Xanthan Gum-Driven Innovations for Reinventing Food Preservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You aimed to review the previous studies that have focused on the transformative role of natural biopolymer xanthan gum as an eco-friendly additive, widening the landscape of biodegradable materials. 

The objectives of the manuscript can be considered interesting, and the manuscript deserves consideration for eventual publication. However, the paper needs many revisions to satisfy science readers.

Please refer to the attachment for specific suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the authors' responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Evaluation:

This manuscript provides a valuable compilation of recent advances in xanthan gum (XG)-based packaging and holds the potential to make a good contribution to the field. However, substantial revisions are required to enhance its critical depth, structural coherence, and practical relevance. I recommend that the authors address the comments provided below and resubmit the manuscript for further evaluation.

 

Major Comments

 

1. While the article is organized into multiple sections, there is a lack of clear logical progression between them, along with considerable content repetition. For instance, chapters such as “Advancement in Enhancing Overall Characteristics of Xanthan Gum-based Packaging and Coating,” “Edible Food Coating/Packaging Utilizing Xanthan Gum,” and “Mechanical Properties” repeatedly cite similar composite material examples without establishing a systematic “structure–performance–application” analytical framework. As a result, the manuscript reads more like a compilation of literature summaries rather than a synthesis that extracts and integrates underlying principles.

   

2. 2.The characterization of xanthan gum composites currently remains predominantly at the macroscopic level, with a notable lack of in-depth exploration into the underlying microscopic mechanisms and structure–property relationships. For instance, although interactions such as hydrogen bonding and electrostatic forces between xanthan gum and other polymers (e.g., chitosan or gelatin) are frequently cited, the correlation between these interactions and corresponding characterization data—such as FTIR and XRD—has not been sufficiently established. This gap hinders a clear understanding of the nature, strength, and mechanistic role of these interactions in determining the material’s properties.
3. As a review article, its core value lies in systematically synthesizing existing research and identifying promising directions for future studies. However, the concluding section offers only generic recommendations such as “customized optimization” and “leveraging nanotechnology,” without linking these suggestions to the specific attributes of xanthan gum or proposing concrete, feasible research pathways or technical frameworks. This limits the article’s foresight and intellectual inspiration..

 

Minor Comments

1. Abbreviations: Please define all abbreviations upon first use. For instance, on Page 10, parahaemolyticusshould be introduced with its full name；on page 12,“TVC” should be spelled out as“Total Viable Count,”.

 

2. Formatting: Scientific names such as Staphylococcus aureus should be italicized consistently throughout the text.

 

3. Citation Consistency: Ensure that all in-text citations correspond correctly to entries in the reference list, and vice versa. Examples include references [80], [85], and [86], which require verification.

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the authors' responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved after the revision and could be accepted in the present form.