Nanoemulsions Containing Passiflora quadrangularis L. Fruit Extracts for Cosmetic Application and Skin Efficacy Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work verified the anti-aging properties of P. quadrangularis extracts and prepared stable and effective nanoemulsions containing P. quadrangularis extracts with a good aesthetic appearance. Overall, this work promotes the cosmetic applications of P. quadrangularis fruit extracts. However, there are still some problems about the manuscript. I suggested it should be published after minor revision as the case standards. Concerns about this manuscript are:

1. The limitations of the cosmetic application of P. quadrangularis extracts should be stated to emphasize the innovation of this work.

2. The statements in introduction need precise citation of references.

3. In the section 2.2. Preparation of P. quadrangularis fruit extracts, whether the P. quadrangularis fruits after drying need to be crushed?

4. In vitro nanoemulsions containing extracts penetration study should be added using Franz diffusion cells.

5. Line 407, “His study” should be corrected to “This study”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

          We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions from all reviewers. We have carefully read and responded to all comments, point by point. The specific alterations in the manuscript in response to the reviewer's comments are shown in yellow highlights for the comments of reviewer 1. In addition, other changes are shown in red letters.

            We hope all of the changes have addressed the reviewers’ concerns, so with these additions, we hope our work will be accepted for publication in Cosmetics.

Best regards,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Kanokwan Kiattisin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Nanoemulsions Containing Passiflora quadrangularis L. Fruit 2 Extracts for Cosmetic Application and Skin Efficacy Study” by Yanasan et al. is interesting and well-organized, and I think it should be published after minor corrections:

1) Different fonts used in tables and figures legends. Please unify.

2) Unify the size of Figures, for example, Figures 5 are much larger as others.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

          We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions from all reviewers. We have carefully read and responded to all comments, point by point. The specific alterations in the manuscript in response to the reviewer's comments are shown in green highlights for the comments of reviewer 2. In addition, other changes are shown in red letters.

            We hope all of the changes have addressed the reviewers’ concerns, so with these additions, we hope our work will be accepted for publication in Cosmetics.

Best regards,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Kanokwan Kiattisin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to prepare a review of the scientific article entitled: "Nanoemulsions Containing Passiflora quadrangularis L. Fruit Extracts for Cosmetic Application and Skin Efficacy Study". The text is completely in line with the aims of the journal: Cosmetics MDPI. However, the manuscript itself needs several revisions before publication in a scientific journal. 

Abstract: The design of the abstract does not provide insight into what research was done. I realize that the journal has a set limit on the length of the abstract, but in its current form it is not informative. Please indicate: the aim of the study, the research performed (here I ask for accuracy) and briefly presented results and conclusions. 

Introduction: please remove the passage: 29-48. this element is redundant and additionally duplicated in the discussion. Instead, I ask for a broader introduction of the currently available scientific literature on the use for cosmetic purposes of the study plant. 

Lines 78-81: the aim of the study was not made clear. The term: "to determine the anti-aging properties" is too vague - please indicate the goal and the specific objectives that will then be achieved in the subsequent stages of the experimental research conducted. 

Material and methods: chapter 2.1 reads with little enthusiasm. Please point to sources when describing the research conducted, or throw this information into supplementary materials. 

Why were different doses of the tested extracts used to test the inhibitory properties against collagenase, elastase and hyaluronidase?

Please indicate the full names when using abbreviations (introduced abbreviations when first used). 

As a resident of Eastern Europe, I have a problem with the term used by the authors of the paper: room temperature. For me, room temperature is 18-19 degrees Celsius, other sources say it is a temp in the 20-22 or 20-25 range. 

There is information about testing the pH value in section 2.8.2. It is not indicated how it was tested. I found a similar lack in the topic of assessing skin roughness. What method was used to assess roughness? 

Lines 247-249: this is a description of the statistical analysis. Please move this information to the appropriate subsection. 

Statistical analysis: please provide a more detailed description of the statistical analyses performed, with a breakdown between in vitro tests and clinical examination. Please indicate whether/how the distribution of variables was tested, whether the study group size necessary to indicate differences was estimated, and please provide additional statistical analysis and an indication of the effect size for the results obtained in the clinical trials. 

Results: please do not cite other studies in the chapter: Results. Please remove all theoretical introductions (they should belong in the introduction of this manuscript and not in the results), please remove all sentences that are interpretations of the results - this is an element to be included in the chapter: Discussion. 

Figures are too small and unreadable. Please verify that the figure and table captions meet the criterion of self-descriptiveness and will be fully informative even after cutting from the manuscript. Figure 1 - what exactly do the consecutive letters of the alphabet mean? What test was used to test the variables? 

Lines 274-278: delete

Line 292: I do not understand 

Table 1 and Table 2: if there is no Asterisk (*) in the table, then please do not indicate information about what this sign means under the table. 

Figure 4 c. Why is the SD for RT conditions so large? Wasn't there a data error (outliner) here and shouldn't one of the measurements have been eliminated? Was this tested with some kind of statistical test? 

Figure 5 a - why are the pH values without SD? Please change the scale of the figure to better show the differences between the groups, there is no need to show the scale from 0. 

Figure 5 d - I don't understand which groups are significantly different from each other - unfortunately, the insufficient description of the statistical analyses performed does not allow to make it properly. 

Lines 386-401 need to be rewritten taking into account the calculated effect size. The description of the results of the level of satisfaction is insufficient (it has not been previously indicated how this satisfaction is to be measured). The current description is so laconic that, in my opinion, it is better to discard this element of this study altogether. Alternatively: please describe the research tool in detail and present the results in detail, including the statistical analysis.

Discussion:

Line 434: this sentence requires sources

Lines 464-476: This part needs to be removed - it's unclear. I suggest writing the same content again with a more detailed description of why these studies are cited.

Conclusions:

Please indicate the most important conclusions (especially application ones) without exactly repeating the research results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

          We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions from all reviewers. We have carefully read and responded to all comments, point by point. The specific alterations in the manuscript in response to the reviewer's comments are shown in blue highlights for the comments of reviewer 3. In addition, other changes are shown in red letters.

            We hope all of the changes have addressed the reviewers’ concerns, so with these additions, we hope our work will be accepted for publication in Cosmetics.

Best regards,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Kanokwan Kiattisin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the corrections, which mostly met my expectations. The only item that needs to be corrected is Figure 1. It contain the letters of the alphabet to indicate statistically significant differences. However, despite the corrections made, it is still unclear what is different from what. In my opinion, the consecutive letters of the alphabet indicate results from the highest to the lowest values. And this is not a ststistic analysis but only a description of the results. Please rethink the form of presentation of data and describe it so that it is clear. 

The manuscript needs some reorganization regarding the layout of the text, figures and tables, but this is left to the discretion of the journal editors. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer of Cosmetics,

We greatly appreciate the additional comments and suggestions from the reviewer. We have carefully read and responded to the comment. The specific alteration in the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s comment is shown in blue highlight.

We hope the change has addressed the reviewer's concern, so with these additions, we hope our work will be accepted for publication in Cosmetics.

Best regards,

Asst. Prof. Dr. Kanokwan Kiattisin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for all the corrections. I have no further comments or objections to the presented text.