Nutraceutical and Functional Properties of Lupin Protein Extracts Obtained via a Combined Ultrasonication and Microwave-Assisted Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

e manuscript presents an extensive study of biological activities, nutritional and functional properties of lupine protein extract obtained by ultrasound and microwave oven Combined process. The research results show that the use of different isolation procedures affects the chemical composition and biological activity of the extracts. Also, the advantage of microwave extraction as a modern way of obtaining extracts was clearly highlighted.

The manuscript was prepared according to the instructions of the journal. The abstract is written clearly and includes all relevant research results. Keywords cover the basic research points.

My findings and recommendations to the authors include the corrections listed below:

The manuscript needs to be technically improved.

In the attachment, there are comments on what needs to be paid attention to.

The manuscript must be written in the third person singular.

The authors should emphasize a clear difference in the influence of ultrasound and microwaves on the obtained results. Advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. In this way, they would focus more on the obtained research results, which must be improved through an adequate discussion, which must be deeper. The results section needs to be more convincingly written.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your time and insight in reviewing our study. We u.appreciate all the feedback that we received and hope that we have revised and implemented your suggestions.  All the suggestions were considered in this latest revision, and we hope that they are sufficient for publication. We shaded the major changes and the sentences that answer the questions in red color to ease the follow-up.

My findings and recommendations to the authors include the corrections listed below:

 

The manuscript needs to be technically improved.

We did that. Thank you.

In the attachment, there are comments on what needs to be paid attention to.

1. I have changed the order of the tables to match the order in the results.
2. I have changed the upper case to the lower case in the second word.
3. Changed the mistake.
4. Change the hyphen in the title to :
5. I switched the letters to superscript.
6. Changed the alpha to a Greek letter.
7. Removed the point.
8. All Fig replaced with Figure
9. Used the same font for the title of figure1
10. Replaced all the ml with mL.

 

The manuscript must be written in the third person singular.

The paper has been revised by a couple of people who are fluent in English and English is their mother tongue. They made some changes to some statements overall in the manuscript and made some minor grammatical changes to make the manuscript better. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

The authors should emphasize a clear difference in the influence of ultrasound and microwaves on the obtained results. Advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. In this way, they would focus more on the obtained research results, which must be improved through an adequate discussion, which must be deeper. The results section needs to be more convincingly written.

We appreciate these suggestions which we think will add value to the paper’s quality.  We added that to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the figures in the manuscript is too low to be published. The quality of figures must be improved before the article can be published. Also extraction systems performed in an ultrasonic bath do not fully reflect the ultrasound effect. Therefore the comparison of the microwave effect and the ultrasonic effect in extraction is not correct. The study needs to be performed in an extraction system with an ultrasonic probe.

The quality of the English language is suitable for the publication of the article. The text is generally well-written.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your time and insight in reviewing our study. We appreciate all the feedback that we received and hope that we have revised and implemented your suggestions.  All the suggestions were considered in this latest revision, and we hope that they are sufficient for publication. We shaded the major changes and the sentences that answer the questions in red color to ease the follow-up.

The quality of the figures in the manuscript is too low to be published. The quality of figures must be improved before the article can be published. Also extraction systems performed in an ultrasonic bath do not fully reflect the ultrasound effect. Therefore the comparison of the microwave effect and the ultrasonic effect in extraction is not correct. The study needs to be performed in an extraction system with an ultrasonic probe.

We did our best to enhance the quality of the figures. We wrote an explanation in the paper about why we used these systems in our research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is suitable for the publication of the article. The text is generally well-written.

Thank you. The paper has been revised by a person who is fluent in English to make sure everything is ok.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript focused on the extraction methods of lupin proteins, specifically aiming at the combined effects of ultrasonication and microwave-assisted processes. By meticulously evaluating both sweet and bitter lupin varieties, the authors present a comprehensive analysis of the functional properties of the extracted proteins. Please see my comments on this article:

 

1.      Clearly define the scope of the study in the introduction. What is the primary objective, and why is it important? This will help set the stage for the methods and results.

2.      Expand intro on the significance of nanoemulsions in the food industry. Why are they important, and what advantages do they offer over traditional emulsions?

3.      Provide a brief overview of the traditional protein extraction methods from lupin and their limitations in the intro. This will help highlight the significance of ultrasound and microwave-assisted techniques.

4.      Ensure that the formatting, labelling, and presentation of tables and figures are consistent throughout the manuscript. For instance, if you're using "Fig." in one place, don't use "Figure" in another.

5.      Ensure that all studies mentioned are properly cited. For instance, references like Stevenson et al. (2008) should be consistently formatted and included in the bibliography.

6.      Expand on why does sweet lupin have higher antioxidant activity than bitter lupin? Is it due to its chemical composition, or are other factors at play?

7.      When discussing findings from other studies (e.g., Stevenson et al. 2008), it would be beneficial to compare their results with the current study's findings.

8.      For extraction preparation, it would be helpful to provide more detailed steps, especially if there are specific reasons for the chosen conditions (e.g., why was the pH adjusted to 12 with 2M NaOH?).

9.      When mentioning equipment like the ultrasonic bath or microwave-assisted digestion, provide more detailed specifications or model numbers, if possible.

 

10.  In conclusion, summarize the main findings of the study concisely. What are the key takeaways that you want the reader to remember? Consider adding a few lines on potential future studies that could build on this research. Are there other extraction methods to explore? Could the study be expanded to other types of lupin or similar seeds? Discuss the potential real-world applications of these findings. How can this research benefit the industry or consumers?

English look fine to me.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your time and insight in reviewing our study. We appreciate all the feedback that we received and hope that we have revised and implemented your suggestions.  All the suggestions were considered in this latest revision, and we hope that they are sufficient for publication. We shaded the major changes and the sentences that answer the questions in red color to ease the follow-up.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript focused on the extraction methods of lupin proteins, specifically aiming at the combined effects of ultrasonication and microwave-assisted processes. By meticulously evaluating both sweet and bitter lupin varieties, the authors present a comprehensive analysis of the functional properties of the extracted proteins. Please see my comments on this article:

 

 

 

1. Clearly define the scope of the study in the introduction. What is the primary objective, and why is it important? This will help set the stage for the methods and results.

We added that to the last part of the introduction. Thank you.

2. Expand intro on the significance of nanoemulsions in the food industry. Why are they important, and what advantages do they offer over traditional emulsions?

Thank you for the suggestions. We expanded the introduction to answer these questions.

3. Provide a brief overview of the traditional protein extraction methods from lupin and their limitations in the intro. This will help highlight the significance of ultrasound and microwave-assisted techniques.

We appreciate this suggestion, and we think that will add value to the introduction and attract the reader. We added a full paragraph for this.

4. Ensure that the formatting, labelling, and presentation of tables and figures are consistent throughout the manuscript. For instance, if you're using "Fig." in one place, don't use "Figure" in another.

Thank you for the note. We adjust them to be all (Figure).

 

5. Ensure that all studies mentioned are properly cited. For instance, references like Stevenson et al. (2008) should be consistently formatted and included in the bibliography.

Thank you for the note. We made all the changes that needed to be done to make all the references consistent.

 

6. Expand on why does sweet lupin have higher antioxidant activity than bitter lupin? Is it due to its chemical composition, or are other factors at play?

We added a paragraph explaining the possible reasons for these differences.

7. When discussing findings from other studies (e.g., Stevenson et al. 2008), it would be beneficial to compare their results with the current study's findings.

We did, in our paper we put our findings and compare them with what other people have found. Thank you for the comment.

 

8. For extraction preparation, it would be helpful to provide more detailed steps, especially if there are specific reasons for the chosen conditions (e.g., why was the pH adjusted to 12 with 2M NaOH?).

We added more details wherever possible and feel it needs to be taken more detailed steps to cover the reasons for choosing the conditions.

 

9. When mentioning equipment like the ultrasonic bath or microwave-assisted digestion, provide more detailed specifications or model numbers, if possible.

Thank you for the comment: We added more details wherever needed.

10. In conclusion, summarize the main findings of the study concisely. What are the key takeaways that you want the reader to remember? Consider adding a few lines on potential future studies that could build on this research. Are there other extraction methods to explore? Could the study be expanded to other types of lupin or similar seeds? Discuss the potential real-world applications of these findings. How can this research benefit the industry or consumers?

Thank you for recommending the additions to the Conclusions section. We have incorporated these suggestions and now have a dedicated section that highlights the key findings of our study and provides an afterthought on the significance of our work. This addition strengthens the structure of the manuscript and allows readers to quickly grasp the main takeaways from our research. We appreciate your valuable input in improving the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English look fine to me.

Thank you

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript and corrected everything based on the suggested suggestions, so I recommend that the manuscript be accepted.