Formulation, Physico-Chemical Characterization, and Evaluation of the In Vitro Release Capacity of the Ruta graveolens L. Phytocomplex from Biodegradable Chitosan and Alginate Microspheres

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for submitting the manuscript for review. The proposed manuscript "Formulation, Physico-Chemical Characterization and 2
Evaluation of the in vitro Release Capacity of the Ruta 3 graveolens L. Phytocomplex from Biodegradable Chitosan and 4 Alginate Microspheres" provides a well written and interesting interpretation on the preparation and characterisation of novel microspheres containing bioactives from Ruta gravelons L.

Eq 1. Consider using (×) as the multiplier rather than  (.)

Section 2.3.5. In the HPLC Method does the gradient have an equilibration period or return to the starting condition (5% Methanol) prior to the next injection otherwise there may be a drift in rt of eluted peaks.

The term CARG-Ms is introduced on line 242 without earlier reference. A brief introduction of the term would be beneficial to the reader.

Additional spacing should be employed immediately after the tables in Section 3 particularly in instances where no legend was required

Line 607 - was should be replaced with were when referring to microspheres

Line 611 - I would add a small sentence explaing why this would be advantageous to the patient.

 

Only minor editing and corrections are suggested to the authors and they are highlighted in my comments to the authors above.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions.
The answers are attached.
It was necessary to fill in the additional material.
Therefore, you find submitted both the manuscript and the additional material.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript utilizes two similar methods to encapsulate the Ruta graveolens L using chitosan and alginate. Before publication, there are some logic problems and writing errors that need to be corrected. Some of the suggestions were adopted for the author to modify the manuscript.

 

-Lines 84-85, “studies” should be specified.

-Line 231, the drying process needs to be described, as different drying methods have a significant impact on the properties of the microspheres.

-Lines 233 and 239, “Table 1” should be corrected to “Table 2”.

- The authors mixed CaCl₂ in the chitosan solution, whereas the reaction of alginate and Ca²⁺ ions would be stronger than chitosan, and the effect of chitosan concentration on the entrapping efficiency of CARG-Ms microspheres was very small, the authors should have added a control group that did not contain chitosan to illustrate the necessity of chitosan.

-Lines 413-414, “in other words this pH is the most favorable for the disintegration of microspheres in vitro” needs more evidence.

-Lines 550-562, the authors describe the results of a large number of other experiments, but do not state the purpose. Maybe they can be deleted.

-Lines 609-610, if a simulated gastric fluid environment release test is carried out, the conclusion of “internal degradation of the gastrointestinal tract” will be better illustrated.

Extensive editing of English language required. Language should be improved. The manuscript should be examined by a native English speaker or a professional editorial service before publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions.
The answers are attached.
It was necessary to fill in the additional material.
Therefore, you find submitted both the manuscript and the additional material.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1.The introduction should be very clear, and provides relevant background, presents the research problem (how and why this problem will be solved), describes the problem that this study tries to solve and the aim and main points achieved in the contribution.

2.For the results and discussion side, all sections have to be significantly improved, explain the reasons for these results and compared to the related results in literature.

Language should be improved.

Author Response

Esteemed reviewer,

 

Thank you for your comments. The authors acknowledge the useful observations and suggestions of the reviewer’s as concerns the manuscript entitled - Formulation, Physico-Chemical Characterization and Evaluation of the in vitro Release Capacity of the Ruta graveolens L. Phytocomplex from Biodegradable Chitosan and Alginate Microspheres.

1.The introduction should be very clear, and provides relevant background, presents the research problem (how and why this problem will be solved), describes the problem that this study tries to solve and the aim and main points achieved in the contribution. Thank you for the suggestion, I tried to modify the introduction according to the given suggestions.

2.For the results and discussion side, all sections have to be significantly improved, explain the reasons for these results and compared to the related results in literature. Thank you for the suggestion, I tried to modify the results and discussion section, according to the given suggestions.