Extraction, Quantification and Characterization Techniques for Anthocyanin Compounds in Various Food Matrices—A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Recommendation: Accept
The manuscript Extraction and quantification techniques for anthocyanin compounds in various food matrices - a review, the methodology were reasonable and technically sound.
Comments to the Author:
The manuscript's title is appropriate. Abstract: The Background of the abstract is well written. The main procedure and findings of the study are well expressed. Introduction: A brief survey of existing literature, purpose, importance, and innovation of the research is well mentioned. The tables and graphs are well prepared.
The article can be published as it is. The article is well written in general terms. It has been determined that the studies in recent years have been well examined.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of Horticulturae_1995438
Extraction and quantification techniques for anthocyanin compounds in various food matrices - a review
by Oana Emilia Constantin, and Daniela Ionela Istrati
This manuscript reviews the latest procedures for extracting anthocyanins from different food matrices and analytical methods for their quantification. The authors focused on procedures for the extraction of anthocyanins from different food matrices, and the methods for the quantification of anthocyanins.
In general it is a well organized and written manuscript, publishable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General observations:
I found the article without connection, it has a lot of information and little explanation that connects one information to another. It is essential to detail the techniques and not just quote.
Specific remarks:
1)Extraction and quantification techniques for anthocyanin, but in the abstract the authors already speak of techniques used in structural elucidation of compounds. Then it is necessary to change the title of the article for extraction, quantification and characterization. Reason the authors review this issue.
2) Table 1, as it is a review article, it is essential that the table contains the chemical structures of anthocyanidins.
3) Table 2, what was the criterion used to select the different food matrices? It is necessary to explain. To avoid misunderstandings, it is necessary to provide the scientific name of each matrix. It is very difficult to match the matrix in the table with the name given to the matrix in the text. It is essential that you have a previous table with the list of matrices and the scientific names and other important information about these matrices.
4) I am not understanding the correlation of UV-VIS Spectroscopy and Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). These are typically techniques for elucidating chemical structures. These last two topics, before conclusion, should be removed or expanded with a better amount of information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I have read manuscript entitled “Extraction and quantification techniques for anthocyanin compounds in various food matrices – A review”. This review concentrates on characterization of various qualitative and quantitative analytical methodologies while briefly describing the main anthocyanin extraction processes.
I don't understand the novelty of this work. The authors write about food matrices containing anthocyanins. Although anthocyanins are bioactive compounds found naturally in plants. Therefore, we can say that food matrices with anthocyanins are plant objects. Anthocyanins are compounds of great interest to researchers. As expected, this level of scientific interest has led to the fact that review papers on various anthocyanin aspects are published in the scientific literature with varying frequency. In particular, reviews on the extraction methods and quantitative determination of anthocyanins in plant objects have been published earlier.
For example: “Extraction and purification of anthocyanins: A review” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100306), “Recent trends in extraction techniques of anthocyanins from plant materials” (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-020-00598-8), “Anthocyanin Extraction from Plant Tissues: A Review” (https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1087963), “Methods of Analysis for Anthocyanins in Plants and Biological Fluids” (J. AOAC Int. 2004, 87, 129-45), “Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Evaluate Anthocyanins” (https://doi.org/10.2991/efood.k.200909.001) etc.
The authors do not compare their manuscript with reviews already published on this topic. What is the fundamental difference between their manuscript and published reviews? Perhaps the authors should conduct scientometric studies on already published reviews.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made the requested changes.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors made corrections to the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments. The manuscript can be published.
