Oil Bodies Cream from Olive Paste: Extraction of a Functional Ingredient for Developing a Stable Food Emulsion
, Carlo Orefice 3, Isidoro Garella 5, Marica Di Domenico 3, Serena Vitali 3, Vitale Stanzione 6, Simonetta Grilli 1, Pietro Ferraro 1 and Roberto Nigro 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented in this scientific work their research for the production of oil bodies directly from olive paste to be implemented as food emulsion. The authors have based the research on a previous patented method that they have optimized to reduce time and effort for the obtention of the desire products in order to facilitated the industrial approach.
In general the manuscript should be improved by giving more background of the material used and developing a bit further discussion of results but I will summarized here below most of my concerns:
Abstract
The definition of the OOBC seems a bit confusing, and moreover this acronym is not further explain in the main text which generate even more confusion while reading. Maybe there is another way to define it.
Introduction
Line 35. The author could explain further the stability they mean in this sentence and provide with some references.
Line 58-59. The antimicrobial effect is is different from the antioxidant that preserve the preparation. Further and more precise explainaiton is need it here.
Line 73. The amounts of olive oil produce is not clear in the sentences, how much is the current production per year could be more understandable.
Line 84-85. While defining the composition, where is accounted the lignin? or are the authors just talking about the olive mesocarp?
Line 120. "We guess" is not exactly the way to present the hypothesis
Material and Methods
All numbering need to be updated. All the equipment need further specification, type, brand, country...
Line 126. Perugia, add Italy
Line 126. No definition of the OOBC.
Line 134. Specification of the grinder machine.
Line 138. specification of the homogenization which equipment
Line 168. Are the measurement done in triplicates for the polyphenols? and for the rest of the things?
Line 231. Section stability, why the thermal stability is not included here?
Line 239. In the conclusion you said 10 s in the microwave and here 20s, can the authors please correct the conditions.
Line 257. What you are presenting is the Viscosity, the flow corves is just the way to represent it. Please correct the title of the section
Line 315. The total yield is given as 21.4%. Can the authors please provide with the yields from the different steps of extraction? Moreover, can the authors provide the initial composition of the olive paste so we can understand better the final yield and compare what have been extracted?
Figure 2. the Quality of the picture should be improved.
Table 1. What about deviations?
Line 369. Present the yields from the initial composition so we understand how much of proteins are obtained.
Table 2. Decimals should be the same if the same spectophotometer was used.
Line 382. Stable in what way?
Line 384. If the OBs are aimed to be use in enulsion as mayonaise as compared later in the text, why not to choose the thermal test to lower temrpeature 4°C or even the freezing effect
Line 390. They the OBs are lighter in the microscopy picture?
Figure 5. In b and c the label to indicate diameter is not well seeing, change color. The figure should be create as one not decided into two.
Line 403. "Didn't" use proper academic English
Line 410. What was the initial moisture content, can the author check the evaporation in the different thermal steps?
Line 416. Average diameter based in how many measurement?
Line 430. What is D? is it not clear what the authors are measuring here
Line 446-447. And what is the conclusion? The diameters are different at those temperature but why?
Line 459. Why mayonnaise? What is similiar in the OBs compostion and emulsion?
Line 467. Why is the viscosity reduced?
Line 486. "Mayo" correct English
Line 491-492. Why is that measure in emulsion in food?
Line 501. Make more clear that this is your concluding section
Line 509. "Didn't"
Line 528. "10s" or 20?
Author Response
Thanks to rewiever for his suggestion, you can find attached modified manuscript and at the end our answers to your questions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript should be revised by a native english speaker in order to make it clearer. Several sentences need to be reformulated. Some other minor suggestions are presented in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks to rewiever for his suggestion, you can find attached modified manuscript where you can see in red the answers to you suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have implemented the suggestions mentioned in the first review round, and I believe the general understanding of the scientific work is better.
