Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is important for encapsulation purposes. However, some amendments have to made by authors to improve the quality of the manuscript.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I do not see any strong statement to show the novelty of the study. The argument is not new, the work is not original and the methodology as described is not novel. The manuscript is too weak. The novelty and scientific contributions of this manuscript need to be further enhanced and justified. The present form reports a case study. It needs further the scientific in-depth analysis of the results of this paper. An updated and complete literature survey should be conducted. However, the organization of the introduction and the description of the methodology is very poor. In addition, the presentation of the data is incomplete and confusing without any discussion. It is a pain that this novel study cannot be published due to the poor quality of the manuscript. In fact, the works done in this study has the potential to provide very good scientific outputs, however, the organization, representation, and terminological phrasing of the paper are very poor and readers may feel in a mess of work done in the paper. Therefore, As the final review result, the reviewer CAN NOT SUGGEST this paper for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic discussed by the authors is interesting and relevant.
In my opinion, the article needs some major revisions

Chia seed mucilage needs more details on its preparation
which necessitates the ratios used in Table 1
To make a more detailed description of the units for determining density and coefficient of surface tension.
What are the other viscosity models used (Ridgeway 125-127).
Can you describe the preparation of the capsules in more detail?
Where more detailed information is given regarding the determination of color parameters

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Line 78 = "which allow to analyze and visualize" instead of "which allow analyzed and visualized"

Line 183= "The second model is Ritger and Peppas" instead of "The second model is of Ritger and Peppas" .

Line 228= As a logical sequence, it is suggested that Figure 1A should be discussed prior to Figure 1B.

Figure 2 = "Shapes of the capsules" instead of "Shape of the capsules"

In some places figure numbering is like Figure 1A and Figure 1B, In some other places it is like Figure 1-A, Figure 3-A etc. It is suggested to write in uniform style in the whole text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have not comments and suggestions. I think that authors are corectted the manuscript and it can be published in the present form.