Blends of Sustainable Polymers and Waste Soy Biomass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This short paper by Chen et al. describes a simple approach for creating composite materials using soy powder as filler and a number of biodegradable polymers as matrices. The use of fillers to improve the physical properties and thermal stability of renewable and biodegradable polymer materials is a significant area of research. This is because these materials are often inferior in performance to their classical non-degradable counterparts. Therefore, the relevance and significance of this work are beyond doubt. However, there are several limitations in this paper that prevent it from being published in the Sustainability journal in its current form.

1. The nomenclature used in the paper can be confusing for readers. Since the authors are using soy powder specifically as a reinforcement agent and are not creating polymer blends in the traditional sense, it would be helpful to clarify this in the text. When discussing the properties of pure polymer matrices, it should be clearly indicated, and when discussing soy powder-containing composites, this should also be clearly stated.
2. The results of the TGA analysis of the initial commercially available matrices are presented in the manuscript. However, the results of the TGA and DSC analysis of the composites synthesized by the authors are not included in either the article or the SI, despite their great importance and interest for readers. These data should be provided in the article. It would be beneficial to add TGA curves for the composites in Figure 1, next to the existing curves for the initial matrices.
3. The authors should carefully review the text of their manuscript and correct any formatting errors, such as "Error! Reference source not found", throughout the article. They should also ensure that all references to tables are correctly numbered. Additionally, there are some unsuccessful paragraph breaks between pages 4 and 5 and pages 5 and 6, which should be corrected.
4. Using poorly defined polymer blends as matrices (PHA, PBAT/starch, PBAT/PLA), where the mass ratio of components, degree of copolymerization, and other characteristics are unknown, can lead to issues with the reproducibility of your results. Of course, a manufacturer may not reveal details about the composition or all components of their polymer mixture. However, the reader should be aware that the results obtained may vary significantly between different matrices produced by different manufacturers.
5. The first of the two Tables 1 (!) simply duplicates information from the previous text about the conditions for drying and mixing the filler and matrix, and therefore has no independent significance. I suggest removing it.

Although the absence of a section dedicated to the biodegradability study of the composites produced seems to me to be a drawback of the work, I believe that, after addressing the concerns mentioned above, this communication could be considered for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter regarding our manuscript “Blends of Sustainable Polymers and Waste Soy Biomass” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3595081). We appreciate all the constructive feedback you have provided. We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have made changes to the manuscript item by item to address all your comments.  Please find the proposed corrections below.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 1

This short paper by Chen et al. describes a simple approach for creating composite materials using soy powder as filler and a number of biodegradable polymers as matrices. The use of fillers to improve the physical properties and thermal stability of renewable and biodegradable polymer materials is a significant area of research. This is because these materials are often inferior in performance to their classical non-degradable counterparts. Therefore, the relevance and significance of this work are beyond doubt. However, there are several limitations in this paper that prevent it from being published in the Sustainability journal in its current form.

1. The nomenclature used in the paper can be confusing for readers. Since the authors are using soy powder specifically as a reinforcement agent and are not creating polymer blends in the traditional sense, it would be helpful to clarify this in the text. When discussing the properties of pure polymer matrices, it should be clearly indicated, and when discussing soy powder-containing composites, this should also be clearly stated.

RESPONSE: The authors thank the reviewer for their suggestion. The nomenclature has been updated. The authors have clearly indicated whether the discussion pertains to the properties of pure polymer matrices or the soy powder-containing composites.

2. The results of the TGA analysis of the initial commercially available matrices are presented in the manuscript. However, the results of the TGA and DSC analysis of the composites synthesized by the authors are not included in either the article or the SI, despite their great importance and interest for readers. These data should be provided in the article. It would be beneficial to add TGA curves for the composites in Figure 1, next to the existing curves for the initial matrices.

RESPONSE: As the reviewer suggested, the TGA curves of the composites have been added. Please see more details in Figure 1. On the other hand, as the original manuscript stated, the DSC analysis of the composites has been completed, and the results were interpreted and presented as Figure S4. However, as the reviewer suggested, the original Figure S4 is now included in the article as Figure 2, while the raw DSC data obtained from the soy-containing polymer composites was also added and included as Figures S4-S7 in the Supplementary Data.  

In text (3.1.1 Micro-compounding of the polymer blends with soy powder):

“There was no significant change in the decomposition temperature of the composite after waste soy biomass was blended with the polymer.”

3. The authors should carefully review the text of their manuscript and correct any formatting errors, such as "Error! Reference source not found", throughout the article. They should also ensure that all references to tables are correctly numbered. Additionally, there are some unsuccessful paragraph breaks between pages 4 and 5 and pages 5 and 6, which should be corrected.

RESPONSE: The authors thank the reviewer for identifying the errors. It has been corrected.

4. Using poorly defined polymer blends as matrices (PHA, PBAT/starch, PBAT/PLA), where the mass ratio of components, degree of copolymerization, and other characteristics are unknown, can lead to issues with the reproducibility of your results. Of course, a manufacturer may not reveal details about the composition or all components of their polymer mixture. However, the reader should be aware that the results obtained may vary significantly between different matrices produced by different manufacturers.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. The authors agree that various factors such as the ones listed above may significantly affect the results. Results obtained in this manuscript are not necessarily a generalization to all polymers listed in this manuscript. The results obtained in this manuscript are only specific to the polymers in the manuscript. This may serve as a guide or reference for others performing this experiment. Moreover, when possible, the manufacturer and the grade of the polymers used were specified. As the reviewer suggested, more clarification was added in the text.

In text (2.1 Materials)

“It is also acknowledged that results obtained in this study are not necessarily a generalization to all the polymers listed. The results obtained in this study are only specific to the polymers used in the study as the mass ratio of polymeric components, degree of copolymerization, and other characteristics (e.g., additives used) may affect the properties of polymers. However, this study may serve as a guide or reference for others performing relevant experiments.”

5. The first of the two Tables 1 (!) simply duplicates information from the previous text about the conditions for drying and mixing the filler and matrix, and therefore has no independent significance. I suggest removing it.

RESPONSE: The authors agree that the first table duplicates the information from the previous text about the drying conditions and have removed it, as suggested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experimental article "Blends of Sustainable Polymers and Waste Soy Biomass" devoted to the study of composites with the additive "waste soy biomass" is a continuation of the work of this group of authors, since there is a similar work with the same polymers ("polyhydroxyalkanoates, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate / poly (lactic) acid and biobased linear low-density polyethylene"), into which "soy protein isolate" was introduced to accelerate biodegradation (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103331). The article is short in volume, written quite clearly, Supplementary material with photographs of the process and data from devices confirming the results is attached to it. It is obvious to the reviewer that the article meets all the criteria of the Sustainability edition. But for the publication of this manuscript, the authors are obliged to follow the recommendations and correct the article so that the authors are understood correctly by the readers.

Recommendations:

1. Throughout the text, including the abstract and, importantly, in the conclusions, it is recommended to use specific types of "waste soy biomass" instead of "soy".
2. It is recommended to check the Supplementary and bring all terminology into line: "soy" is designated differently everywhere.
3. It is recommended to directly cite articles in the introduction in which the authors conducted similar studies and clearly explain what new problems are solved in the manuscript under review. In the opinion of the reviewer, the authors deliberately do not cite their works, since the question arises about the scientific novelty of the manuscript under review. 4. The introduction should include references to articles that describe in detail the source and component composition of "soybean biomass", as well as references to articles, or better yet, reviews, that discuss the feasibility of the idea and method for introducing soybean biomass.
4. In the materials and methods, it is recommended to indicate the sources of all polymers listed in the abstract: "polyhydroxyalkanoates, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate/poly(lactic) acid and biobased linear low-density polyethylene".
5. There is a problem on page 5 (2/3 of the page is empty). It is recommended to fix it.
6. Page 5, first paragraph: it is recommended "not to deviate" from the main topic of the dependence of the decomposition temperature on the composition of the material under study and to give a detailed answer. Otherwise, the authors misinform readers when they use "waste" without knowledge of the expected effect as an additive to composites.
7. It is recommended to correct: "Error! Reference source not found." is present several times. 9. It is recommended to formulate the main results of the article: which properties of composites depend on the component composition of the additive. The dependence of properties on the degree of grinding is of little interest, and SEM analysis poorly visualizes the process.

10. It is recommended to supplement the list of references with vivid and fresh reviews on this topic with a 2020-2025 release.

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter regarding our manuscript “Blends of Sustainable Polymers and Waste Soy Biomass” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3595081). We appreciate all the constructive feedback you have provided. We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have made changes to the manuscript item by item to address all your comments.  Please find the proposed corrections below.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 2

The experimental article "Blends of Sustainable Polymers and Waste Soy Biomass" devoted to the study of composites with the additive "waste soy biomass" is a continuation of the work of this group of authors, since there is a similar work with the same polymers ("polyhydroxyalkanoates, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate / poly (lactic) acid and biobased linear low-density polyethylene"), into which "soy protein isolate" was introduced to accelerate biodegradation (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103331). The article is short in volume, written quite clearly, Supplementary material with photographs of the process and data from devices confirming the results is attached to it. It is obvious to the reviewer that the article meets all the criteria of the Sustainability edition. But for the publication of this manuscript, the authors are obliged to follow the recommendations and correct the article so that the authors are understood correctly by the readers.

1. Throughout the text, including the abstract and, importantly, in the conclusions, it is recommended to use specific types of "waste soy biomass" instead of "soy".

RESPONSE: The authors have updated the text to “waste soy biomass”

2. It is recommended to check the Supplementary and bring all terminology into line: "soy" is designated differently everywhere.

RESPONSE: The authors have updated the text to “waste soy biomass” in the supplementary information.

3. It is recommended to directly cite articles in the introduction in which the authors conducted similar studies and clearly explain what new problems are solved in the manuscript under review. In the opinion of the reviewer, the authors deliberately do not cite their works, since the question arises about the scientific novelty of the manuscript under review.

RESPONSE: The authors have included a paragraph discussing the use of biomass for various applications and states the reason for this work. The previous work of the authors has also been included.

In text (Introduction):

“In the food processing industry, there is a common practice of disposing of byproducts, which leads to economic losses. There are efforts to find various uses for these byproducts [14]. Some applications include using porous carbon materials for energy storage [15,16], cotton leaf and hull for electrochemical applications [17], defatted cottonseed meal enriched with crude fiber and protein for carbon quantum dot composited porous carbon for energy storage crucial for high super performance supercapacitors [18], and using soy protein isolate to improve biodegradation of polymer composites [8,19].

Given the wide availability of soy processing byproducts in the U.S.—where soy is the second most produced crop—numerous studies have explored the valorization of soybean processing residues, including hulls, meal, and fines generated during protein extraction [20,21]. Additionally, waste soy biomass can be obtained after oil extraction. This type of waste is generated in large quantities in biodiesel manufacturing and is cheap and readily available [22]. These waste soy biomass materials are typically underutilized but possess high potential as sustainable polymer fillers [23].

The feasibility of introducing soybean biomass into polymer systems has been supported by several studies. Koshy et al. (2015) and Abdul Khalil et al. (2019) review how soy protein- and starch-based materials can be blended with synthetic and biopolymers to improve mechanical strength, reduce cost, and enhance biodegradability [6,24]. Furthermore, Candlen et al. (2022) demonstrated that soy-filled PBAT/PLA blends showed accelerated degradation behavior, albeit with trade-offs in mechanical performance [8]. These outcomes highlight the dual role of waste soy biomass as both a functional filler and a contributor to end-of-life material performance. In short, waste soy biomass has been incorporated into polymers for various applications including promoting biodegradation, reducing the carbon footprint, and improving mechanical properties of the polymer systems [25–27]. However, there are few studies systematically evaluating how particle size and the types of waste soy biomass may affect the dispersion, crystallinity, and mechanical performance of soy-filled polymer blends. To address this research gap, this study will investigate the effects of the types of waste soy biomass and varying size of soy on the properties of the soy incorporated polymers.”

4. The introduction should include references to articles that describe in detail the source and component composition of "soybean biomass", as well as references to articles, or better yet, reviews, that discuss the feasibility of the idea and method for introducing soybean biomass.

RESPONSE: As the reviewer suggested, the authors have included a short introduction about waste soy biomass and some of its broad applications.

In text (Introduction):

“In the food processing industry, there is a common practice of disposing of byproducts of food which leads to economic losses. There are efforts to find various uses for these byproducts [14]. Some applications include using porous carbon materials for energy storage [15,16], cotton leaf and hull for electrochemical applications [17], defatted cottonseed meal enriched with crude fiber and protein for carbon quantum dot composited porous carbon for energy storage crucial for high super performance supercapacitors [18], and using soy protein isolate to improve biodegradation of polymer composites [8,19].

Given the wide availability of soy processing byproducts in the U.S.—where soy is the second most produced crop—numerous studies have explored the valorization of soybean processing residues, including hulls, meal, and fines generated during protein extraction [20,21]. Additionally, waste soy biomass can be obtained after oil extraction. This type of waste is generated in large quantities in biodiesel manufacturing and is cheap and readily available [22]. These waste soy biomass materials are typically underutilized but possess high potential as sustainable polymer fillers [23].

The feasibility of introducing soybean biomass into polymer systems has been supported by several studies. Koshy et al. (2015) and Abdul Khalil et al. (2019) review how soy protein- and starch-based materials can be blended with synthetic and biopolymers to improve mechanical strength, reduce cost, and enhance biodegradability [6,24]. Furthermore, Candlen et al. (2022) demonstrated that soy-filled PBAT/PLA blends showed accelerated degradation behavior, albeit with trade-offs in mechanical performance [8]. These outcomes highlight the dual role of waste soy biomass as both a functional filler and a contributor to end-of-life material performance. In short, waste soy biomass has been incorporated into polymers for various applications including promoting biodegradation, reducing the carbon footprint, and improving mechanical properties of the polymer systems [25–27]. However, there are few studies systematically evaluating how particle size and the types of waste soy biomass may affect the dispersion, crystallinity, and mechanical performance of soy-filled polymer blends. To address this research gap, this study will investigate the effects of the types of waste soy biomass and varying size of soy on the properties of the soy incorporated polymers.”

5. In the materials and methods, it is recommended to indicate the sources of all polymers listed in the abstract: "polyhydroxyalkanoates, polybutylene adipate terephthalate, polybutylene adipate terephthalate/poly(lactic) acid and biobased linear low-density polyethylene".

RESPONSE: The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The authors have already included the sources of all polymers in the materials section. To be more specific, the authors also spelled the abbreviation of each polymer as listed in the abstract.

In text (2.1 Materials):

“Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA, Lot 3308, Metabolix), polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT, Nurel Inzea F09E), polybutylene adipate terephthalate/poly(lactic) acid (PBAT/PLA blend, Ecovio®, BASF), and biobased linear low-density polyethylene (B-LLDPE, Braskem, I’m Green®) were used.”

6. There is a problem on page 5 (2/3 of the page is empty). It is recommended to fix it.

RESPONSE: The problem has been fixed.

7. Page 5, first paragraph: it is recommended "not to deviate" from the main topic of the dependence of the decomposition temperature on the composition of the material under study and to give a detailed answer. Otherwise, the authors misinform readers when they use "waste" without knowledge of the expected effect as an additive to composites.

RESPONSE: The authors thank the reviewer for their comment. The authors do not plan on deviating from the topic of stating the decomposition temperature of the polymers and soy. The main aim of running the TGA was to determine the decomposition temperature of the materials in order not to exceed the decomposition temperatures during processing. After TGA was run, it was found out that some polymers and soy had some inorganic residue; meaning they may contain some additives. The authors try to explain why the inorganic matter was present in the polymers thus stating, “It was also found that the polymers had some amount of inorganic residue which may have been added to the polymer by the manufacturer to improve the mechanical properties.”.

Also, for the presence of inorganic matter in both the waste soy meal and waste soy powder, the authors try to explain but admit that this is beyond the scope of this study and further study is required to ascertain the presence of this inorganic matter in the soy. This is stated as “However, a more in-depth investigation regarding the detailed biochemical compositions of waste soy powder and waste soy meal would be needed to elucidate this thermal degradation difference, which is beyond the scope of this study.”

However, as the reviewer suggested, we shortened the discussion about how the biochemical compositions of waste soy powder and waste soy meal may affect their degradation temperatures. In addition, the authors have reached out to the waste soy biomass suppliers to inquire about their biochemical compositions and added more details in 2.1 Materials in the main text. More details were also added to clarify the purpose of conducting TGA experiment as the reviewer suggested.   

In text (2.1 Materials):

“Two types of waste soy biomass, Superb^TM (hereafter referred to as waste soy powder, supplied by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Decatur, IL) and Hi-Pro Solvent Extracted Soy Meal (hereafter referred to as waste soy meal, donated by Indiana Soybean Alliance, Indianapolis, IN) were used in this study. Waste soy powder was a byproduct generated during soybean protein isolate manufacturing processes, while waste soy meal was a byproduct of soybean oil extraction (from dehulled, defatted soy flakes). The biochemical compositions of waste soy powder and waste soy meal were summarized in Table 1.”

Table 1. Biochemical compositions of soy powder and soy meal (dry matter basis) used in this study

Sample	SuperbTM Waste Soy Powdera	Hi-Pro Solvent Extracted Waste Soy Mealb
Crude Protein	38.3%	45.0%
Crude Fat	0.35%	1.0%
Crude Fiber	6.24%	3.8%
Othersc	55.1%	50.2%

^aData was adapted from Candlen et al. [8].

^bData was provided by Indiana Soybean Alliance (Indianapolis, IN).          

^cOther components may include starch, sugar, soluble fibers, minerals (i.e., ash), etc., which requires more analysis that is out of scope of this study.

 

In text (3.1.1 Micro-compounding of the polymer blends with soy powder):

“TGA was performed to determine the degradation temperatures of the polymers, waste soy powder, waste soy meal, and soy-filled polymer blends. This analysis was essential to ensure that processing temperatures remained below the thermal degradation limits of the materials, particularly for waste soy biomass samples.”

“The difference in the degradation temperatures between waste soy biomass powder and waste soy biomass meal may be due to their biochemical composition (see Table 1 for more details), as suggested by literature [8,31].”

8. It is recommended to correct: "Error! Reference source not found." is present several times.

RESPONSE: The authors thank the reviewer for identifying the errors. It has been corrected

9. It is recommended to formulate the main results of the article: which properties of composites depend on the component composition of the additive. The dependence of properties on the degree of grinding is of little interest, and SEM analysis poorly visualizes the process.

RESPONSE: The authors thank the reviewer for their recommendation. It has already been stated in the conclusion the effects of waste soy powder and waste soy meal on the mechanical properties of the composites, specifically elongation at break and tensile modulus. As the reviewer suggested, the main results were also added to the Abstract in the main text.

Indeed, the SEM analysis in our study offered limited insight into the specific effects of soy particle size (fine powder vs. coarse meal) on the dispersion or interaction within B-LLDPE and PHA polymer matrices. This could be that SEM primarily provides surface morphology—it reveals filler dispersion, agglomeration, and voids at the fractured surface. However, it does not provide detailed quantitative data on interfacial adhesion or crystallinity changes, which are more directly affected by particle size. Moreover, as the SEM analysis (Figure 6 in the text) shows, PHA showed better compatibility with both waste soy powder and waste soy meal. This compatibility may lead to more uniform dispersion regardless of particle size, masking any size-dependent effects in the SEM images. In the case of B-LLDPE, poor interfacial compatibility may dominate morphology, overshadowing differences due to particle size. The presence of voids and agglomerates in both powder- and meal-filled samples suggest that compatibility issues, not particle size, were the main factor influencing morphology. In summary, SEM provided a useful overview of filler dispersion and compatibility, but due to its surface-based, qualitative nature and limitations in resolving complex interactions, it was not sufficient to highlight the nuanced effects of soy particle size in B-LLDPE and PHA blends. Complementary techniques like transmission electronic microscopy (TEM), X-ray microtomography, or additional dyeing on the image analysis could further elucidate these effects. More discussions were added into the main text to acknowledge the limitations of SEM and to recommend directions for future research.

In text (Abstract):

“Additionally, it was found that fine waste soy powder (17 µm) increased the tensile modulus of the polymer blends without significantly affecting processability, while coarse waste soy meal (1000 µm) generally reduced elongation at break due to poor dispersion and stress concentration; however, this effect was less pronounced in PHA blends, where improved compatibility was observed.”

 

In the text (3.4 Dispersion of various types of soy biomass in the polymer matrix via SEM analysis)

“However, it is acknowledged that the SEM analysis in our study offered limited insight into the specific effects of soy particle size (fine powder vs. coarse meal) on the dispersion or interaction within B-LLDPE and PHA polymer matrices. This could be that SEM primarily provides surface morphology—it reveals filler dispersion, agglomeration, and voids at the fractured surface. However, it does not provide detailed quantitative data on interfacial adhesion or crystallinity changes, which are more directly affected by particle size. Moreover, as mentioned, PHA showed better compatibility with both waste soy powder and waste soy meal. This compatibility may lead to more uniform dispersion regardless of particle size, masking any size-dependent effects in the SEM images. In the case of B-LLDPE, poor interfacial compatibility may dominate morphology, overshadowing differences due to particle size. The presence of voids and agglomerates in both powder- and meal-filled samples suggest that compatibility issues, not particle size, were the main factor influencing morphology. In summary, SEM provided a useful overview of filler dispersion and compatibility, but due to its surface-based, qualitative nature and limitations in resolving complex interactions, it was not sufficient to highlight the nuanced effects of soy particle size in B-LLDPE and PHA blends. Complementary techniques like transmission electronic microscopy (TEM), X-ray microtomography, or additional dyeing on the image analysis may further elucidate these effects.”

 

In text (Conclusion):

“Fine soy powder generally enhanced tensile modulus without significantly compromising processability, while coarse soy meal affected elongation at break due to poorer dispersion and stress concentration, except in PHA blends where improved compatibility was observed.”

10. It is recommended to supplement the list of references with vivid and fresh reviews on this topic with a 2020-2025 release.

Response: The list of references has been updated with fresh articles. Please see more details in the main text.

In text (References):

20. Huang, L.; Cai, Y.; Fang, F.; Huang, T.; Zhao, M.; Zhao, Q.; Van der Meeren, P. Recent advance in the valorization of soy-based by-products: Extraction, modification, interaction and applications in the food industry. Food Hydrocoll. 2024, 157, 110407, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110407.
21. Karim, A.; Osse, E.F.; Khalloufi, S. Innovative strategies for valorization of byproducts from soybean industry: A review on status, challenges, and sustainable approaches towards zero-waste processing systems. Heliyon 2025, 11, doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42118.
22. Madayag, J.V.M.; Domalanta, M.R.B.; Maalihan, R.D.; Caldona, E.B. Valorization of extractible soybean by-products for polymer composite and industrial applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 115703, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2025.115703.
23. Dey, A.; Rahman, M.M.; Yodo, N.; Grewell, D. Development of biocomposite filament for fused filament fabrication from soy hulls and soy protein isolate. Mater. Today Commun. 2023, 34, doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2023.105316.
24. Rahman, M.M.; Dey, A.; Yodo, N.; Lee, C.W.; Grewell, D. Soybean By-Products Bioplastic (Polylactic Acid)-Based Plant Containers: Sustainable Development and Performance Study. Sustain. 2023, 15, doi:10.3390/su15065373.
25. Bote, S.D.; Narayan, R. Synthesis of Biobased Polyols from Soybean Meal for Application in Rigid Polyurethane Foams. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.0c06306.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved and can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experimental article has changed for the better after the reviewer's comments were corrected. The scientific hypothesis is sufficiently presented in the manuscript and is present in the abstract. The introduction has been rewritten with a formulation of relevance and approaches to achieving the author's goal. The reviewer accepts the authors' responses to his recommendations, although the response to comment 7 remains debatable, since only 50% of the component composition is disclosed in Table 1. Nevertheless, the reviewer's decision is positive.