All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
Thank you for revising your manuscript as per reviewer suggestions. I believe it is now of a standard that is publishable in a journal with international audience
Dear authors,
Your resubmission has undergone re-evaluation by experts in the field. It is important that you address the minor corrections suggested before your manuscript can be considered further.
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
The manuscript improved overall; however, there are still some writing errors that need to be corrected. For example, this symbol " ≥" appears changed in the Word version.
Tables 2 and 3 should indicate the corresponding values for the superscript by specifying below each table.
Review the spaces between words, for example, in the figures' legends.
Although all my doubts were clarified in the manuscript, I am curious to know why, if you know the moisture content of your sample (5.11%), the results in Table 4 are not expressed in dry weight.
No comment
The revised manuscript is now much clearer and readable. The authors have addressed my comments adequately.
no comment
no comment
The manuscript has made significant strides, particularly in addressing the concerns previously highlighted.
Your efforts in proofreading and language refinement are evident. The manuscript now reads more smoothly, with enhanced clarity and coherence. The grammatical corrections and language polishing have significantly elevated the quality of the text.
Table 4 contains superscripted letters (a, b, c) associated with certain data points. However, the meaning of these superscripts is not immediately clear. Could you please provide a clarification or a legend explaining what these superscripts denote?
no comment
no comment
Dear Authors,
Reviewers have now given Comments on your submission.
Please revise the manuscript as per reviewer suggestions.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript's writing appears correct; however, the document does not meet the requirements outlined in the PeerJ author guidelines, such as the line number, for instance. Furthermore, the English writing needs improvement as it is unclear in some parts. Additionally, verifying the subtitles and correcting any spelling errors related to symbols and abbreviations is necessary. Moreover, the literature references are incomplete (for example, not all include the DOI), so they must be carefully reviewed and corrected.
Tables and figures complete the text, however, the quality of the image in Figure 2 must be improved, and the presentation of the data in this graph is not clear, so it must be changed.
The research proposal presented in this manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the journal. Likewise, the research question being explored is relevant to the state of the art in the use of deep eutectic solvents (DES) as extraction and recovery solvents for biomolecules from natural sources. However, it would be important to mention both the limitations and advantages of using DES for biomolecule isolation. Furthermore, a paragraph justifying their use in this type of research beyond environmental aspects, as mentioned in the introduction, should be included.
As for the methodology employed, a more detailed description is needed, as some details are omitted, and in some cases, they are not sufficiently clear for replication. Similarly, it is not stated whether the measurements were taken in triplicate, nor is the statistical analysis and software used for evaluating the results mentioned.
It is also important to mention that the moisture content of the sample was not considered in the expression of the results, which is not justified and this could be a problem when comparing these results with those of other samples.
Regarding the properties of the DES, it is not clear why measuring the polarity of each solvent, when the aim's objective was to determine a relationship between the acidity or alkalinity and the type of compounds obtained from defatted rice bran.
The results presented in this research are interesting and potentially applicable in the valorization of natural sources rich in biomolecules of interest.
The data obtained in this study were provided in accordance with the standards set by the journal; however, as mentioned earlier, the manuscript lacks information regarding the statistical analysis. Additionally, the raw data files shown in Figures 2 and 3 are not included.
Concerning the conclusions presented in the manuscript, they appear weak and somewhat obvious; they could be enhanced for a more significant impact.
The research presented is interesting and can provide relevant information in various areas of research related to the valorization of byproducts from the agri-food industry. However, the manuscript needs improvement; the authors appear to have been negligent in terms of formatting and adhering to the publication guidelines provided.
The manuscript needs improvement in the following aspects.
1. Overall, the manuscript is readable, but many sentences are ambiguous and not complete. I would suggest the authors invite a native or professional English speaker to revise the writings.
2. Please check the format and details of the manuscript. The abstract should merge into a single paragraph. Many abbreviations were used without full names when they appeared first time in the manuscript (for example ChCl, ChCl: La, etc.). Table 4 has superscript a, b and c, but there was no explanation. Subtitle is missing for 2.6.2.
3. The authors may consider sharing more raw data such as UV-Vis spectrums.
The experiments were well designed but should provide more details for the purpose of replicate.
1. The chemicals used (section 2.1) should provide concentrations.
2. Water was added to during extraction, but not included in Figure 1.
3. After centrifuge, the supernatants were modified and then stored. The authors should explain what modifications were made and why modifications were needed.
4. For section 2.5.1, experimental details were missing. For example, the extraction of SEBPC needs hydrolysis with NaOH, and the authors should provide how much NaOH were added or to which pH. The same for SGBPC, pH or amount of 6 M HCl should be provided.
no comment
This work emphasizes the effects acidity and basicity of DES on the extracts profiles of defatted rice bran. While the authors tried different kinds of DES that have different pH, I am curious how the results would be if the authors use one type of DES and adjust the pH using strong acid or base (such as HCl and NaOH solutions). This can serve as control experiments.
The manuscript presents a thorough investigation into the effect of acidity and alkalinity in deep eutectic solvents (DES) on the extraction of phenolics and other biomolecules from defatted rice bran (DFRB), a by-product of rice bran oil production. The text is well-structured and unveils intriguing findings regarding the utilization of DES for extracting phenolics and other biomolecules from DFRB. However, certain aspects of the study require further clarification and enhancement to elevate the manuscript's quality for publication.
A thorough proofreading is advised to enhance the manuscript’s quality. For example, Section 2.6.2 is missing a subtitle, and in Line 301, 'NR' should be subscripted as 'ENR'.
The rationale behind choosing the four DES (ChCl-lactic acid, K2CO3-glycerol, ChCl-glycerol, and ChCl-urea) needs to be explicitly delineated. Are there other DES that could have been considered? A comparative analysis regarding the cost, availability, environmental impact, and biocompatibility of these DES compared to conventional solvents would provide a more comprehensive understanding.
More granular information on the analysis of the phenolic extracts is desired. It is advisable to include data on the replicates for each extraction experiment and to report the standard deviation or standard error of the mean for all data exhibited in tables and figures.
A more in-depth exploration of the extraction mechanism of phenolics and other biomolecules by the DES is necessary. The impact of the pH environment of the DES on the solubility and stability of the extracted compounds should be discussed. Additionally, elucidating the interactions between the DES and DFRB components, along with the effect of extraction time and temperature on the yield and quality, would be beneficial.
A discussion on the molecular interactions that might account for the differential extraction efficiency observed would be insightful. This aspect could significantly enrich the manuscript.
Investigating and discussing the effect of DES composition on the stability and functionality of the extracted biomolecules, particularly focusing on proteins and phenolics, would be worthwhile.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.