Physicochemical Properties of Betacyclodextrin-Assisted Extracts of Green Rooibos (Aspalathus linearis)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors:
Correct the word isotherm throughout the text.
Improve the resolution of figures 3.1. and 3.2.
Author Response
Comments 1: Correct the word isotherm throughout the text.
Response 1: The word isotherm appears 14 times throughout the manuscript . Correct spelling of the word was used throughout in lines:
13, 80 , 103, 108, 205, 219, 221, 227, 238, 278, 366 and 368
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work the authors characterised the physicochemical properties of β-CD-assisted extracts of green rooibos.
The work is interesting, the structure of the article is appropriate, but the authors need to address the following comments and incorporate the changes into the manuscript before it can be considered for publication.
- the summary is very difficult to read as there are many abbreviated terms. If possible, I suggest simplifying the summary
- line 70,72,218,273 and so on through the text - the reference is not written according to the rules of the journal
Section - 2.2 Solid-liquid extraction of green rooibos
- there are a lot of typos in the paper, and the paper should be read in detail (e.g. line 102 is missing °C, line 104 is missing aw - write w in subscript, and so on throughout the text
- can you explain in more detail what a "warring blender" is?
- it is not stated how much green rooibos was used. I believe that the process of solid-liquid extraction of green rooibos should be explained in more detail
Section 2.3 Moisture content (MC), water activity (aw) and sorption isotherms
- line 132,145,147,150, the equation is written twice
- all written equations must be clarified so that the experiment can be reproduced. All unknowns marked with different letters in the text must be explained in more detail
- correct the numbering of tables and figures throughout the text. For example, do not write Table 3.1. but Table 1. as this is the first table in the text
Section 3.3 Color (L*a*b*) of green rooibos extracts
- as different colors are mentioned, it would be good to include the original pictures in the additional information.
Section - 3.5 Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).
- considering the fact that you state that the thermal stability is higher than other authors dealing with the encapsulation of green rooibos, it would be good if these results were presented in a table, thus highlighting the contribution of your work
Section 3.6 Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR)
- there are many typos in the spelling of cm-1 , please correct this above (-1 is superscripted)
- in Figure 3.2. correct the scale for the wavenumber
Author Response
Comments 1: The summary is very difficult to read as there are many abbreviated terms. If possible, I suggest simplifying the summary.
Response 1: By summary we assume you referring to the "Abstract". We have worked through the abstract and managed to remove at least one abbreviation (SI- sorption isotherm), reason being, the journal guidelines require we stay within the 200 word count limit, and to ensure this without omitting crucial information, we abbreviated the main terms.
Comments 2: line 70,72,218,273 and so on through the text - the reference is not written according to the rules of the journal
Response 2: all references have been formatted according to style journal, see line 70, 72, 74, 216, 247, 259, 272, 296, 305, 309, 319, 324, and 349.
Section - 2.2 Solid-liquid extraction of green rooibos
Comment 2.2.1: there are a lot of typos in the paper, and the paper should be read in detail (e.g. line 102 is missing °C, line 104 is missing aw - write w in subscript, and so on throughout the text
Response 2.2.1: The Celsius symbol was inserted, the water activity abbreviation appears 42 times in the manuscript, and all the w have been subscripted.
Comment 2.2.2: Can you explain in more detail what a "warring blender" is?
Response 2.2.2: This was a typing error, the correct spelling of the word is "Waring" is a name brand like "Kenwood". This typing error was rectified.
Comment 2.2.3: It is not stated how much green rooibos was used. I believe that the process of solid-liquid extraction of green rooibos should be explained in more detail
Response 2.2.3: In line 96 we had stated the 1:10 w/v ratio, but considering your comment, we added the actual weight which is 10 g rooibos and 100 ml solvent. The solid liquid extraction process is detailed as stated in the manuscript, we did not omit any crucial step or information.
Section 2.3 Moisture content (MC), water activity (aw) and sorption isotherms
Comment 2.3.1: line 132,145,147,150, the equation is written twice
Response 2.3.1: Doubled equations were removed
Comment 2.3.2: all written equations must be clarified so that the experiment can be reproduced. All unknowns marked with different letters in the text must be explained in more detail.
Response 2.3.2 We have clarified each equation as stated in line 131-133, The GAB model is described mathematically by the following equation (Eq. 1). Line138-140 the GAB equation (Eq. 1) was transformed into the quadratic form (Eq. 2). Line 143 - 149 the least-squares multiple linear regression method was applied to obtain the following regression coefficient Eq. 3 (A), Eq. 4 (B) and Eq. 5 (C). Line 150 -153 The monolayer values were obtained from these coefficients according to.
Comment 2.3.3: correct the numbering of tables and figures throughout the text. For example, do not write Table 3.1. but Table 1. as this is the first table in the text
Response 2.3.3: All tables and figures have being numbered starting at Table1/Figure 1.
Section 3.3 Color (L*a*b*) of green rooibos extracts
Comment 3.31 as different colors are mentioned, it would be good to include the original pictures in the additional information.
Response 3.31 We unfortunately do not have pictures other than the added figure, which does not necessarily depict different colours but shows the effect of water activity on green rooibos
Section - 3.5 Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).
Comment 3.5.1: Considering the fact that you state that the thermal stability is higher than other authors dealing with the encapsulation of green rooibos, it would be good if these results were presented in a table, thus highlighting the contribution of your work
Response 3.5.1
Section 3.6 Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR)
Comment 3.6.1: there are many typos in the spelling of cm-1 , please correct this above (-1 is superscripted).
Response 3.6.1 all 15 typos of superscripted cm-1 have been corrected in lines 23, 184-185, 333-349
Comment 3.6.2 in Figure 3.2. correct the scale for the wavenumber
Response 3.6.2 scale corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigated an important issue in practical terms – changes in the physicochemical properties of betacyclodextrin-assisted extracts of Aspalathus linearis. The article contains a set of experiments showing the limits of stability of biologically active substances in the extract of this plant.
Specific shortcomings of the manuscript
1. The abstract should include the relevance of the study and remove most of the abbreviations. All the authors' judgments in the text of the abstract are reliable, therefore all references to "(p < 0.05)" should be removed.
2. The keywords "Green rooibos" and "Betacyclodextrin" should be removed, since they are already contained in the title of the article. Five new keywords should be added.
3. The introduction is very detailed, however, it will be useful for readers to see in one figure the formulas of all (or most of them) biologically active substances contained in extracts of green rooibos (with reference to the relevant literary sources).
4. Lines 84-88 and others: % impurities must be indicated for all reagents.
5. References are not formatted according to the rules (e.g. line 200, 202, 210, 230, 301, 321).
6. Table numbering does not comply with the rules.
7. In tables 3.1, 3.2 there are only two cells in each column. In this case, the reliability of differences is better represented by *, ** or *** for 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.
8. In table 3.2, rounding of numbers is careless. For each characteristic, the mean and standard deviation must be rounded to the same digit capacity.
9. Why is there no correct comparison of samples in figure 3.2? Are the vertical lines on the columns the standard deviation? This should be indicated in the figure title.
10. Figure 3.1 is placed after Figure 3.2.
11. All fonts in all figures should be approximately equal in size to the height of the letters in the text of the article.
12. Line 357: the figure number is indicated incorrectly. The title of the abscissa and ordinate axis should be formulated correctly: "Title of the axis with a capital letter comma unit of measurement."
13. The formatting of the references does not correspond to the journal standard. The authors of the manuscript do not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters in the article titles. The authors did not indicate DOI indexes. The initials of the authors of the articles are randomly arranged.
Author Response
Specific shortcomings of the manuscript
Comment 1:The abstract should include the relevance of the study and remove most of the abbreviations. All the authors' judgments in the text of the abstract are reliable, therefore all references to "(p < 0.05)" should be removed.
Response 1: all "P < 0.05" were removed and at least five abbreviations were removed.
Comment 2: The keywords "Green rooibos" and "Betacyclodextrin" should be removed, since they are already contained in the title of the article. Five new keywords should be added.
Response 2: See newly added keywords in line 26
Comment 3: The introduction is very detailed, however, it will be useful for readers to see in one figure the formulas of all (or most of them) biologically active substances contained in extracts of green rooibos (with reference to the relevant literary sources).
Response 3: Still waiting on permission to add pictures from author, this will be included.
Comment 4: Lines 84-88 and others: % impurities must be indicated for all reagents.
Response 4: This would be a difficult task to do since the study was conducted two years ago. May we please not include this information, sincce most papers hardly report on this.
Comment 5: References are not formatted according to the rules (e.g. line 200, 202, 210, 230, 301, 321).
Response 5: All reference formatting has been rectified.
Comment 6: Table numbering does not comply with the rules.
Response 6: Table and figure numbering has been changed to start as Table1/Figure 1 and corresponds with the contents of the manuscript.
Comment 7: In tables 3.1, 3.2 there are only two cells in each column. In this case, the reliability of differences is better represented by *, ** or *** for 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.
Response 7: Comment 7 is more of a suggestion than correction. I left the differences as they are, unless if this is imperative.
Comment 8: In table 3.2, rounding of numbers is careless. For each characteristic, the mean and standard deviation must be rounded to the same digit capacity.
Response 8: The rounding off was done since the table was too wide and meant that mean and SD would be split. We have rectified this and kept the SD similar to means decimals.
Comment 9:Why is there no correct comparison of samples in figure 3.2? Are the vertical lines on the columns the standard deviation? This should be indicated in the figure title.
Response 9: rectified.
Comment 10: Figure 3.1 is placed after Figure 3.2.
Response 10: Rectified
Comment 11: All fonts in all figures should be approximately equal in size to the height of the letters in the text of the article.
Response 11: Rectified
Comment 12: Line 357: the figure number is indicated incorrectly. The title of the abscissa and ordinate axis should be formulated correctly: "Title of the axis with a capital letter comma unit of measurement."
Response 12: rectified
Comment 13: The formatting of the references does not correspond to the journal standard. The authors of the manuscript do not distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters in the article titles. The authors did not indicate DOI indexes. The initials of the authors of the articles are randomly arranged.
