Application of Plant Waxes in Edible Coatings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work aims to present the application of plant waxes in edible coatings. However, the manuscript was not written logically and clearly, and there are too much of unnecessary other relations which makes it not easy to find the valuable comments on the main topics (plant waxes in edible coatings). Furthermore, the manuscript was not organized according to the structure of a review. In my opinion, the manuscript should focus on the different origins of plant waxes and their application in edible coatings, including their merits and demerits. A summarized table may be helpful for present the research progress clearly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review article entitled "Application of Plant Waxes in Edible Coatings" deals with edible coatings based on lipids and their application in 6 food technology. I will say right away that I took the article for review with great enthusiasm because the subject matter is very interesting, up-to-date, and developed. Unfortunately, I did not find anything interesting in this work. How can you go about writing such a review without studying modern literature? There is no literature item after 2010!!! Of course, not counting the first position of self-citation and EU and US legal regulations. The structure also does not follow the principles of review articles. materials and methods? And such text "The subject of consideration are edible lipid-based coatings applied in food technology, presenting the possibility of using plant waxes in the composition of coatings. To achieve the research objective, scientific publications and the regulations were studied and subjected to systematic analysis.” This is the purpose of the work, not materials and methods, and I think it has already been given. In the chapter “3.2. Edible coatings based on lipids applied in food technology” suddenly appears a classification of biodegradable polymers. To the sentence “The application of nanocomposites promises to expand the use of edible and biodegradable coatings [23].” We quote a paper from 2005, nothing new interesting has appeared in the world of science? The following sentences "This will allow the reduction of waste from packaging intended for processed foods and help preserve the freshness of foods and extend their shelf life [24]". Really, after 1999, nothing new appeared on this topic? I do not want to write long, in my opinion the work does not meet the requirements for review papers. Secondly, the literature is very poor and old, especially in the field of such issues as nanomaterials, nanocomposites, nano- and microcapsules .
Unfortunately, nothing encourages me to evaluate this review paper positively.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
Line 22 - perhaps mention what kind of foodstuffs those are, that are coated.
line 49 - remove "added"
The introduction is very general and focuses a lot on regulations, more specifics are needed - from this introduction it is hard to understand which are the foods and coatings that could cause possible risks to human health. The purpose of the study states that we nee plant based waxes, lipid based coatings, but in the introduction some are already mentioned - have to be clearer on this.
Also, the aim to separate waxes from the cuticle of fresh fruits and vegetables is a bit backwards I think - we are taking natural protection from fresh fruits and vegetables and then adding them to other products? so what do we do with the leftover fruits and vegetables then? It would be more reasonable to suggest food wastes that contain these waxes and then separate the wax from this type of biomas (peel, skins, press residues etc.) for this purpose, otherwise such approach is rather wasteful.
the paragraph starting line 116 - You are getting a bit off topic here - this chapter is about waxes - as inert substances they do not have colour, taste or flavour.
section 3.2. focuses a lot on polymers, but the topic here is the lipids. Split this section in to two and add to the beginning of Results section , this will serve as introduction to the topic to highlight the current trends
in this sectiion you also talk a lot about wax, specificaly beeswax, which is technically a mixture of lipids, but it for sure is not plant derived. You should make an outline of the sections you are trying to do here and re-do them - the lipids section is quite all-over-the-place with polymers, waxes of different origins, and only slightly touches lipids as such.
There isnt really any mentions of the chemical compounds in the plant waxes, which would signifficantly contribute to this review - perhaps by exploring this you would find that a lot of plants and types of fodd wastes could be used for production of such coatings, for example from berry press residues etc.
Overall this is a good idea for a review article, the topic is interesting and should be summarized in a review, but at the current state this review is missing a lot and it is concentrating on things that are not specifically neccessary here, the structure must be improved and more in-depth literature analysis should be done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled "Application of Plant Waxes in Edible Coatings" seems interesting. The author described the processes involved in extracting plant waxes and their applications as edible coatings. However, the author needs to address the following queries:
1. To make the review article attractive and comprehensive author must include a few tables and figures.
2. The author needs to think more deeply and reproduce the parts of the article that are worth studying before discussing. The authors must review the research content while providing scientific insights.
3. Future perspectives and challenges need to be mentioned in this manuscript.
4. The references are dated and this review hardly included any recent study. The authors must review recent research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the authors have made efforts to revise the manuscript, it is still difficult to find valuable comments on the main topics. The revised manuscript is still not well organized.
Author Response
The revised manuscript is with an improved structure and new references are added connected with the carried-out research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The review article “Application of Plant Waxes in Edible Coatings” has been fundamentally changed, my goal is higher value.
1. In my opinion, it still needs to be improved in formal and editorial terms:
2. In the case of one author, it is probably not necessary to provide numbers and asterisks next to the name indicating affiliation and who the corresponding author is.
3. In review articles, we do not usually provide chapters "Materials and methods, results, ..." - this is characteristic of research articles. It's enough, intro, further applications, ..... summary.
4. In tables 3 and 4, the first column (No) is redundant. Similarly, the wording in the footer "Source: Own research" is not fully understood. There are citations next to each line, so what does this annotation refer to?
5. I would suggest combining the summary:
The first time we have:
a. Based on what has been found, the following conclusions can be summarized: (line 595)
b. Then Chapter 4 “Conclusions”.
6. Please sort the references.
In my opinion, the paper in its current form is suitable for publication after the above-mentioned minor changes.
Author Response
- The structure of the paper is improved.
- The reviewer's suggestion was accepted – the numbers and asterisks next to the name indicating affiliation and who the corresponding author is.
- The chapter "Materials and methods, results, ..." was turn off the text of the paper.
- In tables 3 and 4, the first column deleted and the footer "Source were deleted.
- The summary and conclusion are combined. The summary of the paper is improved.
- References are sorted.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for improving the review. The imporvements really make a difference. By reading through I can see that the added parts must be proof-read by a native speaker, there are a lot of inconsistencies and mistakes in the use of English - please revise English!
In table 3 remove the "Accoding to" part of the reference, just the reference is fine. Same in table 4.
The reference list should be revised - there are inconsistencies in the formatting of the references. for example - the journal names are abbreviated some places and some not.
There is also a lot of research on berry wax with potential for use in coatings as you suggest, especially considering these waxes come from berry press residues (a production waste).
The reference list also looks a bit messy, but it is probably because of all the corrections made there? but take a careful look so it is fine at the end!
Overall good improvements, but they need to be implemented and proof-read!
Author Response
- The English language is revised.
- In table 3 and table 4 is removed the "Accoding to" as a part of the reference.
- The references are revised according to the suggestions of the reviewer.
- The proposal of the review connected with the berry waxes is accepted and added in the paper.
- The reference are checked and corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors made corrections in response to the reviewers' comments. However, the following previous comments are not appropriately addressed.
1. To make the review article attractive and comprehensive author must include a few tables and figures. Please address this comment. Figures and tables improve the readability and interest of potential readers.
2. The author needs to think more profoundly and reproduce the parts of the article that are worth studying before discussing. The authors must review the research content while providing scientific insights.
3. Future perspectives and challenges need to be mentioned in this manuscript.
Author Response
- Tables and figures are prepared and added in the content of the paper.
- Future perspectives and challenges are added in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. This manuscript is improved significantly and can now be published.
Author Response
The comments provided by the reviewer are completed, the spell check of the text is made by colleagues from the language department from our university.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
