Production of Probiotic Passion Fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims f. flavicarpa Deg.) Drink Using Lactobacillus reuteri and Microencapsulation via Spray Drying
, Yolanda Albertina Silva Beserra, Hugo Miguel Lisboa Oliveira and Matheus Augusto de Bittencourt Pasquali *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Ref: Foods-723794: Production of probiotic passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims f.flavicarpa Deg.) drink using Lactobacillus reuteri and microencapsulation via Spray drying
General comments:
The aim of this study was, according to the title, the production of probiotic Passion Fruit using Lactobacillus reuteri and microencapsulation by spray drying. First, the fermentaion of yellow passion fruit pulp was performed using a commercial strain of Lactobacillus reuteri under different conditions.
Major concerns:
Lines 63-64: the combination of high cell viability with high bioactive compounds retention can also be challenging for a spray drying process. Comments: The authors rightly stress the importance of maintaining cellular viability during the production of a probiotic powder via spray-drying. The cell survival was calculated on the number of viable cells (lines 116-117). In Table 2, results on cell viability were expressed as Log CFU per mL (CFU= Colony forming units) However, the cell concentration was determined by direct counting in Neubauer's chamber (line 87). How was the viable count determined? Is it only by direct count or by plating on a culture medium? Please justify or modify?
Lines 70-71: The culture of Lactobacillus reuteri was purchased from the company Official Pharmacy. Comments: To consider a strain as probiotic or potentially probiotic, it is essential to provide accurate identification of the strain. Usually, a probiotic strain has a code and has been deposited in a culture collection. Without this information, the strain cannot be recognized as a probiotic. In this study, the strain is unknown and it is not possible to identify in the literature, studies supporting these health benefits. In addition, the source of the supplier is not described(city, country). Please provide more information.
Specific comments:
Line 160: Please define EGA : equivalent of galleic acid.
Table 1, Table 2, Figure 4 : please replace ETA by EGA
Minor comments:
Line 12: Please replace microflora by microbiota
Line 63: Please replace viabiilty by viability
Author Response
February 15, 2020
Dr. Christopher J. Smith
Editor in Chief
Foods
Dear Dr. Christopher J. Smith
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We appreciate the detailed comments that were received to help us improve the manuscript. We believe we have now addressed all of the reviewers’ concerns and that the manuscript is ready for resubmission. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the text.
Below is a point-by-point response:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
Point 1 – Line 63-64: the co: the combination of high cell viability with high bioactive compounds retention can also be challenging for a spray drying process. Comments: The authors rightly stress the importance of maintaining cellular viability during the production of a probiotic powder via spray-drying. The cell survival was calculated on the number of viable cells (lines 116-117). In Table 2, results on cell viability were expressed as Log CFU per mL (CFU= Colony forming units) However, the cell concentration was determined by direct counting in Neubauer's chamber (line 87). How was the viable count determined? Is it only by direct count or by plating on a culture medium? Please justify or modify?
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now addressed this question through the corrections made in the manuscript. We corrected to cell number.
Point 2 - Lines 70-71: The culture of Lactobacillus reuteri was purchased from the company Official Pharmacy. Comments: To consider a strain as probiotic or potentially probiotic, it is essential to provide accurate identification of the strain. Usually, a probiotic strain has a code and has been deposited in a culture collection. Without this information, the strain cannot be recognized as a probiotic. In this study, the strain is unknown and it is not possible to identify in the literature, studies supporting these health benefits. In addition, the source of the supplier is not described(city, country). Please provide more information.
Response 2: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript. In the methods section was added the strain of the Lactobacillus reuteri
Point 3 – Line 160: Please define EGA : equivalent of galleic acid.
Response 3: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 4 – Table 1, Table 2, Figure 4 : please replace ETA by EGA
Response 4: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 5 – Line 12: Please replace microflora by microbiota
Response 5: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 6 – Line 63: Please replace viabiilty by viability
Response 6: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Yours truly,
Matheus A. de B Pasquali & Co-Authors
Matheus Augusto de Bittencourt Pasquali M.Sc., Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Food Engineering
Federal University of Campina Grande
Street Aprigio Veloso, 882 – Phone + 55 83 2101 1986
Campina Grande – PB-Brazil, Zip Code 58429900
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The originallity of the article is good and the analytical part very good. However the outcome is not suppoorted very well. The language and expressions need to be improved. I believe that the authors should revise specific points in the text where the each conclusion is discussed in order to be more understood from teh readers. For instance they should clarify better the applications of the product. The form of the product (wet form, dry form).
Specific comments
Lines 64-65: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Line 138: Delete “the”
Lines 142-144: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Line 146: Please rephrase to: mostly because it is considered an innovative product.
Line 149: Change uses to utilizes
Lines 152-154: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Lines 154-157: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Lines 163-164: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Line 172: Add a reference
Line 184, 187: Change pHs to pH values
Lines 188-189: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Lines 192-195: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Lines 217-219: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Line 267: Add a reference
Author Response
February 15, 2020
Dr. Christopher J. Smith
Editor in Chief
Foods
Dear Dr. Christopher J. Smith
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We appreciate the detailed comments that were received to help us improve the manuscript. We believe we have now addressed all of the reviewers’ concerns and that the manuscript is ready for resubmission. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the text.
Below is a point-by-point response:
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #2
Point 1 - “The originallity of the article is good and the analytical part very good. However the outcome is not suppoorted very well. The language and expressions need to be improved. I believe that the authors should revise specific points in the text where the each conclusion is discussed in order to be more understood from teh readers. For instance they should clarify better the applications of the product. The form of the product (wet form, dry form).”
Response 1: We agree these suggestions would be informative. Thank you for your suggestion. We have now addressed this question through the corrections made in the manuscript.
Point 2 Lines 64-65: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 2: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 3 Line 138: Delete “the”
Response 3: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 4 Lines 142-144: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 4: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 5 Line 146: Please rephrase to: mostly because it is considered an innovative product.
Response 5: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 6 Line 149: Change uses to utilizes
Response 6: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 7 Lines 152-154: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 7: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 8 Lines 154-157: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 8: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 9 Lines 163-164: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 9: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 10 Line 172: Add a reference
Response 10: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript, reference was added.
Point 11 Line 184, 187: Change pHs to pH values
Response 11: We apologize for the error, and this issue has now been rectified.
Point 12 Lines 188-189: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 12: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 13 Lines 192-195: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 13: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript.
Point 14 Lines 217-219: The sentence is confusing. Please rephrase
Response 14: We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript. The sentence was withdrawn.
Point 15 Line 267: Add a reference
Response 15 - We have now addressed this question through the changes made in the manuscript, reference was added.
Yours truly,
Matheus A. de B Pasquali & Co-Authors
Matheus Augusto de Bittencourt Pasquali M.Sc., Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Food Engineering
Federal University of Campina Grande
Street Aprigio Veloso, 882 – Phone + 55 83 2101 1986
Campina Grande – PB-Brazil, Zip Code 58429900
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No additional comments
