Perception of Translucency and Glossiness: Influence of the Optical Scattering Properties on Sensory Evaluation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the abstract of the manuscript, the purpose and importance of the study and the gap it will fill in the literature are shortly and clearly defined. The method of the study and the findings are mentioned.
In the introduction section previous studies on this subject are summarized and its difference from other studies is determined.
The methods used in the materials section and why these methods are preferred are indicated by using references. However, the following parts were seen as deficiencies.
1- It is the relationship between the particle size and the wavelength of the light used (Rayleigh or Mie scattering), which basically determines the scattering properties in a material. Therefore, it would be appropriate to give the dimensions of TiO2 and ZnO powders used at the beginning and after the experimental steps.
2- It is not specified what is used as "Thickener" shown in Table 2.
The findings obtained in the results and discussion section are explained in an understandable way using graphics. The graphic images and the description of the images are satisfactory.
In the conclusions sections, the results obtained from the study are summarized and explained in an appropriate way.
The plagiarism rate of the manuscript is 12%. However, the materials, results and discussion sections are almost non-existent. This shows the originality of the work.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are given in red font. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In the abstract and conclusion, it was claimed that "On the other hand, only the emulsions in the group with the highest scattering coefficient showed a characteristic strong glossiness, while the other samples showed little difference in glossiness due to the difference in scattering coefficients." However, in the result, it said that "it can be considered that the higher the scattering coefficient, the harder it is to feel the glossiness." Is there a contradiction?
2. There are some repeated sentences and some incomplete sentences in the article, and the literal expression needs to be further examined.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are given in red font. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
„Perception of translucency and glossiness in emulsions used in cosmetics: influence of the optical scattering properties relation to sensory evaluation” - Review
The aim of the manuscript titled: „Perception of translucency and glossiness in emulsions used in cosmetics: influence of the optical scattering properties relation to sensory evaluation” was „to clarify the correlation between the scattering properties and the change in visual perception by using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide for cosmetic particles as emulsions.”
Comments:
1. In my opinion, the title of the paper, the content of the Introduction and abstract, the key words („emulsions”, „cosmetics”), using of the term "emulsions" in relation to the samples developed in manuscript is incorrect.
2. The samples produced in the paper are not emulsions. As the Authors wrote on page 2 of the manuscript: „Emulsions are colloidal dispersions of a liquid in another immiscible liquid stabilized using a surfactant and/or solid particles.”
Emulsions are systems consisting of immiscible liquids, with one liquid dispersed in the other as droplets. Water (and other hydrophylic components e.g. glycerine, glycols etc.) is usually one phase (hydrophilic), while the other is an immiscible liquid called „oil” (hydrophobic) phase (e.g. paraffin oil, polydimethylsiloxanes, waxes, plant oils etc.). Samples developed in manuscript do not contain any of ingredients of oil phase. Samples 1-10 contained only: water, solid particles (ZnO, TiO2), thickener (aqueous solution of carboxymethylcellulose), samples 11-12 also contained: surfactant and ethanol. That is why, in my opinion, the Authors’ orginal samples are dispersions or suspensions of solid particles (ZnO, TiO2) in a hydrophilic medium and calling them „emulsions” is incorrect.
The solid particles used by the Authors: Titanium Dioxide and Zync Oxide are insoluble in water and both can only be suspended in hydrophilic phase used in this work. The emulsion-like appearance of the samples was achieved by using very high concentrations (3% wt.) of ZnO and TiO2, which are not usually added to cosmetics in such quantities. It can be said that they whitened the system and something like a „paste” was obtained.
3. In the paper there is no information how long after manufacturing process the samples were tested and whether their stability was checked in any way. This is key information.
4. The passive voice in whole manuscript must be used. Phrases such as „we did behavioral studies”, „We used an instrument developed in our previous work”, etc. lower the scientific character of the work.
5. On page 3 the picture of sample no. 12 should be added, because of very high stirring speed which could have the influence on the look of the sample.
6. Page 6, line 201, 203, 210, 212, 215, 217 etc. the term „the subjects” should be changed into „panelists”, „probants” or „evaluators” which is more suitable during sensory evaluation.
7. Page 6 line 215 in „the protocol of the sensory test” numbering should start from 1 to 7 not 4 to 10.
8. Page 7 line 240 and 241 there should be not „Subjects” but „Panel of assessors”, „Sensory panel”, „Panelists” which is more suitable during sensory evaluation.
9. Page 8 Fig. 7a-7b the scale on the Y axis should be the same for both drawings. The current one misleads the reader.
10. The term emulsions should be avoided throughout the work.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for the comments that would undoubtedly improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ comments. The revised parts of the manuscript are given in red font. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I appreciate the tremendous work and thoroughness you have put in to improve the manuscript. I accept the manuscript in the current revised version.
