Development of Jasmine Rice Flour Properties as a Safe and Efficient Ingredient for Compact Powder
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments to the manuscript:
This study is a valid piece of science. The clarity of the presentation of the results are not satisfactory and the title it is inconsistent from the Scientific point of view. The paper needs to be re-worked by evidencing some declaration that are not fully investigated by experimental data that appear leaking of the topic meaning. More than enough scientific knowledge appears to be under patent procedures that is not consistent with the scientific knowledge that have to share all the information inside to communities.
Therefore I have some main points:
- starting from the title, the author define “Safe and Efficient Ingredient” that are only adjectives about their product, they did not demonstrate inside study why the powder has to be consider safe or efficient. They point their attention on this two adjectives thought the paper but they did not give any comparative and experimental data about something that demonstrate why the powder become safer or more efficient of the other product.
- The author report in Table 1. Ingredients for each formulation. The two formulation are different only on the base of “Talcum and Modified Jasmine Rice Powder” % concentration level . therefore the table have to be delete and the difference about F1 and F2 may be only describe inside material and method. Please delete the table
- The author report in Table 2. “Satisfaction evaluation from five-rating scale questionnaire” following the scientific porposes the table may delete from the paper. All the number considering the SD the table don’t add nothing to the discussion. By considering the scientific statistical significant they appear all the same. Please delete the table
I would like to see a clear presentation of the method product performances on the base of physical and chemical properties of samples, they seems to be incomplete, clearly with an accent on statistical point of view. My suggestion is that the data and their statically elaboration have to be declared in the range of concentration and consistent for the analytical method. The study needs to be re-worked to make it considerably more clear and to bring out the full meaning of the chemical analytical method. IR spectrum are not enough to demonstrate what they declare in the Title.
I feel that the authors should be invited to revisit the manuscript with a view to increasing results and discussions relationships in order to obtain an scientific value of the paper and some conclusion about the product formulation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Point 1: starting from the title, the author define “Safe and Efficient Ingredient” that are only adjectives about their product, they did not demonstrate inside study why the powder has to be consider safe or efficient. They point their attention on this two adjectives thought the paper but they did not give any comparative and experimental data about something that demonstrate why the powder become safer or more efficient of the other product.
Response 1: Even we did not demonstrate inside the study why the rice powder become safer the talcum powder, but there is a scientific report revealed that talcum powder could increase the risk of cancer with the relationship between the occupational groups exposed by ingestion or inhalation of asbestos in talcum [4]. While using natural flour as a biodegradable material would be a challenge and an opportunity to overcome the risk. Jasmine rice panicle extract having high levels of phenolics shows cutaneous benefits as the basis for skin aging treatments, as indicated through in vitro cytotoxicity assessments and skin testing in human subjects [12-13].
The efficiencies of the developed product have been studied and added for some more experiments (concealment and sun protection factor) and compared with the commercial product.
Point 2: The author report in Table 1. Ingredients for each formulation. The two formulation are different only on the base of “Talcum and Modified Jasmine Rice Powder” % concentration level, therefore the table have to be delete and the difference about F1 and F2 may be only describe inside material and method. Please delete the table.
Response 2: I have already deleted table 1.
Point 3: The author report in Table 2. “Satisfaction evaluation from five-rating scale questionnaire” following the scientific purposes the table may delete from the paper. All the number considering the SD the table don’t add nothing to the discussion. By considering the scientific statistical significant they appear all the same. Please delete the table.
Response 3: Table 2 on the assessment of the volunteer satisfaction shown on the graph and the P- values given on the graph as commented by reviewer 2.
Moreover, the revised-manuscript has a view to increasing results and discussion relationships to obtain a scientific value of the paper and some conclusion about the product formulation in terms of concealment testing and determination of the in vitro sun protection factor.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional information concerning this manuscript.
Best regards,
Oraphan
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It could be more interesting if table 2 concerning the autoevaluation of the volunteerrs could be appeared as graphs and the p values assigned on the graph
Author Response
Point 1: It could be more interesting if table 2 concerning the auto evaluation of the volunteers could be appeared as graphs and the p values assigned on the graph.
Response 1: Table 2 on the assessment of the volunteer satisfaction shown on the graph and the P- values given on the graph.
Moreover, the revised-manuscript has a view to increasing results and discussion relationships to obtain a scientific value of the paper and some conclusion about the product formulation in terms of concealment testing and determination of the in vitro sun protection factor.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any additional information concerning this manuscript.
Best regards,
Oraphan
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The study has been improved by the author, many requests were well elucidate other are not fully "scientifically" correct but probably they improve the editorial impacts of the present study. Therefore, considering the topics of the journal editorial mission, the paper is acceptable for the publication in the present form.
