Sustainable Recovery of Antioxidant Compounds from Rossa Di Tropea Onion Waste and Application as Ingredient for White Bread Production
, Amalia Piscopo 2, Simone Santacaterina 2, Alessandra De Bruno 3,* and Marco Poiana 2
Suraj Adebayo Opatokun
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The Title & Abstract suggest antioxidants (which are specific ingredients) from the waste as the aim whereas functional ingredients (bioactive compounds with antioxidants & antimicrobial potentials) are the focus of result & discussion ditto conclusion. Strongly recommend that the author align the article/study objective to ensure clarity.
2. The aim of the study as indicated in Line 67-70 needs to be re-worded with attention to the title. Clearly establishing potential functional ingredients in the waste could be considered while demonstrating it applicability in bread does not overshadow the sustainability element which is the essential for this journal.
3. The premise of the authors write up (as captured in Line 202 -203) suggest that the ENTIRE extract (OSWE) constituents are considered functional ingredients/antioxidants, Is this true? If Yes, this hypothesis needs to be justified scientifically and if No, the various constituents needs to be highlighted to avoid misinformation.
4. Other minor issues are:
a. "raised" in Line 73 may be replaced by "collected"
b. Isn't characterisation same as determining the physicochemical properties? If that is right then, Line 115 & 136 should read Characterisation of antioxidant constituents of OSWE/ Physicochemical properties of antioxidants.
c. "Highlited" should read "Highlighted"
d. Line 247 -249: How did the author established that the antioxidants constituents are responsible for this and not other constituent of the extract? Does this suggest that the entire extract are antioxidants?
e. As indicated above Line 338 - 341 need to align with the Title and other part of the entire article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English quality is appropriate enough except for couple of errors.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions that allow us to improve our work.
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled “ Sustainable Recovery of Antioxidant Compounds from Rossa Di Tropea Onion Waste and Application as Ingredient for White Bread Production” requires revision to be improved.
General suggestions
Revise English to remove some typos throughout the text.
Keywords
No need capital letter: “Antioxidant activity”
Introduction
Page 1, line 44, revise: “last years got a lot of attention by the scientific community. for its peculiar qualitative characteristics”.
The introduction section requires some additional information to highlight the novelty and the necessity of the proposed research. In present form, it looks like similar research has already been conducted.
Figure 1. Preparation phases of sliced bread (WBE) enriched with OSWE – contains the photos of different kinds of bread. However, its is not possible to recognize them at the picture. Please, mark them.
Materials and methods
Page 4, line 164, revise: “After 8 minutes, 10 mL of Na2CO3, 164 7.5% (saturated sodium carbonate solution) () were added and”
Results and discussions
Page 5, line 205, revise: “In table 2 were reported the results related to the characterization of OSWE”.
Figures at the end of the text without the following summary of the research look a little bit confusing. The text looks unfinished. Please, revise.
Discussion contains only information that some similar studies were conducted. However, there is a lack of the comparison with the proposed research. Please, add some information about pros and cons of your results comparing to the available in literature data. Without this information, it is hard to evaluate the significance of the work.
Conclusions should be formulated more precise in order to highlight the main achievement of the proposed research.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Revise English to remove some typos throughout the text.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions that allow us to improve our work.
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhere is section 2.3.1 (lines 143 and 144)? I believe the authors forgot to divide section 2.3. in subitems.
Correct the text on line 165.
Correct the legend in Table 2, as it is a little confusing.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer to have read, commented and appreciated our work.
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was improved and can be published.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for evaluating and appreciating our work
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
