Process Optimization of Sea Buckthorn Fruit Powder Effervescent Tablets by Random Centroid Methodology Combined with Fuzzy Mathematical Sensory Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

SBT is regarded as an important traditional Chinese medicine in China. What is more, SBT is usually applied as nutritional drink due to its richness in vitamins and flavonoids. In the manuscript entitled “Process optimization of seabuckthorn fruit powder effervescent tablets by random centroid methodology combined with fuzzy mathematical sensory evaluation”, the authors innovatively made seabuckthorn fruit powder as tablets and detailed optimized the formulation development process through random centroid methodology conbined with fuzzy mathematical sensory evaluation. Therefore, it is no doubt that the research may make contribution to wide the application of SBT in food industry. The manuscript is recommended to be accepted by the journal Processes. Here are some errors for the authors to revise:

1)     In line 12 and line 13, the correspondence is not clarified. Besides, it is rare to see that the telephone numbers of the authors are shown in the manuscript.

2)     In line 43, a space blank space is in need to separate the period and “It”. Same errors happen in line 171 (1mL), line 214 (7.5%when), and line 230 (1℃).

3)     In Figure 1, the process flow chart is good. However, some photos seem stretched. The authors are suggested to use photos of the original aspect ratio.

4)     In line 177, the authors have proposed the brand name of UV-2000 spectrophotometer. Therefore, same description is not in need in the line 192.

5)     In line 193, R2= 0.9996. The square numbers should be repositioned to the superscript.

6)     In line 198, the detail method how the solution was filtered should be proposed.

7)     Between line 249 and line 250, the formatting of these formulas needs to be adjusted or it will be uncomfortable for the readers.

8)     In line 279, the sentence is started with “ing”. However, none context can be read. The authors need to recheck the text carefully.

9)     In line 314, figure 3 should be revised as Figure 3.

10)  In line 361, the authors should give a reference of the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China.

 

11)  In line 398, Random should be revised as random.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I reviewed the manuscript titled “Process optimization of sea buckthorn fruit powder effervescent tablets by random centroid methodology combined with fuzzy mathematical sensory evaluation” The manuscript is well written with novel concepts and a good experimental approach. The discussion section is completely weak. Authors must carefully review the discussion section and add relevant scientific literature and compare with available literature. In my opinion, this manuscript can be accepted for possible publication consideration after addressing below suggestions

Abstract

Line 18: conveyed. Authors must replace this word

Authors should provide the very clear conclusions of the study and recommendations

Line 145: modelestablishment.. provide space after model

Section 2.6 to 2.12. remove the word determination in each section

Lines 164, 228 and 211:  sentence should not start with number. Please revise it

2.7. Carotenoids content determination: provide citation for this method

3.1. Results of sensory evaluation: can be revised as sensory evaluation

Table 5: provide the meaning of a and b and its comparison (row or column) a s a table footnote

Discussion section is very weak

Authors completely failed to compare with available literature. There is no any literature cited in discussion section

Authors must compare with available literature and provide in-depth reasoning on obtained results.

Conclusions must be revised

References are not according to the journal format

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is interesting and well-written and will interest the journal readers. Some suggestions are as follows: 

 

1.     Abstract: Q: The abstract section should include enough information about the methodology used in the study and a summary conclusion at the end.

2.     L23-26: ~The results showed that the seabuckthorn fruit powder content of 47.7%, erythritol of 1.3%, disintegrant ratio of 1:1, maltodextrin content of 2%, and polyvinylpyrrolidone of 2.9% was the best ratio, effervescent tablet of seabuckthorn fruit powder prepared under the condition have a significant effervescent effect and the highest sensory score of 87.76.~ Q: This sentence must be revised.

3.     Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5: Q: Please add the correct units of the measurements wherever applicable.

4.     Table 5: Q: Please include the footnotes for the necessary information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the manuscript is now improved. In my opinion, this version can be accepted for possible publication consideration.