Production and Characterization of Active Pectin Films with Olive or Guava Leaf Extract Used as Soluble Sachets for Chicken Stock Powder
, Asmaa Al-Asmar 2,3, Duaa Younis 1, Fuad Al-Rimawi 4, Michela Famiglietti 5 and Loredana Mariniello 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The investigation presents interesting information on the production and characterization of active pectin film by olive or guava leaf extract, used as soluble sachet for chicken powder.
The article shows information that is easy to understand with prominent results that could be applicable in the food industry. However, it would have been interesting to know if the extracts added any flavor. Could the authors mention why they did not consider carrying out a sensory analysis?
In addition, the following needs to be reviewed:
The whole manuscript needs to be proofread by a native speaker as there are some issues regarding the language.
Abstract:
Line 17: Change ‘… of pectin (PEC) edible films…’ to ‘ of two pectin (PEC) edible films…’
Line 23: Specify what concentrations were added to the extracts.
Line 26: Use connector to link the sentences.
Lines 26-27: Place the sentence ‘The obtained results suggest that OLE and GLE, as natural additives, can be used to improve the functionality of edible films and their activity’ after the section ‘When added to boiling water, the sachets completely dissolved within few seconds’.
Introduction
It is strongly recommended to review the English language.
Lines 35-36: Please restructure the information as it cannot be understood.
Line 89: Please reference using the correct format.
Materials and methods
Considering that both extracts have active compounds that can provide certain flavors, why not consider carrying out a sensory analysis?
Lines 108,111, 112: Mention the name of the country.
Line 110: Mention the particle size.
Lines 121-127: This information is unclear, and it seems that steps are repeated. Please rewrite this part paying attention to the order in which the information is presented, using the connectors correctly.
Line 132: Separate the figure from the units and correct this detail throughout the document where necessary.
Lines 133, 136: FFS, Is this in upper case or lower case? This information needs to be homogenised.
Line 136: casted? Please use more scientific language.
Line 144: Change ‘… The effect of OLE and GLE at different concentrations’ to ‘The effect of OLE and GLE at two different concentrations’
Lines 144-147: The Flow of information cannot be understood, please restructure it.
Lines 147-149: Change ‘The dry films that stored for at least 2 h inside the closed desiccator at about 52% RH were used for testing the mechanical properties’ to ‘The dry films were used for testing the mechanical properties’
Line 169: Please use connectors to link the information.
Lines 175-176: Specify whether this was carried out by the authors of the present investigation.
Line 191: Specify whether the range applies to both variables a and b.
Lines 199-203: This information looks incomplete. Prior to the comparison of means, what statistical analysis was carried out?
Results and Discussion
Lines 224-228: Consider listing the results for thickness first to match the order of variables presented in Figure 1.
Line 242: Should this be ‘dish’ or ‘fish’?
Table 1,2: For a better understanding, it is suggested that the letters be used as literals in the superscript.
Line 330: Put ‘WV’ in parenthesis.
Line 340: Change ‘ … results by [62], concluded that…’ to ‘results by [62], whose concluded that…’
The whole manuscript needs to be proofread by a native speaker as there are some issues regarding the language.
Author Response
Q: The article shows information that is easy to understand with prominent results that could be applicable in the food industry. However, it would have been interesting to know if the extracts added any flavor. Could the authors mention why they did not consider carrying out a sensory analysis?
A: thank you for the interesting questions, regarding the flavor based on our investigation this concentration does not show noticeable changes regarding the flavor. However, the sensory analysis for the end products is in our plan for the next study.
Q: Line 17: Change ‘… of pectin (PEC) edible films…’ to ‘ of two pectin (PEC) edible films…’
A: The sentence was changed according to your suggestion.
Q: Line 23: Specify what concentrations were added to the extracts.
A: Thank you, the concentration was added to line 23.
Q: Line 26: Use connector to link the sentences.
A: The sentence was modified according to your suggestion.
Q: Lines 26-27: Place the sentence ‘The obtained results suggest that OLE and GLE, as natural additives, can be used to improve the functionality of edible films and their activity’ after the section ‘When added to boiling water, the sachets completely dissolved within few seconds’.
A: Good suggestion. The sentences were changed.
Q: Lines 35-36: Please restructure the information as it cannot be understood.
A: The sentence was restructured to "Nowadays, bio-plastics, edible films, and coatings are becoming the most effective ways to reduce food packaging's adverse impact on the environment"
Q: Line 89: Please reference using the correct format.
A: the reference was changed to journal format.
Q: Considering that both extracts have active compounds that can provide certain flavors, why not consider carrying out a sensory analysis?
A: Thanks for the suggestion. The sensory analysis for the end products is in our plan for the following study.
Q: Lines 108,111, 112: Mention the name of the country
A: The country was added.
Q: Line 110: Mention the particle size.
A: The particle size was added line 115.
Q: Lines 121-127: This information is unclear, and it seems that steps are repeated. Please rewrite this part paying attention to the order in which the information is presented, using the connectors correctly.
A: Thank you for your comment, the extraction procedure has been rewrote according to your recommendations.
Q: Line 132: Separate the figure from the units and correct this detail throughout the document where necessary.
A: Thank you, the separation does in all manuscript.
Q: Lines 133, 136: FFS, Is this in upper case or lower case? This information needs to be homogenized.
A: It homogenize in all the manuscript as FFS.
Q: Line 136: casted? Please use more scientific language.
A: The casted was changed to "poured"
Q: Line 144: Change ‘… The effect of OLE and GLE at different concentrations’ to ‘The effect of OLE and GLE at two different concentrations’
A: The sentence was changed according to the suggestion. Thank you.
Q: Lines 144-147: The Flow of information cannot be understood, please restructure it.
A: The sentence was restructured.
Q: Lines 147-149: Change ‘The dry films that stored for at least 2 h inside the closed desiccator at about 52% RH were used for testing the mechanical properties’ to ‘The dry films were used for testing the mechanical properties’
A: The sentence was changed as your suggestion.
Q: Line 169: Please use connectors to link the information.
A: The connectors was added.
Q: Lines 175-176: Specify whether this was carried out by the authors of the present investigation.
A: The sentence was changed as "The moisture content of the film was determined according to Galus and Lenart [53] by….."
Q: Line 191: Specify whether the range applies to both variables a and b.
A: Thank you, yes both has ranged from -120 to 120 the sentence in the manuscript was changed to "… a* (redness/greenness), and b* (yellowness/blueness) the two chromatic components which range from -120 to 120"
Q: Lines 199-203: This information looks incomplete. Prior to the comparison of means, what statistical analysis was carried out?
A: Thank you, the missed words were added as line 203 "The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA)".
Q: Lines 224-228: Consider listing the results for thickness first to match the order of variables presented in Figure 1.
A: Thank toy for the suggestion, I moved the discussion related to film thickness before the discussion related to film opacity See lines 214-218.
Q: Line 242: Should this be ‘dish’ or ‘fish’?
A: It is fish, we correct it. Thank you.
Q: Table 1,2: For a better understanding, it is suggested that the letters be used as literals in the superscript.
A: Thank you so much, the letters in the table 1 and 2 were modified according to your suggestion.
Q: Line 330: Put ‘WV’ in parenthesis.
A: Parenthesis was added.
Q: Line 340: Change ‘ … results by [62], concluded that…’ to ‘results by [62], whose concluded that…’
A: The sentence was changed according to your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript aimed to produce and characterize an active pectin film by olive or guava leaf extract. The work provided some interesting results. However, this manuscript's quality cannot merit being published in Coatings as it was far from scientific papers.
1. The Materials and Methods part of this manuscript was puzzling.
(1) 2.1 Materials, why the treatment methods of two kinds of leaves were different? Why did you dry the leaves for as long as 30 days? Besides, the room temperature can not always be 25℃.
(2) 2.2 Preparation of olive and guava leaves extracts, what is the source of this method? The method was really confusing. Two sets of methods were mixed. I do not know how you carry out the experiment.
(3) The method of the application experiment was missing.
2. The presentation of significant differences in all Figures and Tables was confusing.
3. The Tables did not meet the technical requirements.
4. The author should explain the unordinary results. For example, why the addition of 0.1% GLE decreased the thickness of films, while the addition of 0.2% GLE increased the thickness (Figure 1B)?
5. The results of PEC and Visconfan in Table 2 should not be obtained from references, as all the measurements should be carried out in the same condition.
6. The results in 3.6 and Figure 5 did not meet the technical requirements. The authors should know that the research was not empirically cooking. Objective and meaningful results should be provided.
7. The purpose of this research lacks agreement between film preparation and film application. For example, the author prepared an antioxidant film, but the antioxidant activity was not considered in the application experiment.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Q: 2.1 Materials, why the treatment methods of two kinds of leaves were different? Why did you dry the leaves for as long as 30 days? Besides, the room temperature can not always be 25℃.
A: Thank you for your comments, the drying was at room temperature in order to keep as much as possible the active compounds. The temperature range was changed to 25-30°C.
Q: 2.2 Preparation of olive and guava leaves extracts, what is the source of this method? The method was really confusing. Two sets of methods were mixed. I do not know how you carry out the experiment.
A: The source of this method is according to Annegowda, H. V., et al. 2010: using ethanol and sonication for 2-3 hours as this method was found to be superior in extracting secondary metabolites from the plant leaves.
Q: (3) The method of the application experiment was missing.
A: Thank you so much, you are right this part was missing, we added it see section 2.5. Sachet Application Experiment.
Q: 2. The presentation of significant differences in all Figures and Tables was confusing.
A: The significant letter in the table changed to the capital letter the explanation for this letter was added to the figure legend.
Q: The Tables did not meet the technical requirements.
A: Thank you so much, It was checked as changed as the Journal technical requirements.
Q: 4. The author should explain the unordinary results. For example, why the addition of 0.1% GLE decreased the thickness of films, while the addition of 0.2% GLE increased the thickness (Figure 1B)?
A: Thank you so much for your comment the explanation is presented in line 220-221 regarding to the thickness results "This is explained by the ability of GLE to increase the intermolecular forces among pectin polymer chains [58]" This phenomenon in the presence of GLE was also detected in the reference 58.
Q: 5. The results of PEC and Visconfan in Table 2 should not be obtained from references, as all the measurements should be carried out in the same condition.
A: Thank you, this result is obtained by the same research group, and the present work was also carried out at the same experimental conditions. And it already published data.
Q: 6. The results in 3.6 and Figure 5 did not meet the technical requirements. The authors should know that the research was not empirically cooking. Objective and meaningful results should be provided.
A: Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments, the meaningful of Figure 5 it to show the way that the obtained sachets how can be used and also to collect primer important results about the solubilization of the obtained sachet. Moreover, the empirical cooking now we plan to carry out the next month.
Q: The purpose of this research lacks agreement between film preparation and film application. For example, the author prepared an antioxidant film, but the antioxidant activity was not considered in the application experiment.
A: Thank you for your comment, we appreciate your careful reading and thoughtful feedback. As you can see in section 3.2 we discuss that the antioxidant activity of the film is an essential consideration for its application in food packaging, as it could help to protect food from oxidation. The implication of the film on food products will be under consideration for the next work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The article deals with an innovative soluble fully biobased material for a specific food packaging application. Active films were developed using novel essential oils with bioactive properties. This is an interesting a relevant work in the field of food packaging. Even though a thorough work has been conducted the manuscript I should recommend revising the listed comments before publication:
1. Line 127, Section 2.2: the authors indicate that the oils extraction yield was assessed but these results cannot be found in the Results section. Please include them.
2. Section 2.3: which were the reasons for the extract concentrations selection: 0.1, and 0.2 w/v?
3. Line 155-156: “The ability of the films to scavenge DPPH free radicals was tested as described by [43].” Include the authors names: “by Famiglietti et al.”
4. Line 148: Could you explain why did you select specifically 52% RH to store the films?
5. Lines 213-125: “Notably, in the films containing 0.2% OLE, the opacity was significantly higher compared to the control film and the films containing only 0.1% OLE.” Considering this statement: from what reads in Figure 1 caption, if OLE 0.2 and 0.1 % present different opacity, 0.2% should have a c in Opacity graph (Fig. 1 C).
6. Line 224-228: “Film thickness was also determined, and the results (Figure 1, Panel B) indicated that modifying the pectin with OLE did not change the film thickness compared to the control. However, when 0.2% GLE was used, the film thickness significantly increased compared to the control and the films obtained with OLE as well. This explained by the ability of GLE to increase the intermolecular forces among pectin polymer chains [58].” From what reads in Figure 1.B 0.1% GLE show lower values than control and OLE films, with significant differences following the letter values used (a, b). How do the authors explain this result? Please clarify.
7. Line 244-245: “In some cases, plant extracts could reduce the intermolecular forces among polymer chains, which decreased film strength and increased flexibility [58].” In the lines indicated above (lines 224-228) the opposite behaviour is indicated. Which one do the authors consider it prevails in each case. Besides, the concentrations used in the cited work by Tongnuanchan et al. 2012 are much higher than the ones used by the authors in this work. Please revise.
8. Figure 2: I may be mistaken but form the graph, it looks as though GLE 0.1 and 0.2 differ in EB% as well.
9. Line 283-285: “However, the moisture uptake of the pectin films modified with GLE significantly increased compared to the control film prepared from pectin alone or pectin based film containing OLE.” Please check Fig. 4 Moisture uptake graph, because a significant difference letter is missing, considering that OLE and GLE also differ in these results. What are these results attributed to?
10. Section 3.6: The authors show a useful and promising application for the developed edible films. Regarding the product feasibility, a storage assay of the packed product and/or a sensory test for consumers acceptability of the stock with the edible film must be suggested, considering that the extracts used can have an intense flavour and aroma.
The article shows that a tremendous field work has been conducted, thus I hope you find this revision helpful to improve this original work of yours.
Sincerely
Dear authors,
There are some phrase constructions and structures that should be improved. Please consider checking English quality throughout the text.
Best regards,
Author Response
Q: Line 127, Section 2.2: the authors indicate that the oils extraction yield was assessed but these results cannot be found in the Results section. Please include them.
A: Thank you, the all section was restructured and rewritten.
Q: Section 2.3: which were the reasons for the extract concentrations selection: 0.1, and 0.2 w/v?
A: Great, this concentration was selected based on the primer screening study where we tried to find the best concentration and we find out that this concentration has potential advantages for the film their activity among other concentrations.
Q: Line 155-156: “The ability of the films to scavenge DPPH free radicals was tested as described by [43].” Include the authors names: “by Famiglietti et al.”
A: Thank you, the authors' names were added.
Q: Line 148: Could you explain why did you select specifically 52% RH to store the films?
A: Great, the RH range was rewritten as 50-55 % RH, the selection of this RH percentage as the storage RH for the films was based on a number of factors, including the stability of this RH level, the decreased risk of moisture absorption, and the compatibility with food packaging applications.
Q: Lines 213-125: “Notably, in the films containing 0.2% OLE, the opacity was significantly higher compared to the control film and the films containing only 0.1% OLE.” Considering this statement: from what reads in Figure 1 caption, if OLE 0.2 and 0.1 % present different opacity, 0.2% should have a c in Opacity graph (Fig. 1 C).
A: Thanks a lot for this comment, based on the statistical results, the opacity value between 0.1 OLE and 0.2% OLE is not significantly different, so the sentence was rewritten by deleting the ".. the films containing only 0.1% OLE" from the manuscript.
Q: Line 224-228: “Film thickness was also determined, and the results (Figure 1, Panel B) indicated that modifying the pectin with OLE did not change the film thickness compared to the control. However, when 0.2% GLE was used, the film thickness significantly increased compared to the control and the films obtained with OLE as well. This explained by the ability of GLE to increase the intermolecular forces among pectin polymer chains [58].” From what reads in Figure 1.B 0.1% GLE show lower values than control and OLE films, with significant differences following the letter values used (a, b). How do the authors explain this result? Please clarify.
A: Thank you, it is possible that the lower concentration of GLE was not enough to overcome the repulsive forces between the pectin polymer chains.
Q: Line 244-245: “In some cases, plant extracts could reduce the intermolecular forces among polymer chains, which decreased film strength and increased flexibility [58].” In the lines indicated above (lines 224-228) the opposite behaviour is indicated. Which one do the authors consider it prevails in each case. Besides, the concentrations used in the cited work by Tongnuanchan et al. 2012 are much higher than the ones used by the authors in this work. Please revise.
A: You are right, based on the revision the sentence was rewritten as "Plant oils reduced intermolecular forces between polymer chains, which decreased film strength and increased flexibility. [58]."
Q: Figure 2: I may be mistaken but form the graph, it looks as though GLE 0.1 and 0.2 differ in EB% as well.
A: Thank you for the comment, totally I agree with you but statistically, it does not have a significant difference.
Q: 9. Line 283-285: “However, the moisture uptake of the pectin films modified with GLE significantly increased compared to the control film prepared from pectin alone or pectin based film containing OLE.” Please check Fig. 4 Moisture uptake graph, because a significant difference letter is missing, considering that OLE and GLE also differ in these results. What are these results attributed to?
A: Thank you, the significant letter was added to the water uptake figure. Based on the statistical analysis shows only a significant increase of water uptake when the GLE was added to the film compared to the control film.
Q: Section 3.6: The authors show a useful and promising application for the developed edible films. Regarding the product feasibility, a storage assay of the packed product and/or a sensory test for consumers acceptability of the stock with the edible film must be suggested, considering that the extracts used can have an intense flavour and aroma.
A: Thanks a lot for your suggestion, regarding the sensory test we will take it into our consideration for the next work.
Reviewer 4 Report
L 57 please provide the reference
L 72 please provide the reference
L 109 please describe in detail drying process
L 112 what does it mean dry place – describe in detail
L 113 – describe milling and sleeving parameters
L 116 – which other chemicals were used..delete…or explain (I suppose that you meant the ones described in the subsection where preparation is described)
L 127 – under which conditions (e.g., temp)
L 152 – what does it means several times – please provide detailed and concise information (jhow many replicates)
L 363 – what does it mean that the results are promising – rephrase or delete
Conclusion – please CONCLUDE, do not describe study and repeat results!!
The English level is good, but moderate editing is required.
Author Response
Q: L 57 please provide the reference
A: The reference was added.
Q: L 72 please provide the reference
A: The reference was added.
Q: L 109 please describe in detail drying process
A: Thank you the drying temperature was added.
Q: L 112 what does it mean dry place – describe in detail
A: The detail was added
Q: L 113 – describe milling and sleeving parameters
A: The detail was added
Q: L 116 – which other chemicals were used..delete…or explain (I suppose that you meant the ones described in the subsection where preparation is described).
A: Thanks, the sentence was deleted.
Q: L 127 – under which conditions (e.g., temp)
A: The paragraph was rewritten and restructure as recommended.
Q: L 152 – what does it means several times – please provide detailed and concise information (jhow many replicates)
A: Thanks, the sentence was changed as recommended.
Q: L 363 – what does it mean that the results are promising – rephrase or delete
A: Thank you, the sentence was rewritten as recommended.
Q: Conclusion – please CONCLUDE, do not describe study and repeat results!!
A: Thank you, the conclusion was restructured. The repeated sentence was deleted.
Reviewer 5 Report
This article with title “Production and characterization of active pectin film by olive or guava leaf extract: Used as soluble sachet for chicken powder stock” is useful for food industrial but I would suggest the following:
1- Abstract must be enriched via valuable results which pave the way for understanding the audiences
2- In my view, the introduction is lengthy and fails to cover the fundamental points. Additionally, most of the initial explanations are basic and unnecessary. The introduction should include the following key points. It is important to refer to the application of these patches and provide examples of articles that have produced them and their uses. Furthermore, examples of articles where these patches have been used to preserve meat products should also be included.
3- Line 218 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values which are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with different materials at the same concentration. Whereas, the value indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
4- Although the results are well reviewed, it is essential to compare them with similar sources, which has not been done (line 205- 228).
5- Line 248 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values that are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, while the values indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
6- It would have been better if you had measured The antimicrobial properties and DPPH radical scavenging abilities of The DPPH radical scavenging abilities of OLE and GLE without pectin films because geographical conditions, species and many parameters can be different with similar articles [42, 48, 49, 59, 62] (line 257).
7- Line 273 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values significantly different from the control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material (OLE), whereas the values indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with different material at the same concentration.”
8- Why did OLE and GLE change the color of pectin films? Do they have a colored composition or does a reaction take place? Explain in detail citing the source
9- Line 361- It was necessary to examine the physicochemical and microbial characteristics of the chicken powder inside the sachet during one year then you claimed that these sashes increase the shelf life of the chicken powder.
This article with title “Production and characterization of active pectin film by olive or guava leaf extract: Used as soluble sachet for chicken powder stock” is useful for food industrial but I would suggest the following:
1- Abstract must be enriched via valuable results which pave the way for understanding the audiences
2- In my view, the introduction is lengthy and fails to cover the fundamental points. Additionally, most of the initial explanations are basic and unnecessary. The introduction should include the following key points. It is important to refer to the application of these patches and provide examples of articles that have produced them and their uses. Furthermore, examples of articles where these patches have been used to preserve meat products should also be included.
3- Line 218 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values which are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with different materials at the same concentration. Whereas, the value indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
4- Although the results are well reviewed, it is essential to compare them with similar sources, which has not been done (line 205- 228).
5- Line 248 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values that are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, while the values indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
6- It would have been better if you had measured The antimicrobial properties and DPPH radical scavenging abilities of The DPPH radical scavenging abilities of OLE and GLE without pectin films because geographical conditions, species and many parameters can be different with similar articles [42, 48, 49, 59, 62] (line 257).
7- Line 273 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values significantly different from the control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material (OLE), whereas the values indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with different material at the same concentration.”
8- Why did OLE and GLE change the color of pectin films? Do they have a colored composition or does a reaction take place? Explain in detail citing the source
9- Line 361- It was necessary to examine the physicochemical and microbial characteristics of the chicken powder inside the sachet during one year then you claimed that these sashes increase the shelf life of the chicken powder.
Author Response
Q: Abstract must be enriched via valuable results which pave the way for understanding the audiences.
A: Thanks a lot, the abstract was restructured and some part was added as your recommendation.
Q: my view, the introduction is lengthy and fails to cover the fundamental points. Additionally, most of the initial explanations are basic and unnecessary. The introduction should include the following key points. It is important to refer to the application of these patches and provide examples of articles that have produced them and their uses. Furthermore, examples of articles where these patches have been used to preserve meat products should also be included.
A: You are right, thank you, some lines were deleted new Lines 99-102 were added based on your recommendation.
Q: Line 218 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values which are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with different materials at the same concentration. Whereas, the value indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
A: Thank you for your suggestion, it will be very complicated for the reader to follow the letter if we delete it.
Q: Although the results are well reviewed, it is essential to compare them with similar sources, which has not been done (line 205- 228).
A: Thank you for the comment, the change was done according to your suggestion new line was added see lines 238-241.
Q: Line 248 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values that are significantly different from control are indicated by “a”, while the values indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material at different concentration.”
A: Thank you for your suggestion, it will be very complicated for the reader to follow the letter if we delete it.
Q: It would have been better if you had measured The antimicrobial properties and DPPH radical scavenging abilities of The DPPH radical scavenging abilities of OLE and GLE without pectin films because geographical conditions, species and many parameters can be different with similar articles [42,48, 49, 59, 62] (line 257).
A: Thank you for your suggestions the antioxidant activity of pure OLE and GLE was evaluated at two different concentrations and the results were added to the manuscript see line 279-283.
Q: Line 273 This information does not need to caption of figure; so, delete it “The values significantly different from the control are indicated by “a”, the value indicated by “b” is significantly different from film obtained with the same material (OLE), whereas the values indicated by “c” are significantly different from the films obtained with different material at the same concentration.”
A: Thank you for your suggestion, it will be very complicated for the reader to follow the letter if we delete it.
Q: Why did OLE and GLE change the color of pectin films? Do they have a colored composition or does a reaction take place? Explain in detail citing the source.
A: Thanks for your comment, yes it has a colored composition, lines 238-241.
Q: Line 361- It was necessary to examine the physicochemical and microbial characteristics of the chicken powder inside the sachet during one year then you claimed that these sashes increase the shelf life of the chicken powder.
A: Great suggestion, regarding this study where we obtained a soluble and edible sachet and fully characterized their properties, the next study that we are working on is to evaluate the end product quality as you recommended of course.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the manuscript according to the suggestions mentioned by the reviewers.
However, the following should be reviewed:
Lines 27-29: Although the information has been restructured, it cannot be understood easily. Please improve this sentence.
Line 137: Please check the English language as there are no connectors between sentences. Change ‘…with some modification, 10 g of leaf powder of each materials were mixed with 100 mL ethanol in a beaker.’ to ‘...with some modifications. Then, 10 g of leaf powder of each of the materials were mixed with 100 mL ethanol in a beaker.’
Line 163: use a connector between ‘properties’ and ‘films’.
Lines 185-186: use a connector between the word ‘opacity’ and ‘films’.
Lines 351: the word ‘obtained’ is repeated, please use a synonym.
Tables 1,2: In the first revision, it was recommended placing the literals (a,b,c) in superscript, not in capital letters, or if they remain in capital letters, that they be in superscript.
Additionally, the whole manuscript needs to be proofread by a native speaker as there are some issues regarding the language.
The whole manuscript needs to be proofread by a native speaker as there are some issues regarding the language.
Author Response
Q: Lines 27-29: Although the information has been restructured, it cannot be understood easily. Please improve this sentence.
A. Thank you the sentence was improved as follows "Furthermore, the developed sachets, have been tested in real-life scenarios, mirroring their intended usage in households. After being introduced to boiling water, these sachets rapidly dissolved within seconds".
Q: Line 137: Please check the English language as there are no connectors between sentences. Change ‘…with some modification, 10 g of leaf powder of each materials were mixed with 100 mL ethanol in a beaker.’ to ‘...with some modifications. Then, 10 g of leaf powder of each of the materials were mixed with 100 mL ethanol in a beaker.’
A: The paragraph was improved according to your suggestion.
Q: Line 163: use a connector between ‘properties’ and ‘films’.
A: The sentence was improved according to your suggestion
Q: Lines 185-186: use a connector between the word ‘opacity’ and ‘films’.
A: The sentence was improved according to your suggestion.
Q: Lines 351: the word ‘obtained’ is repeated, please use a synonym.
A: Thanks. Achieved was used instantly to obtain.
Regards,
Q: Tables 1,2: In the first revision, it was recommended placing the literals (a,b,c) in superscript, not in capital letters, or if they remain in capital letters, that they be in superscript.
A: We are sorry for missing that, the literals were changed as recommended.
Reviewer 2 Report
The detailed comments can be found in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
No comments.
Author Response
Q: 2.1 Materials, why the treatment methods of two kinds of leaves were different? Why did you dry the leaves for as long as 30 days? Besides, the room temperature can not always be 25℃.
A: Thank you for your comments, the drying was at room temperature in order to keep as much as possible the active compounds. The temperature range was changed to 25-30°C.
New Comments: The author did not answer the comment about why the treatment methods of the two kinds of leaves were different. Besides, Why the dry time was as long as 30 days? Are you sure the room temperature was 25-30°C? Have you measured it?
New answer: We are sorry for missing answering some parts of your comment, the drying method is the same the text was adjusted, and we used the traditional method that is generally used without oven drying. Regarding the room temperature, we are sure about it.
Q: 2.2 Preparation of olive and guava leaves extracts, what is the source of this method? The method was really confusing. Two sets of methods were mixed. I do not know how you carry out the experiment.
A: The source of this method is according to Annegowda, H. V., et al. 2010: using ethanol and sonication for 2-3 hours as this method was found to be superior in extracting secondary metabolites from the plant leaves.
New Comments: Are you sure you get the solid OLE and GLE by a rotary evaporator?
New answer: Thank you for your concern, the crude extract obtained by the rotary evaporator was subjected to drying in a freeze-dryer. This was added to the manuscript.
Q: The presentation of significant differences in all Figures and Tables was confusing.
A: The significant letter in the table changed to the capital letter the explanation for this letter was added to the figure legend.
New comments: The presentation of significant differences in all Figures and Tables was still confusing. I suggest the authors read some articles published recently.
New answer: The sentences were rewritten as your suggestion.
Q: The Tables did not meet the technical requirements.
A: Thank you so much, It was checked as changed as the Journal technical requirements.
New comments: The Tables still did not meet the technical requirements. I suggest the authors read some articles published recently.
New answer: the table was changed as Journal technical requirements.
Q: 4. The author should explain the unordinary results. For example, why the addition of 0.1% GLE decreased the thickness of films, while the addition of 0.2% GLE increased the thickness (Figure 1B)?
A: Thank you so much for your comment the explanation is presented in line 220-221 regarding to the thickness results "This is explained by the ability of GLE to increase the intermolecular forces among pectin polymer chains [58]" This phenomenon in the presence of GLE was also detected in the reference 58.
New comments: Firstly, the explanation is not presented in lines 220-221. Secondly, the authors still did not explain the different effects of 0.1% GLE and 0.2% GLE on the thickness.
New answer: we apologize for the incorrect line number. The correct line number is 253-257. The explanation was added also lines 257-265.
Q: 5. The results of PEC and Visconfan in Table 2 should not be obtained from references, as all the measurements should be carried out in the same condition.
A: Thank you, this result is obtained by the same research group, and the present work was also carried out at the same experimental conditions. And it already published data.
New comments: I still insist that the measurements of PEC and Visconfan should be carried out in the same condition, giving a more convincing conclusion.
New answer: Thank you for your concern we would like to confirm that the two films and our achieved films were measured by the same experimental conditions by one of our co-author of this manuscript
Q: 6. The results in 3.6 and Figure 5 did not meet the technical requirements. The authors should know that the research was not empirically cooking. Objective and meaningful results should be provided.
A: Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments, the meaningful of Figure 5 it to show the way that the obtained sachets how can be used and also to collect primer important results about the solubilization of the obtained sachet. Moreover, the empirical cooking now we plan to carry out the next month.
New comments: I still insist that Objective and meaningful results should be provided in this manuscript. The present result in Figure 5 provided meaningless information to readers, even the solubilization of the obtained sachet was unclear.
New answer: The objective of this finger is to show the way that can the sachet be prepared and used in a real scenario, the solubilization was very fast in a matter of seconds.
Q: The purpose of this research lacks agreement between film preparation and film application. For example, the author prepared an antioxidant film, but the antioxidant activity was not considered in the application experiment.
A: Thank you for your comment, we appreciate your careful reading and thoughtful feedback. As you can see in section 3.2 we discuss that the antioxidant activity of the film is an essential consideration for its application in food packaging, as it could help to protect food from oxidation. The implication of the film on food products will be under consideration for the next work.
New comments: Maybe the authors did not understand my comments. In this manuscript, the authors prepared an antioxidant film. Logically, the author should use this film for packaging easily oxidized foods in the application experiments. Besides, the antioxidant effect should be measured to evaluate the application potential of the film.
New answer: We are in complete agreement with your perspective. Firstly, it is important to note that the chicken powder contains vegetable oil, which has the potential to undergo oxidation if conventional packaging methods are employed. This poses a significant concern in terms of product quality and stability. However, with the utilization of our acquired sachets, we have successfully overcome this issue entirely. These sachets not only serve the purpose of replacing commercial packaging, which is typically made from non-eco-friendly petroleum-based materials, but they also eliminate the risk of oxidation due to their unique properties. By opting for our obtained sachets, we have achieved a sustainable and environmentally friendly solution that guarantees the preservation of product integrity and addresses the concerns associated with conventional packaging methods.
Kind Regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The further comments on the revised version are listed under your answer to my previous comments. However, there are some concerns on some of the topics raised. Please see the comments that follow in red:
Q: Line 127, Section 2.2: the authors indicate that the oils extraction yield was assessed but these results cannot be found in the Results section. Please include them.
A: Thank you, the all section was restructured and rewritten.
As it reads from the new section the extraction process was modified and the yield of the extraction is still not reported. I must recommend the inclusion of the extraction yield as it is an important factor for possible scale-up of the process.
Q: Section 2.3: which were the reasons for the extract concentrations selection: 0.1, and 0.2 w/v?
A: Great, this concentration was selected based on the primer screening study where we tried to find the best concentration and we find out that this concentration has potential advantages for the film their activity among other concentrations.
I am sorry but this is not clear, which were the variables tested in this screening test? What range of concentration were tested? Are there previous publications on this subject? Are limited regarded to food safety or materials properties? This information must be included in the text.
Q: Line 148: Could you explain why did you select specifically 52% RH to store the films?
A: Great, the RH range was rewritten as 50-55 % RH, the selection of this RH percentage as the storage RH for the films was based on a number of factors, including the stability of this RH level, the decreased risk of moisture absorption, and the compatibility with food packaging applications.
Thank you. Storage conditions of the package food is important when assessing food packaging materials.
Q: Section 3.6: The authors show a useful and promising application for the developed edible films. Regarding the product feasibility, a storage assay of the packed product and/or a sensory test for consumers acceptability of the stock with the edible film must be suggested, considering that the extracts used can have an intense flavour and aroma.
A: Thanks a lot for your suggestion, regarding the sensory test we will take it into our consideration for the next work.
I must insist on the importance of adding either a storage test or a sensorial to assess acceptability of the product.
The article has a proper materials characterisation and shows an innovative application, adding further results on the latter would increase the works novelty. I hope you find this revision helpful to improve this original work of yours.
Sincerely
I would recommend that English language is further revised.
Author Response
Q: Line 127, Section 2.2: the authors indicate that the oils extraction yield was assessed but these results cannot be found in the Results section. Please include them.
A: Thank you, the all section was restructured and rewritten.
As it reads from the new section the extraction process was modified and the yield of the extraction is still not reported. I must recommend the inclusion of the extraction yield as it is an important factor for possible scale-up of the process.
New answer: the extraction yield was added.
Q: Section 2.3: which were the reasons for the extract concentrations selection: 0.1, and 0.2 w/v?
A: Great, this concentration was selected based on the primer screening study where we tried to find the best concentration and we find out that this concentration has potential advantages for the film their activity among other concentrations.
I am sorry but this is not clear, which were the variables tested in this screening test? What range of concentration were tested? Are there previous publications on this subject? Are limited regarded to food safety or materials properties? This information must be included in the text.
New answer: Thank you, more information about the selection of 0.1 and 0.2% w/v was added to the manuscript in the section 2.3. Yes there are previous publication related to use of OLE and GLE, Ref number 43, 60 and 66.
Q: Line 148: Could you explain why did you select specifically 52% RH to store the films?
A: Great, the RH range was rewritten as 50-55 % RH, the selection of this RH percentage as the storage RH for the films was based on a number of factors, including the stability of this RH level, the decreased risk of moisture absorption, and the compatibility with food packaging applications.
Thank you. Storage conditions of the package food is important when assessing food packaging materials.
New answer: Yes totally we agree with you.
Q: Section 3.6: The authors show a useful and promising application for the developed edible films. Regarding the product feasibility, a storage assay of the packed product and/or a sensory test for consumers acceptability of the stock with the edible film must be suggested, considering that the extracts used can have an intense flavour and aroma.
A: Thanks a lot for your suggestion, regarding the sensory test we will take it into our consideration for the next work.
I must insist on the importance of adding either a storage test or a sensorial to assess the acceptability of the product.
New answer: Thank you for emphasizing the significance of conducting a storage test or a sensory evaluation to assess the acceptability of the product with the edible film. We acknowledge the importance of these tests in evaluating the feasibility and consumer perception of the developed edible films. We assure you that in our next research endeavor, we will incorporate these requested assessments as part of our methodology to provide a comprehensive analysis of the product's performance and consumer acceptability. We understand the value of these tests in addressing potential challenges such as intense flavors and aromas that may arise from the extracts used. By including these tests in our future work, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and reliable evaluation of the product's quality, shelf life, and overall consumer satisfaction.
Kind Regards,
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The solubilization of the obtained sachet was unclear in Figure 5. I suggest the authors provide other photos, which can clearly show the solubilization of the sachet.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you so much, the photo and figure were updated as recommended.
Kind Regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank your for your answer to my previous comments. It is clear there has been previous work on the use of olive and guave extracts in active films on other biopolymers, yet the concentrations are not the same as the ones used in this work. However, in the text (lines 155-160 of the last manuscript version) you clearly explain that a prior concentration selection process has been conducted: "The concentrations of both OLE and GLE were chosen in accordance with the preliminary investigation, wherein varying concentrations of 0%, 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.4% (w/v) were employed. The obtained film samples were subsequently analyzed for their mechanical properties and color characteristics. After careful evaluation, the concentrations of 0.1% and 0.2% (weight/volume) were deemed suitable and thus selected for further experimentation." It would be important for further research in the field, to specifically indicate how mechanical and color characteristics of the higher and lower concentrations than the chosen ones were modified. Or include these data in a Supplementary section.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for the critical comments and suggestions, we inserted the results into the text.
Kind Regards,
