detectable interferences makes this protocol suitable for the determination of millimolar levels of urea in wastewater streams and hydroponic solutions.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000104national aeronautics and space administrationNNX17AJ31GBugbeeBruceThis research was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, and approved as journal paper number 9459; NASA, Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (grant number NNX17AJ31G). The funders had and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Data AvailabilityAll relevant data is included in supplemental information files.Introduction
Urea is a small organic compound used as the primary nitrogenous waste product in mammals. The protein content of a diet dictates the urea concentration, which is routinely measured in human blood serum as an indicator of healthy metabolism [1]. Urea is produced from the oxidation of amino acids and ammonia and is transported to the kidneys where it is used as a safe storage form of excess nitrogen. Urea is then excreted from the body in urine where it represents the largest concentration of any component aside from water [2]. Monitoring urea in wastewater can help guide bioreactor design and operation of downstream processing.
Urea is extensively used in agriculture as an inexpensive nitrogen fertilizer with more than 50% of all nitrogen applied as urea [3]. Urea hydrolysis to ammonia is catalyzed by urease, which is ubiquitous in many plants and microbes, but can cause alkaline substrate conditions and toxic levels of ammonia if not controlled [4]. Urea must be converted to ammonium either by soil microbes or plant derived urease before it can be assimilated into plant proteins. Monitoring urea concentration in soil leachate or liquid hydroponics helps quantify the hydrolysis rate which can lead to a basis for nitrogen application rates [5]. Quantification of urea is especially important in regenerative life support systems for long-term space missions to ensure efficient nitrogen recycling and recovery from urine [6].
Urea concentration can be determined indirectly via the products of hydrolysis or directly through several colorimetric methods [7, 8]. Ammonia and carbon dioxide are produced during the hydrolysis of urea by urease and can be measured gasometrically [9] or colorimetrically [10–12], respectively, to stoichiometrically determine the urea concentration. Indirect enzymatic measurements are sensitive to solution pH, divalent cation interference, and incomplete hydrolysis, which do not affect direct colorimetric determination [13]. Direct methods for urea determination complex urea with an aldehyde or ketone under strong acidic conditions to form a red to yellow colored product, which is then measured either colorimetrically or with liquid chromatography. Variations on the condensation reagent include the use of xanthydrol [14, 15], diacetyl monoxime [8, 16], dimethylglyoxime [17], or p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde [18] which affect the color stability, reaction time, and sensitivity. Diacetyl monoxime is one of the more stable and easy to obtain reagents and is the focus of this protocol due to its fast reaction time with urea and chromophore intensity and stability [19] when reacted in the presence of acid, ferric chloride, and thiosemicarbazide.
Diacetyl monoxime breaks down into diacetyl during the reaction in the presence of heat (provided from a boiling water bath). Diacetyl and urea then condense in the same medium under the presence of a strong acid to form the yellow-colored diazine product and water. Diazine is light sensitive when sulfuric acid is used, but the addition of phosphoric acid [20] helps eliminate this sensitivity. Diazine is stabilized by thiosemicarbazide and converted to a pink-colored complex with a stronger absorbance in the presence of ferric ions derived from ferric chloride hexahydrate [21]. The mixed acid reagent is stable for at least a month at room temperature [22, 23], while the mixed color reagent is stable for at least a week. Reay [24] noted a decrease in response from the color reagent when allantoin and hydantoin were analyzed at micromolar levels, but no significant change was observed for urea concentrations. The maximum absorption of the final product is at 520 nm and is proportional to the concentration of urea (Fig 1) [25].
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.g001
Urea samples after absorbance measurement.
Diacetyl monoxime and urea produce a pink-colored complex in the presence of ferric ions with a maximum absorbance at 520 nm proportional to urea concentration.
Diacetyl monoxime was first used by Fearon [26] as a test for citrulline, an alpha-amino acid and important intermediate of the urea cycle. Citrulline is a monosubstituted urea derivative and will give a positive result [27] if diacetyl monoxime is used to detect urea. This is not a factor if urea is being detected in wastewater streams as the concentration of citrulline [19] is nearly four orders of magnitude less than that of urea [28]. A similar concentration disparity exists in hydroponic solutions. Reay [24] found the diacetyl monoxime method overestimated urea concentrations in soil solutions by responding positively with many uredio compounds. This occurred when analyzed urea was at micromolar levels as opposed to the millimolar levels described in this protocol. The expected concentration range of samples must be assessed before determining suitability for this assay.
The average lower limit of detection (LoD) using this protocol is 440 μM urea (S2 File) using the calibration plot method described by Anderson [29]. Environmental samples typically have urea concentrations several orders of magnitude greater than this LoD. Reagent concentrations can be reduced if a lower LoD is desired [25], but are not the subject of this protocol. The method remains linear up to 5 mM urea, after which the absorbance exceeds 1 and the relationship is no longer linear. The average molar attenuation coefficient for this assay was 199 μM-1 cm-1.
This protocol was developed specifically for the analysis of urea in wastewater and hydroponic solutions. The separation of urea from urine and its use as a fertilizer for plants is of special interest to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for regenerative life support systems. Reagent concentrations, reaction time, and detection range in this protocol have been set to meet urea concentrations found in these scenarios. The protocol is repeatable and safe to perform if standard analytical procedures are followed. A step-by-step guide for both the reagent preparation and assay procedure are included to simplify the measurement process, minimize potential error, and obtain accurate measurements of urea concentrations at millimolar levels.
Materials and methods
The protocol described in this peer-reviewed article is published on protocols.io, http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.byvipw4e and is included for printing as S1 File with this article.
Expected results
Standards from 0 to 5 mM urea were prepared to generate calibration curves at 520 nm using a Shimadzu UV-2401PC (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) spectrophotometer with a resolution of 0.1 nm and a path length of 1 cm. Calibration curves were constructed over 7 days using standards in triplicate. Mixed color reagent (diacetyl monoxime and thiosemicarbazide, MCR) stability was analyzed by constructing a set of calibration curves prepared with a MCR stored at 25 °C in the light and another set with a MCR stored at 4 °C in the dark. The relationship remained linear for both curve sets up to 5 mM urea over the course of the trial (Fig 2), after which the absorbance exceeded 1.000. The molar attenuation coefficient (202 μM-1 cm-1 at 25 °C and 196 μM-1 cm-1 at 4 °C) was calculated using the Beer-Lambert Law (A = εbC), where A is the absorbance, ε is the molar attenuation coefficient, b is the path length, and C is the concentration in mM Urea. The Beer-Lambert Law can then be used to determine the concentration of unknown urea samples once ε is known. The average limit of detection was 0.455 mM urea for the 25 °C MCR and 0.425 mM urea for the 4 °C MCR (S2 File).
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.g002
Calibration curve for urea.
Calibration curves at 520 nm using a mixed color reagent (diacetyl monoxime and thiosemicarbazide, MCR) stored at 25 °C in the light and 4 °C in the dark. Error bars are too small to be shown (data included in S2 File). n = 4 for the 25 °C MCR and n = 5 for the 4 °C MCR.
This protocol was applied in a practical setting to measure urea conversion to ammonium in a recirculating column system (Fig 3) over 30 days. A 2 mM urea (4 mM nitrogen) solution was made and transferred into recirculating columns. Each column was filled with perlite to provide a surface area for microbes and had automatic pH control to maintain pH below 7 and reduce volatile ammonia losses. The nitrogen concentrations contributed from ammonium and urea in each column were measured over 30 days using the Nesslerization colorimetric method [30] and this protocol, respectively. Results in Fig 4 show a decrease in urea and increase in ammonium as urea is hydrolyzed in the column. Total N decreased over the course of the study due to some volatilization of ammonia gas.
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.g003
System for measuring urea hydrolysis.
Recirculating columns filled with perlite were used to measure concentrations of urea and ammonium over 30 days.
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.g004
Changes in nitrogen form over time.
Concentrations of nitrogen in urea and ammonium over 30 days in recirculating columns (n = 2) controlled at pH 7 with sulfuric acid addition. Total N represents the sum of N from urea and ammonium. Error bars represent standard error, n = 2.
The protocol was also tested in a background of a hydroponic nutrient solution at pH 5.8 to simulate analyzing urea concentration when urea is used as a hydroponic nitrogen source. The solution prepared from reagent grade chemicals contained the following: 4 mM urea N, 2 mM nitrate N, 0.4 mM P, 3 mM K, 1.5 mM Ca, 0.8 mM Mg, 0.8 mM S, 0.3 mM Si, 25 μM Fe, 40 μM B, 3 μM Mn, 3 μM Zn, 4 μM Cu, 35 μM Cl, 0.1 μM Mo, and 0.1 μM Ni. Measured urea concentration was accurate, and no interferences were observed.
Supporting information
Protocol for urea assay from protocols.io.
(PDF)
Calibration curve and urea hydrolysis data.
(DOCX)
ReferencesKumarV, GillKD. Estimation of Urea in Serum and Urine. Basic Concepts in Clinical Biochemistry: A Practical Guide. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2018. pp. 67–70.Anderson MS, Ewert MK, Keener JF. Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document. 2018. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180001338/downloads/20180001338.pdfWitteC-P. Urea metabolism in plants. Plant Science. 2011;180: 431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.11.01021421389GouldWD, HagedornC, McCreadyRGL. Urea Transformations and Fertilizer Efficiency in Soil. Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier; 1986. pp. 209–238.ElliotG. Urea hydrolysis in potting media. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1986;111: 862–866.LangenfeldNJ, KusumaP, WallentineT, CriddleCS, SeefeldtLC, BugbeeB. Optimizing Nitrogen Fixation and Recycling for Food Production in Regenerative Life Support Systems. Front Astron Space Sci. 2021;8: 699688. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.699688GutmannI, BergmeyerHU. Urea. Methods of Enzymatic Analysis. Elsevier; 1974. pp. 1791–1801.BhavadasanMK, RajputYS, GanguliNC. A simple colorimetric method for the determination of urea in milk. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 1982;35: 263–266.Van SlykeDD. Determination of urea by gasometric measurement of the carbon dioxide formed by the action of urease. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1927;73: 695–723. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)84282-XBolleterWT, BushmanCJ, TidwellPW. Spectrophotometric Determination of Ammonia as Indophenol. Anal Chem. 1961;33: 592–594. doi: 10.1021/ac60172a034LiddicoatMI, TibhittsS, ButlerEI. The determination of ammonia in seawater. Limnol Oceanogr. 1975;20: 131–132. doi: 10.4319/lo.1975.20.1.0131HuizengaJR, TangermanA, GipsCH. Determination of Ammonia in Biological Fluids. Ann Clin Biochem. 1994;31: 529–543. doi: 10.1177/0004563294031006027880071KandelerE, GerberH. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol Fert Soils. 1988;6. doi: 10.1007/BF00257924ClarkS, FrancisPS, ConlanXA, BarnettNW. Determination of urea using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection after automated derivatisation with xanthydrol. Journal of Chromatography A. 2007;1161: 207–213. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.05.08517570379BowdenRST. The Estimation of Blood Urea by the Xanthydrol Reaction. J Small Animal Practice. 1962;3: 217–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.1962.tb04191.xNewellBS, MorganB, JaneC. The determination of urea in seawater. Journal of Marine Research. 1967;25: 201–202.YaoD, HeZ, WenG, LiangA, JiangZ. A facile and highly sensitive resonance Rayleigh scattering-energy transfer method for urea using a fullerene probe. RSC Adv. 2018;8: 29008–29012. doi: 10.1039/C8RA05269GRoijersAFM, TasMM. The determination of urea with p-dimethylaminobenzaldehyde. Clinica Chimica Acta. 1964;9: 197–202. doi: 10.1016/0009-8981(64)90094-414152332RosenthalHL. Determination of Urea in Blood and Urine with Diacetyl Monoxime. Anal Chem. 1955;27: 1980–1982. doi: 10.1021/ac60108a039BoydeTRC, RahmatullahM. Optimization of conditions for the colorimetric determination of citrulline, using diacetyl monoxime. Analytical Biochemistry. 1980;107: 424–431. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(80)90404-27435971WybengaDR, Di GiorgioJ, PileggiVJ. Manual and Automated Methods for Urea Nitrogen Measurement in Whole Serum. Clinical Chemistry. 1971;17: 891–895. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/17.9.8915571487AlamMdS, CasaretoBE, SuzukiY, SultanaR, SuzukiT. Optimization of dissolved urea measurements in coastal waters with the combination of a single reagent and high temperature. J Oceanogr. 2017;73: 249–258. doi: 10.1007/s10872-016-0400-2CozziS. A new application of the diacetyl monoxime method to the automated determination of dissolved urea in seawater. Marine Biology. 2003;145: 843–848. doi: 10.1007/s00227-004-1366-yReayMK, YatesCA, JohnesPJ, ArthurCJ, JonesDL, EvershedRP. High resolution HPLC-MS confirms overestimation of urea in soil by the diacetyl monoxime (DAM) colorimetric method. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2019;135: 127–133. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.04.015ChenL, MaJ, HuangY, DaiM, LiX. Optimization of a colorimetric method to determine trace urea in seawater: Trace urea analysis in seawater. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2015;13: 303–311. doi: 10.1002/lom3.10026FearonWR. The carbamido diacetyl reaction: a test for citrulline. Biochemical Journal. 1939;33: 902–907. doi: 10.1042/bj033090216746990ArchibaldRM. Colorimetric determination of urea. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1945;157: 507–518. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)51085-1KasparH, DettmerK, ChanQ, DanielsS, NimkarS, DaviglusML, et al. Urinary amino acid analysis: A comparison of iTRAQ®–LC–MS/MS, GC–MS, and amino acid analyzer. Journal of Chromatography B. 2009;877: 1838–1846. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2009.05.01919481989AndersonDJ. Determination of the lower limit of detection. Clinical Chemistry. 1989;35: 2152–2153. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/35.10.21522619804ZhouL, BoydCE. Comparison of Nessler, phenate, salicylate and ion selective electrode procedures for determination of total ammonia nitrogen in aquaculture. Aquaculture. 2016;450: 187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.07.02210.1371/journal.pone.0259760.r001Author response to previous submissionSubmission Version0
11 Aug 2021
Submitted filename: Rebuttal to reviewer comments.docx
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.r002Decision Letter 0SignoreGiovanniAcademic Editor2021Giovanni SignoreThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Submission Version0
5 Oct 2021
PONE-D-21-25118Colorimetric determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime with strong acidsPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Langenfeld,
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 address all the points raised by the reviewers: I fully agree with them that the minor ,suggested changes will improve the overall quality of the manuscript
Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 19 2021 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.
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,
Giovanni Signore
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
Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Does the manuscript report a protocol which is of utility to the research community and adds value to the published literature?
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: Yes
**********
2. Has the protocol been described in sufficient detail?
Descriptions of methods and reagents contained in the step-by-step protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample sizes and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.
Reviewer #1: Partly
Reviewer #2: No
**********
3. Does the protocol describe a validated method?
The manuscript must demonstrate that the protocol achieves its intended purpose: either by containing appropriate validation data, or referencing at least one original research article in which the protocol was used to generate data.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: No
**********
4. If the manuscript contains new data, have the authors made this data 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 #2: Yes
**********
5. Is the article 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 highlight any specific errors that need correcting in the box below.
Reviewer #1: Yes
Reviewer #2: 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: Dr. Langenfeld et al. has presented a work entitled as “Colorimetric determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime with strong acids”. The authors have addressed the raised queries of this reviewer in detail. In this relevance on the basis of this revised version of the “Lab Protocol” it may be considered for publication in the esteemed journal.
Reviewer #2: The protocol, that is not included in M&M section despite my suggestion in the first revision, but only available as supplementary material, is written in an unclear/uncorrect form:
• point nr 2:
Add 80 µl phosphoric acid. Unclear:
Which is the concentration of the Phosphoric Acid?
• point nr 3:
Prepare 18 Molarity (M) sulfuric acid by diluting 65.25 mL concentrated sulfuric acid up to 250 mL with deionized water.
This is uncorrect: 18 M Sulfuric Acid IS concentrated Sulfuric acid:
Concentrated Sulfuric Acid 98% (H2SO4) MW: 98.073
Density: 1.84 Approx. Strength: 96% Molarity(M): 18 Volume (mL) required to make 1000 mL of 1M solution: 55.
• The correct spelling of [mM] is Millimolar, not Milimolar
• Purity of reagents (thiosemicarbazide, diacetyl monoxime, phosphoric acid, ferric chloride) is not reported
**********
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 #2: No
[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.
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.r003Author response to Decision Letter 0Submission Version1
19 Oct 2021
Reviewer #2:
The protocol, that is not included in M&M section despite my suggestion in the first revision, but only available as supplementary material, is written in an unclear/uncorrect form: This was done because we were following the template for a lab protocol laid out by PLOS One. Lab protocols are meant to have the protocol included only as supplementary information and a link placed in the materials and methods section with a DOI. No change has been made because of this reason.
• point nr 2: Add 80 µl phosphoric acid. Unclear: Which is the concentration of the Phosphoric Acid? The concentration has been added to the protocol.
• point nr 3: Prepare 18 Molarity (M) sulfuric acid by diluting 65.25 mL concentrated sulfuric acid up to 250 mL with deionized water. This is uncorrect: 18 M Sulfuric Acid IS concentrated Sulfuric acid: Concentrated Sulfuric Acid 98% (H2SO4) MW: 98.073 Density: 1.84 Approx. Strength: 96% Molarity(M): 18 Volume (mL) required to make 1000 mL of 1M solution: 55.
You are correct, this was a mistake on our part and the correct concentration has now been included in the protocol.
• The correct spelling of [mM] is Millimolar, not Milimolar. This was a default setting on protocols.io. We have corrected the spelling.
• Purity of reagents (thiosemicarbazide, diacetyl monoxime, phosphoric acid, ferric chloride) is not reported. Purity has now been reported for all reagents.
Submitted filename: Rebuttal to reviewer comments 6 October 2021.docx
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.r004Decision Letter 1SignoreGiovanniAcademic Editor2021Giovanni SignoreThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Submission Version1
26 Oct 2021
Colorimetric determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime with strong acids
PONE-D-21-25118R1
Dear Dr. Langenfeld,
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,
Giovanni Signore
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
10.1371/journal.pone.0259760.r005Acceptance letterSignoreGiovanniAcademic Editor2021Giovanni SignoreThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
28 Oct 2021
PONE-D-21-25118R1
Colorimetric determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime with strong acids
Dear Dr. Langenfeld:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
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.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.