This work presents interesting science and may be of interest to CJCE readers. However, several points require better discussion and scientific basis before being accepted for publication.

1) I suggest that the authors clearly demonstrate how the operational parameters of the electrochemical technique were optimized

2) I strongly suggest that the authors evaluate the effects of pH, effect of ionic strength and effect of supporting electrolyte composition on the performance of the proposed sensor

3) I strongly suggest that the authors comment/explain the voltammetric profiles, potential shifts, among others, observed in figures 8 and 9

4) I suggest that the authors also evaluate the pesticides Carbendazim, Methomyl, Dichlorvos, Atrazine, and Fenitrothion, which are also recognized as potential interferers to the analytes evaluated in the present work

5) I suggest that validation is also carried out by comparing the performance of the proposed sensor with an official reference method

6) Reference 9 must be removed

This work is a revised version, however, the fact that it was not possible to find the response letter greatly compromises the evaluation.
It is observed that some changes were made, however, I still believe that minor revisions are necessary

1) There is no description in the Methodology about the application of the method nor what experimental conditions were used with the standard method (HPLC). Was there sample treatment/preparation? If so, I believe that it is extremely necessary to describe this in the work

2) Table 2 is extremely vague, and I suggest that the relative standard deviation be included. Furthermore, there is no discussion about the data obtained, for example, what is the advantage of the proposed method? what are the disadvantages?