The Immobilization of Lipases on Porous Support by Adsorption and Hydrophobic Interaction Method
, Noor Dina Muhd Noor 1,3, Fairolniza Mohd Shariff 1,2 and Mohd Shukuri Mohamad Ali 1,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presented a review on the lipase immobilization on porous supports but it has to be improved . The topics discussed in the review are timely and worth of investigation. A review usually has a different purpose, with the aim to assess, critique, and synthesize the literature on a research topic in a way that enables new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge. For example for Table 1 and 3 critical considerations by authors are not particularly developed.
The article presented a review on the lipase immobilization on porous supports but it has to be improved . The topics discussed in the review are timely and worth of investigation. A review usually has a different purpose, with the aim to assess, critique, and synthesize the literature on a research topic in a way that enables new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge. For example for Table 1 and 3 critical considerations by authors are not particularly developed.
In addition it is not clear because the tables report repetitive headers (source, type of support, etc).
Introduction section needs to be further elaborated, in particular the authors should highlight the novelty of this work, and particular illustrate the superiority of this work from previous reports since many review article on this topic have been reported.
Finally, the results section is confused and not clear, please reorganized it.
Minor revision :
Line 32 pag 1 activity side modify in active site
Line 116 pag 3: conducted by…..?
line 217 pag 11: In the sentence “The microporous polypropylene support also present in different 218 particles and pore size, which is useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases” is missing the verb.
Line 166 pag 10: what is CR/PP?
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Table 1 and 3 critical considerations by authors are not particularly developed. In addition it is not clear because the tables report repetitive headers (source, type of support, etc).
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the table on page number 4 for Table 1 and page number 11 for Table 3. Some explanation about the Table 1 can be found on page number 3, paragraph 3 while for Table 3, some explanation were mentioned on page 9 under ‘Application of lipases immobilized on porous support’.
Comment 2: Introduction section needs to be further elaborated, in particular the authors should highlight the novelty of this work, and particular illustrate the superiority of this work from previous reports since many review article on this topic have been reported.
Response: We agree with this and have revised and modified the introduction section and highlighted the novelty of this work. The changes made can be found on page 2, paragraph 2 at line number 60.
Comment 3: Finally, the results section is confused and not clear, please reorganized it.
Response: Agree. We have reorganized the results section accordingly to make the results more clear.
Comment 4: Line 32 page 1 active side
Response: We have changed to the active site on page 1 line 33
Comment 5: Line 116 page 3: conducted by ….?
Response: ‘Polypropylene support had a large surface area compared with other types of carriers such as beads and non- porous support’ conducted by Salis et al., 2003 and Foresti & Ferreira, 2004 at page 3, line 128.
Comment: Line 217 page 11: In the sentence “The microporous polypropylene support also present in different 218 particles and pore size, which is useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases” is missing the verb.
Response: Line 220 page 10: We have edited the sentence on page 9, line 243. ‘The microporous polypropylene support also presents in different particles and pore size. These varieties are useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases’.
Comment: Line 166 page 10: what is CR/PP?
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have a typo here. It is CA/PP, not CR/PP. CA/PP is the term for Candida antarctica immobilization on polypropylene powder support. The changed can be found on page 8, paragraph 1, line 191.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that as it is a review, the work should have a better presentation.
In general, the level of English is very poor and should be greatly improved.
Throughout the text there are many names of microorganisms that must be spelled correctly and italicized.
It is noted that in many paragraphs the authors have used the "aid" of cutting and pasting.
Too many windings together, which must be separated
Many paragraphs without concordance, with repetition of many words in the same sentence (enzyme immobilization, enzyme lipase ... etc.
The work must be vastly improved.
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 2
Comment 1: In general, the level of English is very poor and should be greatly improve.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, all spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected.
Comment 2: Throughout the text there are many names of microorganisms that must be spelled correctly and italicized.
Response: Agree. We have changed the spelled correctly and italicize the names of microorganisms in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: It is noted that in many paragraphs the authors have used the "aid" of cutting and pasting.
Response: We agree with this and have edited the sentences in all paragraphs to avoid any plagiarism throughout the manuscript.
Comment 4: Too many windings together, which must be separated
Response: Agree. We have revised the wordy sentences and changed into simple sentences throughout the manuscript.
Comment 5: Many paragraphs without concordance, with repetition of many words in the same sentence (enzyme immobilization, enzyme lipase ... etc.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have modified the paragraphs, added the citations and avoid the repetition of many words in the same sentence.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This review by Mokhtar et. al summarized some recent research on the immobilization of lipases. This is a topic that attracts more and more attention due to increasing interest in biocatalysis and porous materials. The review is overall very informative.
One limitation is, the authors only introduced work from research papers. The authors should have a brief paragraph, either in the introduction or in the end, to introduce the practical systems that have already been adopted in industrial production. This will give the readers some idea about the importance of the topic.
Some minor mistakes/typo:
- The tables look bad, because each column is too narrow, making the text too separated into different rows.
- There're many typos, for example, "active side" should be "active site" in line 32
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 3
Comment 1: One limitation is, the authors only introduced work from research papers. The authors should have a brief paragraph, either in the introduction or in the end, to introduce the practical systems that have already been adopted in industrial production. This will give the readers some idea about the importance of the topic.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. We have added the practical system that already been adopted in industrial production at the end/ last paragraph of the manuscript on page 10, line 260.
Comment 2: The tables look bad, because each column is too narrow, making the text too separated into different rows.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the Table 1 which can be found on page 4-6 and Table 3 on page 11-16.
Comment 3: There're many typos, for example, "active side" should be "active site" in line 32
Response: Agree. We have edited all the typos throughout the manuscript and changed "active side" to "active site" in line 33, page 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment 1: Table 1 and 3 critical considerations by authors are not particularly developed. In addition it is not clear because the tables report repetitive headers (source, type of support, etc).
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the table on page number 4 for Table 1 and page number 11 for Table 3. Some explanation about the Table 1 can be found on page number 3, paragraph 3 while for Table 3, some explanation were mentioned on page 9 under ‘Application of lipases immobilized on porous support’
Answer: Authors must discuss the results of references reported in table 1 (24, 49, 50-68). In paragraph 3 are reported other references that are not about the table 1. Besides, there is only one sentence about the table 1 : “The criteria of porous support use for lipase immobilization by adsorption and the application are listed in Table 1”... Please explain better table 1.
Comment 2: Introduction section needs to be further elaborated, in particular the authors should highlight the novelty of this work, and particular illustrate the superiority of this work from previous reports since many review article on this topic have been reported.
Response: We agree with this and have revised and modified the introduction section and highlighted the novelty of this work. The changes made can be found on page 2, paragraph 2 at line number 60.
Answer: the references reported in introduction section on page 2 are not all reviews but only research paper.. It is important to illustrate the superiority of this work from previous reviews. There are too many on lipase immobilization on porous supports: Thangaray et al. 2019,Rodriguez et al. 2019, Shuai ey al. 2017, Fernandez lofuente et al. 1998……Please authors should be consisidered all of these and others.
Comment 3: Finally, the results section is confused and not clear, please reorganized it.
Response: Agree. We have reorganized the results section accordingly to make the results more clear.
Comment 4: Line 32 page 1 active side
Response: We have changed to the active site on page 1 line 33
Comment: Line 217 page 11: In the sentence “The microporous polypropylene support also present in different 218 particles and pore size, which is useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases” is missing the verb.
Response: Line 220 page 10: We have edited the sentence on page 9, line 243. ‘The microporous polypropylene support also presents in different particles and pore size. These varieties are useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases’.
The sentence is not clear yet. Please check the grammar.
Author Response
Dear Dr./ Mr./Ms. [Bella zhang],
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled ‘Immobilization of lipases on porous support by adsorption and hydrophobic interaction method’ to Catalyst. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Comments from Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Authors must discuss the results of references reported in table 1 (24, 49, 50-68). In paragraph 3 are reported other references that are not about the table 1. Besides, there is only one sentence about the table 1: “The criteria of porous support use for lipase immobilization by adsorption and the application are listed in Table 1”... Please explain better table 1.
Response: Thank you for the comments. We agree with this comment. The explanation about Table 1 was added on page 4.
Comment 2: The references reported in introduction section on page 2 are not all reviews but only research paper.. It is important to illustrate the superiority of this work from previous reviews. There are too many on lipase immobilization on porous supports: Thangaray et al. 2019,Rodriguez et al. 2019, Shuai ey al. 2017, Fernandez lofuente et al. 1998……Please authors should be consisidered all of these and others.
Response: We agree with this and have added several references from the previous review paper. The superiority of this work also was highlighted. The changes made can be found on page 2, paragraph 2.
Comment 3: Line 220 page 10: We have edited the sentence on page 9, line 243. ‘The microporous polypropylene support also presents in different particles and pore size. These varieties are useful for the immobilization of different types of lipases’.
The sentence is not clear yet. Please check the grammar.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The sentences were removed from the paragraph.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Being the second version of the manuscript, revised it, I consider that the authors have fulfilled all the requirements demanded in the previous version
Also, I think the paper is suitable for publication and molecules.
Author Response
Comments from Reviewer 2
Comment: Being the second version of the manuscript, revised it, I consider that the authors have fulfilled all the requirements demanded in the previous version. Also, I think the paper is suitable for publication and molecules.
Response: Thank you for the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I think that now the paper is suitable for pubblication. The authors have fulfilled all the requirements demanded in the previous version.
