Aquatic Plants for Blue Protein Innovation: Bridging Nutrition, Sustainability, and Food Security

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

1. General Overview

The manuscript provides a comprehensive and valuable review on aquatic plants and algae as alternative protein sources contributing to food security and sustainability. The review covers nutritional properties, cultivation, and processing technologies and aligns with Resources’ aims. However, it requires major revision to improve analytical synthesis, conciseness, and technical completeness—particularly in describing the processing technologies and their relevance to ready-to-eat food production. Novelty and Contribution.

. Major Comments

1. Structure and Synthesis

   • Condense the descriptive parts in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Create a comparative summary table including protein yield, amino acid score, and sustainability indicators (e.g., GHG emissions, land use efficiency).

2. Green Processing and Microbiological Aspects

   • The section “Green Processing” (Section 3) should be expanded to incorporate a microbiological perspective, as this is crucial to understanding protein functionality, digestibility, and safety in food applications.

   • Specifically, the review should:

     • Describe the microbial species commonly used in processing aquatic plant biomass, such as Lactobacillus plantarum, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus oryzae, and Rhizopus oligosporus.

     • Explain how microbial fermentation modifies the protein matrix, enhances amino acid availability, and reduces anti-nutritional compounds (e.g., oxalates, phytates, cyanogenic glycosides).

     • Discuss microbial safety and hygiene control during wet biomass processing, including contamination risks (cyanobacteria, pathogenic coliforms, mycotoxins) and the importance of HACCP-based bioprocess design.

     • Integrate examples of fermented or biotransformed aquatic plant products that demonstrate probiotic or postbiotic potential.

   • Additionally, the section should detail the main equipment and processes (fermenters, ultrasonic processors, microwave reactors, high-pressure systems, pulsed electric field units) and how these can be adapted for industrial-scale or ready-to-eat (RTE) food production.

   Suggested recent references:

   • https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5040023 

   • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141544
   • https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020323
   • https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020884 
   • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108794
   • https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13132125
   • 10.1007/s13197-020-04251-6
   • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111393

   These studies would strengthen the microbiological foundation and align the review with current research on biofermentation and sustainable protein valorization.

3. Tables and Figures

   • Harmonize the tables’ format, include proper units and references.

   • Ensure that all scientific names are italicized (Lemna minor, Azolla filiculoides, Wolffia globosa, Chlorella vulgaris, Ulva lactuca, Porphyra yezoensis, etc.).

4. Conclusions

   • Emphasize future perspectives that include:

     • Microbial optimization for improved digestibility and sensory profile;

     • Development of safe RTE aquatic plant foods;

   • Integration of green and microbial technologies into circular bioeconomy models.

      

     3. Minor Comments

     • • • • Include a paragraph describing the review methodology (databases searched, inclusion criteria).

           • Verify that all scientific names are consistently italicized.

           • Revise long sentences for conciseness and clarity.

   • By Example:
   • “Aquatic plants have been reported as potential sustainable protein sources due to their rapid growth rate and high protein yield which can be further enhanced through bioprocessing methods including fermentation, ultrasound, microwave, and high pressure that improve digestibility and bioavailability.”
   • I suggest:
   • “Aquatic plants are promising sustainable protein sources due to their rapid growth and high yield. These properties can be further enhanced by bioprocessing methods—such as fermentation, ultrasound, microwave, and high-pressure treatment—which improve digestibility and bioavailability.”

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

REVIEWER 1

Comments	Response
Major Comments
1. Structure and Synthesis
Condense the descriptive parts in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Create a comparative summary table including protein yield, amino acid score, and sustainability indicators (e.g., GHG emissions, land use efficiency).	Because the paper is primarily focused on sustainability, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are organized by genus. Similarly, the amino acid score was excluded as it falls outside the scope of this study.
2. Green Processing and Microbiological Aspects
The section “Green Processing” (Section 3) should be expanded to incorporate a microbiological perspective, as this is crucial to understanding protein functionality, digestibility, and safety in food applications.	The microbiology part does not fall in the scope of the paper. A general property regarding digestibility are mentioned but not in detailed.
Describe the microbial species commonly used in processing aquatic plant biomass, such as Lactobacillus plantarum, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus oryzae, and Rhizopus oligosporus.	The microbiology part does not fall in the scope of this paper.
Explain how microbial fermentation modifies the protein matrix, enhances amino acid availability, and reduces anti-nutritional compounds (e.g., oxalates, phytates, cyanogenic glycosides).	A quick discussion of enzymatic degradation of ANF and proteins plus microbial synthesis of new proteins or AA was added. Lines 434-438 “Various microbes enhance overall protein quality and digestibility in plants through enzymatic degradation of ANFs and protein hydrolysis releasing amino acids and potentially consuming and synthesizing new components”.
Discuss microbial safety and hygiene control during wet biomass processing, including contamination risks (cyanobacteria, pathogenic coliforms, mycotoxins) and the importance of HACCP-based bioprocess design.	The microbial safety and hygiene control and risks associated during processing does not fall in the scope of the paper.
Integrate examples of fermented or biotransformed aquatic plant products that demonstrate probiotic or postbiotic potential.	The section highlighted the enhancement of overall protein quality rather than targeting product development which still lags behind for many of the aquatic plant substrates.
Additionally, the section should detail the main equipment and processes (fermenters, ultrasonic processors, microwave reactors, high-pressure systems, pulsed electric field units) and how these can be adapted for industrial-scale or ready-to-eat (RTE) food production.	Scale up was noted within the UAE section. Lines 462-463 “UAE exhibits great potential for rapidly extracting and improving proteins, while current advances in industrial probe systems indicate improved viability at scale”.
3. Tables and Figures
Harmonize the tables’ format, include proper units and references.	Done
Ensure that all scientific names are italicized (Lemna minor, Azolla filiculoides, Wolffia globosa, Chlorella vulgaris, Ulva lactuca, Porphyra yezoensis, etc.).	Done
4. Conclusions
Emphasize future perspectives that include:  Microbial optimization for improved digestibility and sensory profile; Development of safe RTE aquatic plant foods; Integration of green and microbial technologies into circular bioeconomy models.	Included. (This is reflected in lines 498-511 of the revised manuscript)
Minor Comments
Include a paragraph describing the review methodology (databases searched, inclusion criteria).	Done. (This is reflected in lines 79–103 of the revised manuscript)
Verify that all scientific names are consistently italicized.	Done
Revise long sentences for conciseness and clarity.	Done

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled: Aquatic Plants for Blue Protein Innovation: Bridging Nutrition, Sustainability, and Food Security may contribute to the field but needs to be revised. Despite presenting interesting content for the research area, a lack of care with the text is observed throughout the article's elaboration; formatting problems such as citations, tables, and scientific names of species were noted. Several formatting issues were observed in the work; the authors need to make the necessary adjustments. The citations do not follow the standards established by the journal and need to be adapted, as does the list of references. Tables are also not in the format recommended. The toxicity and regulations for the application of the aforementioned organisms and their components in food need to be explored.

In more specific terms, the authors need to better organize what they wish to explore. The text presents an imbalance between the topics explored. The title does not represent what was proposed in the article, since it does not address any aspect of green processing. Little progress is observed in relation to what has already been published in the literature, especially in the green processing section.

In the abstract, it is important that no acronym is used without specifying its result (SGD12).

 It is widely known that the keywords must be different from the words in the title to improve indexing. The authors must change them accordingly.

Throughout the text, one observes statements that are not referenced, for example lines 37-39,  lines 56-58.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

REVIEWER 2

Comments	Response
Formatting problems such as citations, tables, and scientific names of species were noted. Several formatting issues were observed in the work; the authors need to make the necessary adjustments. The citations do not follow the standards established by the journal and need to be adapted, as does the list of references. Tables are also not in the format recommended.	Resolved
The toxicity and regulations for the application of the aforementioned organisms and their components in food need to be explored.	It does not fall in the scope of this paper
In more specific terms, the authors need to better organize what they wish to explore. The text presents an imbalance between the topics explored. The title does not represent what was proposed in the article, since it does not address any aspect of green processing.   Little progress is observed in relation to what has already been published in the literature, especially in the green processing section.	We appreciate the detailed critique of the manuscript's organization, title, and novelty. To address these concerns while maintaining the scope of the review, we have implemented the following concise revisions: 1. Structure, Organization, and Title Defense Action Taken: We have reorganized the manuscript to ensure a logical flow, transitioning from the resources to the processing technologies and their resulting sustainability impacts. •         A dedicated Methodology section (Section 2) was added to clearly define the scope and literature search criteria. •         The review structure (Resources in Section 3, Processing in Section 4, Sustainability in Section 5) clearly balances the exploration of nutritional potential with the necessary technologies. •         The title is appropriate because the Abstract explicitly states that Green Food Processing (GFP) technologies are critical for minimizing antinutritional factors, increasing bio-accessibility, and linking nutritional content to food security goals. The dedicated Section 4 confirms that green processing is a central theme. 2. Enhancing Novelty and Progress in Green Processing Action Taken: We have reinforced the novelty of the Green Processing section (Section 4) by focusing on synthesis, integration, and future outlook: •         The section focuses on emerging low-GHG, non-thermal technologies (UAE, HPP, PEF) as sustainable alternatives for aquatic plants. •         We added explicit content on how processing enhances quality, including a discussion on enzymatic degradation of Anti-Nutritional Factors (ANFs) and microbial synthesis of new components. •         We addressed industrial viability by noting that advances in industrial probe systems indicate improved viability at scale for UAE. •         The Conclusion was updated to reflect progress and future needs, emphasizing the integration of green technologies with microbial optimization to enhance digestibility and sensory attributes of future ready-to-eat (RTE) aquatic foods. These changes ensure the manuscript is structurally sound, accurately titled, and provides a forward-looking synthesis of green processing technologies relevant to blue protein resources.
In the abstract, it is important that no acronym is used without specifying its result (SGD12).	Resolved
It is widely known that the keywords must be different from the words in the title to improve indexing. The authors must change them accordingly.	Resolved
Throughout the text, one observes statements that are not referenced, for example lines 37-39, lines 56-58.	Added (References were added to support statements like protein content range and environmental impact)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript is well-written, except for some repetition in certain aspects. My comments are in the PDF format of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

REVIEWER 3

Comments	Response
Provide references: Line 43-44, Line 56-58, Line 62-63, Line 291-292, Line 363-365	Resolved
Italicize all the botanical names in this manuscript. Line 95, Line 128-129, Line 243, Line 423	Done
How can a plant demonstrate protein? Reconstruct the sentence. Line 146-147	Resolved
..consumed for both human and animal consumption.... Repetition of "consume" Please reconstruct the sentence. Line 150	Resolved
Give examples of other parts of the worlds in bracket. Line 154-155	Added
Repetition (Lines 154-162).	Removed
This Table is in a wrong position. It suppose to follow the page where the Table was firstly mentioned. Table 2.	Resolved
Do not start a sentence with alternatively. Line 257	Resolved
This Table 3 was not mentioned anywhere in the discussion above.	Resolved
Which macronutrients? Mention them. Line 320	Added (The revised text, Line 322, specifies: "Macroalgae supply all three macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein, fat)")
Italicize “nori” Line 329	Done
Seaweeds also contain antioxidant..... Line 331	Done
Italicize and add the English name. Line 382	Added
Reconstruct this sentence. Line 407-409	Resolved
Check this reference. The "R" suppose not to be there. Line 438	Resolved
Which best strains? Line 447	Edited

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, after a thorough review of the updated version, several issues remain that must be corrected. Please revise the manuscript accordingly:

1. Numerous minor grammatical issues, typographical errors, and inconsistent spacing still appear throughout the manuscript. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Incorrect spacing and punctuation (e.g., “e[2, 3].”, “..”, misplaced brackets).

• Typographical errors such as “Azolla spspp.”, “harborcontain”, or “TheWhile”.

• Incorrect or unclear sentence constructions that require rewriting for clarity.

Please conduct a line-by-line review and correct all grammatical and typographical inconsistencies.

2. There are inconsistent uses of scientific terms and units throughout the manuscript, including:

• Inconsistent formatting for percentages (e.g., “~25%”, “25 %”, “25%”).

Please unify terminology for consistency and scientific precision.

3. Several references require correction due to:

• Inconsistent citation styles.

• Improper placement of brackets and punctuation.

• Duplicate references or incomplete bibliographic information.

• Missing DOIs or missing publication details in specific citations.

• Use italics in scientific names

Please revise all references according to the journal’s formatting guidelines and ensure uniformity.

We appreciate your continued cooperation and your efforts to ensure that the manuscript meets the standards required for publication.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you again for your constructive feedback and for guiding us through all the revisions of our manuscript. We appreciate the thoroughness of your review, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our work. We have addressed all remaining issues point-by-point, conducting a comprehensive review to ensure the manuscript now meets the high standards required for publication. We believe that these extensive revisions have successfully addressed all the remaining issues and we hope the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took my suggestions into consideration, significantly improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you again for your constructive feedback and for guiding us through all the revisions of our manuscript. We appreciate the thoroughness of your review, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our work. We have addressed all remaining issues point-by-point, conducting a comprehensive review to ensure the manuscript now meets the high standards required for publication. We believe that these extensive revisions have successfully addressed all the remaining issues and we hope the manuscript is now suitable for publication.