Technical and Economic Evaluation of Bioactive Compounds from Schinus terebinthifolius Using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Technical and Economic Evaluation of Bioactive Compounds 2 from Schinus terebinthifolius using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide” presents an innovator work in the field using different ways to look SFE.

However, some experimental work must be explained better as the comments:

In figure 1 the authors obtained a oil or a extract with the equipment?

Table 1. Bar B must be bar.

Table 2. VM and FC must define.

2.2. SFE Process – Laboratory scale… is not clear how many extractions have been done. Two?

The time of extraction? 1 , 2 or 6 h?

Line 229-230 …The yields are low. Have the authors compared with others results in literature.?

Why the authors don’t increase the pressure?

Line 230-233. The comment “…, it follows the usual trend in supercritical CO2 extraction processes: the higher the pressure, the higher theCO2 density and therefore the higher the solubility of the interesting compounds in the supercritical solvent…..” it seems some not clear, since the pressure are the same 90 bar? Advise please.

Table 3. Presents a significant difference in the compositions of the extracts. Are the authors reliable about that? Any explanations?

Table 4 also presents a difference in the results from the 2 extracts. More explanations please.

Line 300. What is the potentially of the Aspen plus to simulated SFE process? Any brief explanation!

Author Response

(REVIEWER 1)

• In figure 1 the authors obtained a oil or a extract with the equipment?

As highlight in the paper in blue. It was an extract, according to iso 9235:2021 according to the featured section

“3.28. Supercritical fluid extract

extract (3.13) obtained by treating a natural raw material (3.20) in a supercritical fluid followed by a separation by expansion

EXAMPLE: Coffee CO₂ extract, pink peppercorns CO₂ extract.

• Table 1. Bar B must be bar.

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

• Table 2. VM and FC must define.

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

• 2. SFE Process – Laboratory scale… is not clear how many extractions have been done. Two?

Eleven extractions have be done and two among than were chosen to verify microbial activity. As Highlight in the paper in blue and the text has been modified for better understanding.

• The time of extraction? 1 , 2 or 6 h?

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

• Line 229-230 …The yields are low. Have the authors compared with others results in literature?

For the species under study, literature was found and referenced in the text Piras et al 2017. And only work in conditions of 90 bar and 40°C. The author's income was approximately 2%. It is worth highlighting that it is the same species, but with different geographical indications, which strongly influences the results.

 

• Why the authors don’t increase the pressure?

Tests were carried out at higher pressures, but not included in this paper. The complete study covered pressures from 67 to 223 bar. But in this article the focus was on pressure of 90 bar.

• Line 230-233. The comment “…, it follows the usual trend in supercritical CO2 extraction processes: the higher the pressure, the higher theCO2 density and therefore the higher the solubility of the interesting compounds in the supercritical solvent…..” it seems some not clear, since the pressure are the same 90 bar? Advise please.

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made like that" At an operating pressure of 90 bar, the extraction yield was 0.152% at 40°C, while it increased to 0.999% at 60°C. Although the increase in temperature leads to a reduction in the density of CO2, there is an increase in the vapor pressure of the solutes, which can lead to greater extraction of them. As can be seen in the work of Rosa et al. [26] and Pereira & Meireles [27].

• Table 3. Presents a significant difference in the compositions of the extracts. Are the authors reliable about that? Any explanations?

As highlight in the paper in blue. This text was inserted “According to Murari et al. [27] the extraction of compounds at high temperatures can lead to the degradation of monoterpenes or induce a molecular rearrangement, originating other compounds of a sesquiterpenoid nature. Furthermore, it is known from the literature [28] that monoterpenes are more volatile than sesquiterpenes, which may have influenced the results obtained.”

 

• Table 4 also presents a difference in the results from the 2 extracts. More explanations please.

The effectiveness of sesquiterpenes and monoterpenes in bactericidal action may vary depending on the situations and the specific characteristics of the compounds in question. Both groups of compounds have antimicrobial properties, but bactericidal activity can be influenced by factors such as concentration, chemical composition, type of target bacteria and other experimental conditions. This study is pioneering, no literature data has yet been found under the same study conditions, another point in the articles referenced in the text shows the potential and does not delve into this bactericidal action. However, studies are being carried out to understand which compounds from these conditions are interesting and enhance this bactericidal action.

 

• Line 300. What is the potentially of the Aspen plus to simulated SFE process? Any brief explanation!

Aspen plus contains state equations like the one we use with the appropriate binary interaction parameters for the calculations performed. Furthermore, for future simulations, use can be made of group contribution methods to better define binary interactions between components.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Authors:

The manuscript entitled “Technical and Economic Evaluation of Bioactive Compounds 2 from Schinus terebinthifolius using Supercritical Carbon Dioxide” is very writte well however; I will provide my some major and minor comments for further improvement of the manuscript.

1.      Abstract: The keywords should be arranged in alphabetical order.

2.       Abstract: The word evaluated has been repeated in this section. Please remove this repetition.

3.       Introduction: Include a short paragraph about general medicinal importance of plants. You can read and cite updated literature; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030374; 10.2174/1568026621666210701124628

4.      Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is ecofriendly but costly?

5.      Line 75-83: Reference is needed.

6.      Figure 1,2: These figures are not clear to me please improve its resolution.

7.      Citation of Tables and figures: All tables and figures should be cited. Check double wether all tables and figures are cited in text.

8.      References: Arrange and check references according to journal format.

9.      Discussion: Improve this section by adding latest literature support /comparison with your obtained results where needed.

10.  Conclusion: This sections it too long. Please shorten them and revise.

11.  How this method is applied commercially in pharmaceutical industry?

12.  The manuscript should be arranged according to journal format.

13.  The manuscript should be revised carefully .There are some minor grammatical mistakes.

14.  The authors should check plagiarism of manuscript after these revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of english language is required.

Author Response

(REVIEWER 2)

 

1. Abstract: The keywords should be arranged in alphabetical

 

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

 

2. Abstract: The word evaluated has been repeated in this section. Please remove this

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

 

3. Introduction: Include a short paragraph about general medicinal importance of plants. You can read and cite updated literature; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030374; 2174/1568026621666210701124628

As highlight in the paper in blue. Include a short paragraph in the text.

 

4. Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) is ecofriendly but costly?

SFE is considered eco-friendly due to its use of non-toxic and recyclable solvents and its ability to reduce chemical usage and waste. However, its cost-effectiveness can vary based on factors such as equipment and operating costs, expertise, and the scale of the operation. Small-scale applications may find SFE to be relatively costly, while larger industrial operations may benefit from its efficiency and eco-friendly characteristics.

 

5. Line 75-83: Reference is

Checked

 

6. Figure 1,2: These figures are not clear to me please improve its resolution.

 

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

 

7. Citation of Tables and figures: All tables and figures should be Check double wether all tables and figures are cited in text.

Checked

 

8. References: Arrange and check references according to journal

 

Checked

 

9. Discussion: Improve this section by adding latest literature support /comparison with your obtained results where

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

 

10. Conclusion: This sections it too Please shorten them and revise.

 

As highlight in the paper in blue. Correction was made.

 

11. How this method is applied commercially in pharmaceutical industry?

The use of supercritical CO2 in the pharmaceutical industry is highly advantageous due to its exceptional capability to selectively and efficiently extract bioactive compounds while maintaining the integrity of the final product. Furthermore, its sustainable approach and strict adherence to environmental regulations are critical pillars for the modern pharmaceutical industry, which strives to produce safe and effective medications. A notable example is pink pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), which harbors valuable bioactive compounds with therapeutic properties. The utilization of supercritical CO2 enables the selective extraction of these compounds, ensuring their purity and excellence, making pink pepper a promising source of raw material in the pharmaceutical industry for the development of innovative medications and formulations.

 

12. The manuscript should be arranged according to journal format.

Checked

 

13. The manuscript should be revised carefully . There are some minor grammatical mistakes.

Checked

 

14. The authors should check plagiarism of manuscript after these revisions.

Checked and we use the plagiarism detector "https://plagiarismdetector.net/pt".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper and present better explanations and plausible.