Review Reports - Innovative Approaches for Enhancing the Stability and Functionality of Essential Oils in Food Systems: A Critical and Bibliometric Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript intitled “Innovative approaches for enhancing the stability and functionality of essential oils in Food Systems: A critical and bibliometric review” is addresses a topical and emerging issue, as it is important to use natural food ingredients and preservatives. However, the analysis of the literature review appears somewhat superficial and does not allow for a comparison of the chemical composition with the stabilization technologies used for essential oils, nor does it clarify which technologies are best suited for their use in post-harvest applications.

For example, in Table 2, the authors should include the bibliographic references for each essential oil and the % of each major component group. Regarding to the chemical composition of essential oils, in my opinion, the point 3 of the manuscript is very incomplete. Actually, as we know, essential oils are complex mixtures of multiple components, and their antimicrobial properties are often not due just to one or two main components, but rather to the synergistic effect of their components.

Furthermore, the authors should have included the percentages of the components they identify as predominant.

It was also important to present the chemical composition of the selected oils, at least in groups of compounds, such as monoterpene hydrocarbons, oxygenated monoterpenes (and within these, identify phenolic compounds such as carvacrol and thymol), sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, oxygenated sesquiterpenes and the percentages present in each of the oils selected for the study.

For example, oxidation reactions occur much more frequently in oxygen-containing compounds, as shown in Figure 3; however, the authors do not discuss the possibility of oxidation among the different groups of essential components.

In my opinion, the analysis of the applications of essential oils is very limited (Figure 4), as it is based on the total number of selected articles. I recommend a more robust analysis that identifies journals based on the Scopus journal quartiles, specifying the number of Q1 publications and, among these, which ones are actually focused on essential oil stabilization research for food systems

In section 5.3, the authors discuss the use of essential oils and blends that are not listed in Table 2 – Top 10 essential oils commonly used in food systems. In my opinion, there should be a link between the selected oils (Table 2) and their applicability in food systems.

Overall, I recommend a comprehensive revision of the manuscript (major review) in order to include the chemical composition of the selected essential oils, as well as a discussion of both the changes and the applications based on this chemical composition. It will also be important to refine the literature review to include articles from Scopus Q1 and Q2 journals.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript entitled “Innovative approaches for enhancing the stability and functionality of essential oils in Food Systems: A critical and bibliometric review” addresses a topical and emerging issue, as it is important to use natural food ingredients and preservatives. However, the analysis of the literature review appears somewhat superficial and does not allow for a comparison of the chemical composition with the stabilization technologies used for essential oils, nor does it clarify which technologies are best suited for their use in post-harvest applications.

For example, in Table 2, the authors should include the bibliographic references for each essential oil and the % of each major component group. Regarding the chemical composition of essential oils, in my opinion, point 3 of the manuscript is very incomplete. Actually, as we know, essential oils are complex mixtures of multiple components, and their antimicrobial properties are often not due just to one or two main components, but rather to the synergistic effect of their components.

Furthermore, the authors should have included the percentages of the components they identify as predominant.

Authors’ responses: Thank you for the valuable feedback. We agree that a clearer discussion linking essential oil composition with stabilization technologies and food applications was needed. In response, Section 3 has been substantially revised to provide a more critical discussion of essential oil composition. In addition, Table 2 has been revised to include bibliographic references, main applications in food systems, compound percentages, and their classes.

Comment 2: For example, oxidation reactions occur much more frequently in oxygen-containing compounds, as shown in Figure 3; however, the authors do not discuss the possibility of oxidation among the different groups of essential components.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that our previous version did not clearly discuss the oxidative susceptibility of different EOs. So, Section 3.3.1 has been revised.

Comment 3: In my opinion, the analysis of the applications of essential oils is very limited (Figure 4), as it is based on the total number of selected articles. I recommend a more robust analysis that identifies journals based on the Scopus journal quartiles, specifying the number of Q1 publications and, among these, which ones are actually focused on essential oil stabilization research for food

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that incorporating journal ranking or quartile classification could provide an additional perspective on the dissemination quality and visibility of the reviewed literature. However, the aim of this review was to provide a broad and inclusive overview of research on essential oil stabilization and functionality in food systems, rather than to restrict the analysis to studies published in journals of specific ranking categories. Therefore, the bibliometric analysis was designed to capture overall research trends, thematic development, publication patterns, and emerging research directions across the field. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that limitation and considered it in the interpretation of our results.

Comment 3: In section 5.3, the authors discuss the use of essential oils and blends that are not listed in Table 2 – Top 10 essential oils commonly used in food systems. In my opinion, there should be a link between the selected oils (Table 2) and their applicability in food systems.

Author’s response: Thank you for your suggestion. Changes have been implemented

Comment 4: Overall, I recommend a comprehensive revision of the manuscript (major review) in order to include the chemical composition of the selected essential oils, as well as a discussion of both the changes and the applications based on this chemical composition. It will also be important to refine the literature review to include articles from Scopus Q1 and Q2 journals.

Author’s response: Thank you for this helpful recommendation. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the discussion of the chemical composition of the selected essential oils, including their major chemical classes and their relationships to stability, functionality, and applications in food systems.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article integrates bibliometric analysis with traditional review methodology. The topic— 'Stabilization of Essential Oils in Food Systems' —holds significant practical relevance and aligns with the journal Plants' editorial scope. However, the paper currently exhibitted notable structural flaws (e.g., a disconnect between bibliometric analysis and main text content), lacks sufficient academic rigor in language expression, and omits critical details (such as specific sensory impact data). Substantial revisions and content supplements are required to meet publication standards.

1-Structural and Logical Flow Issues: The current structure of the article exhibits disconnections. Part 4 focuses exclusively on bibliometric analysis, whereas the content of Part 5 (Advanced Stable Technologies) and Part 6 (Materials and Technologies) appears disconnected from the preceding bibliometric findings. The author is advised to integrate the results of the bibliometric analysis into the review's narrative. For example, when discussing "Emulsions" or "Encapsulation" in Section 5, cite data from Section 4 to demonstrate why these areas represent research hotspots, rather than treating the bibliometric analysis as an isolated chapter.

2-In Introduction, although the introduction cites extensive data (such as population growth by 2050), it lacks a thorough exploration of the underlying mechanisms for why new stabilization technologies are necessary. It is advisable to more explicitly outline the innovative contributions of this paper in the introduction. The current introduction serves more as a general background on food preservation and should be more closely aligned with the contradiction between "the instability of essential oils" and "emerging delivery systems" in its development.

3-The issue of review depth: When discussing emerging technologies (Section 5.4), although nanofibers, zeolites, and MOFs are cited, the descriptions remain superficial—merely listing terms without providing in-depth critiques of their limitations in practical food applications.
Recommendation: Additional analysis is required regarding the reasons for the challenges in implementing these new technologies, such as the cost issues associated with MOFs and the applicability of nanofibers in liquid foods.

4-The study mentions that 327 documents were retrieved, from which 103 were ultimately selected for analysis. However, the authors did not provide detailed explanations on how the exclusion criteria were specifically applied.
Recommendation: A detailed screening flowchart should be included in the Methodology section (although the PRISMA flowchart is referenced, the description needs to be more rigorous), and an explanation should be provided for why only 103 studies were selected for in-depth analysis—could this lead to data bias?

5-The absence of sensory impact analysis: While the title mentions "Functionality," the main text provides insufficient discussion on the specific effects of essential oils and their delivery systems on food sensory characteristics (flavor and aroma). This constitutes a significant flaw in the food science review. Then, the discussion on "sensory acceptability" must be enhanced. For example, although microencapsulation masks the flavor of essential oils, does the release of this flavor during food processing or chewing affect consumer acceptance? which is very important for foods.

6-Figure and Table Quality: The text repeatedly contains <img> tag placeholders, and tables (e.g., Table 2) contain overly simplistic content. Table 2 – Instead of merely listing plant sources and active ingredients, it is advisable to add a column titled "Main applications in food systems" or "Stability challenges" to enhance practicality. Figure: Bibliometric plots (Figures 2 and 4) are often cluttered. Authors are advised to refine the legend and provide a detailed explanation of the clustering patterns in the text, rather than leaving it to readers to interpret them independently.

7-The conclusion section (Section 9) is excessively lengthy andduplicated the content of the abstract. Section 8 already discusses the challenges, yet Section 9 merely reiterates them. Please condense the conclusion. Section 9 should focus on summarizing the future trends identified through bibliometric analysis in this paper (e.g., the shift from single polymers to composite materials, or from contact packaging to vapor-phase release systems), rather than merely listing the challenges again.

Overall, this is a promising article, but the current draft appears somewhat rushed, with a loose structure and insufficiently refined language. Authors are advised to make substantial revisions based on the aforementioned suggestions, particularly those concerning structural restructuring and enhanced sensory/mechanistic depth.

Author Response

Comment 1: This article integrates bibliometric analysis with traditional review methodology. The topic— 'Stabilization of Essential Oils in Food Systems' —holds significant practical relevance and aligns with the journal Plants' editorial scope. However, the paper currently exhibits notable structural flaws (e.g., a disconnect between bibliometric analysis and main text content), lacks sufficient academic rigor in language expression, and omits critical details (such as specific sensory impact data). Substantial revisions and content supplements are required to meet publication standards.

1-Structural and Logical Flow Issues: The current structure of the article exhibits disconnections. Par 4 focuses exclusively on bibliometric analysis, whereas the content of Part 5 (Advanced Stable Technologies) and Part 6 (Materials and Technologies) appears disconnected from the preceding bibliometric findings. The author is advised to integrate the results of the bibliometric analysis into the review's narrative. For example, when discussing "Emulsions" or "Encapsulation" in Section 5, cite data from Section 4 to demonstrate why these areas represent research hotspots, rather than treating the bibliometric analysis as an isolated chapter.

Author’s response: Thank you for this insightful and constructive comment. We appreciate the concern regarding the manuscript's structural coherence. In response, we have revised the manuscript structure to improve the coherence.

Comment 2: In the Introduction, although the introduction cites extensive data (such as population growth by 2050), it lacks a thorough exploration of the underlying mechanisms for why new stabilization technologies are necessary. It is advisable to more explicitly outline the innovative contributions of this paper in the introduction. The current introduction serves more as a general background on food preservation and should be more closely aligned with the contradiction between "the instability of essential oils" and "emerging delivery systems" in its development.

Author’s response: Thank you for this constructive comment. Changes have been incorporated to emphasize the inherent instability of essential oils and the resulting need for advanced stabilization and delivery systems in food applications.

Comment 3: The issue of review depth: When discussing emerging technologies (Section 5.4), although nanofibers, zeolites, and MOFs are cited, the descriptions remain superficial—merely listing terms without providing in-depth critiques of their limitations in practical food applications.
Recommendation: Additional analysis is required regarding the reasons for the challenges in implementing these new technologies, such as the cost issues associated with MOFs and the applicability of nanofibers in liquid foods.

Author’s response: Thank you for this important and constructive suggestion. We agree that a more critical perspective was needed and in response, we have deepened the discussion

Comment 4: The study mentions that 327 documents were retrieved, from which 103 were ultimately selected for analysis. However, the authors did not provide detailed explanations on how the exclusion criteria were specifically applied.
Recommendation: A detailed screening flowchart should be included in the Methodology section (although the PRISMA flowchart is referenced, the description needs to be more rigorous), and an explanation should be provided for why only 103 studies were selected for in-depth analysis—could this lead to data bias?

Author’s response: Thank you for your constructive comment, the methodology has been substantially revised and reframed for more clarity and transparency of the review design.

Comment 5: The absence of sensory impact analysis: While the title mentions "Functionality," the main text provides insufficient discussion on the specific effects of essential oils and their delivery systems on food sensory characteristics (flavor and aroma). This constitutes a significant flaw in the food science review. Then, the discussion on "sensory acceptability" must be enhanced. For example, although microencapsulation masks the flavor of essential oils, does the release of this flavor during food processing or chewing affect consumer acceptance? which is very important for food.

Author’s response: Thank you for the constructive comment; this has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

Comment 6: Figure and Table Quality: The text repeatedly contains <img> tag placeholders, and tables (e.g., Table 2) contain overly simplistic content. Table 2 – Instead of merely listing plant sources and active ingredients, it is advisable to add a column titled "Main applications in food systems" or "Stability challenges" to enhance practicality. Figure: Bibliometric plots (Figures 2 and 4) are often cluttered. Authors are advised to refine the legend and provide a detailed explanation of the clustering patterns in the text, rather than leaving it to readers to interpret them independently.

Author’s response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion, “Main applications in food systems” column has been added in Table 2 as advised.

Comment 7: The conclusion section (Section 9) is excessively lengthy and duplicated the content of the abstract. Section 8 already discusses the challenges, yet Section 9 merely reiterates them. Please condense the conclusion. Section 9 should focus on summarizing the future trends identified through bibliometric analysis in this paper (e.g., the shift from single polymers to composite materials, or from contact packaging to vapor-phase release systems), rather than merely listing the challenges again.

Author’s response: Thank you for the constructive comment, the conclusion has been revised as advised.

Comment 8: Overall, this is a promising article, but the current draft appears somewhat rushed, with a loose structure and insufficiently refined language. Authors are advised to make substantial revisions based on the aforementioned suggestions, particularly those concerning structural restructuring and enhanced sensory/mechanistic depth.

Author’s response: Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive overall assessment. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive view of the relevance and potential of the work, as well as the detailed suggestions for improvement.

In response, the manuscript has been substantially revised to improve structural coherence, refine language throughout, and strengthen both the mechanistic and sensory-related discussions. Attention has been given to enhancing the depth of analysis on essential oil behavior in food systems, including stability, interactions with food matrices, and functional performance, as well as ensuring a clearer and more logically integrated structure across all sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Innovative approaches for enhancing the stability and functionality of essential oils in Food Systems: A critical and bibliometric review” aims to (i) synthesize stabilization strategies for essential oils (EOs), (ii) map the research landscape using bibliometric tools, and (iii) identify knowledge gaps and future directions in food systems.

Main strengths: (i) timely topic addressing natural preservatives and postharvest losses, (ii) integration of bibliometric and narrative review approaches, and (iii) broad coverage of stabilization technologies (emulsions, encapsulation, packaging).

Major limitations: (i) weak conceptual framing linking preharvest–postharvest continuum, (ii) overly descriptive rather than mechanistic and critical, and (iii) limited discussion on real-world applicability, scalability, and commercialization, (iv) insufficient emphasis on climate change constraints and system-level challenges, and (v) methodological limitations (bibliometric + PRISMA) not fully transparent or reproducible.

L11–25: The Abstract contains several overly generalized statements, particularly those linking essential oil bioactivity directly to improved postharvest quality without sufficient qualification or acknowledgment of variability across systems. The limitations mentioned (e.g., scalability, sensory effects) are not critically elaborated. The abstract should be revised to reflect a more critical synthesis, clearly distinguishing established evidence from assumptions and highlighting key constraints and knowledge gaps.

L30–70: The Introduction, while appropriately framing postharvest losses, lacks integration of climate change as a major driver affecting both production and postharvest performance. The authors should explicitly discuss the role of increased temperature, reduced relative humidity (leading to elevated VPD), higher radiation loads, and salinity stress (Fanourakis et al. 2025, Plants 14, 3390), and how these factors influence essential oil performance and food preservation systems. Furthermore, the novelty of the review is not convincingly demonstrated, as Table 1 does not clearly articulate how this work advances beyond existing literature. Critically, the manuscript omits the preharvest–postharvest continuum. It must be explicitly stated that preharvest environmental conditions determine nutritional quality, susceptibility to spoilage, and shelf life (Fanourakis et al. 2026, Agronomy 16, 48).

L94–126: The Methodology raises serious concerns regarding rigor and reproducibility. The exclusive use of Scopus introduces database bias, and the exclusion of other databases (e.g., Web of Science) is not justified. The search string is relatively narrow and omits key terms such as “postharvest,” “food preservation,” and “encapsulation,” potentially limiting coverage. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are insufficiently detailed, and no information is provided regarding bias assessment or quality evaluation of the selected studies. Although PRISMA is cited, its implementation is incomplete, as no protocol registration or systematic quality assessment is presented. The methodology should be substantially revised.

L130–244: The section on chemical characteristics and stability is largely descriptive and lacks critical depth. The tables summarizing EOs do not include quantitative comparisons or functional relevance in real food systems. The discussion of instability mechanisms, such as oxidation and photodegradation, is not integrated with the subsequent sections on delivery systems and lacks kinetic or quantitative perspectives. The subsection on interactions with the food matrix is particularly important but underdeveloped, as it does not sufficiently address mechanistic aspects such as diffusion, partitioning, and binding interactions. This section should be strengthened with a more analytical and integrative approach.

L245–304: The bibliometric analysis provides descriptive information but offers limited scientific insight. Statements regarding the “emerging nature” of the field are not critically benchmarked against comparable research areas. The interpretation of geographic distribution remains superficial and does not consider underlying drivers such as funding structures, industrial engagement, or regional priorities. The section would benefit from deeper analytical interpretation rather than descriptive reporting.

L311–533: The sections describing stabilization technologies are comprehensive but remain largely descriptive. The discussion of emulsions, encapsulation, and active packaging lacks critical comparison across systems in terms of efficiency, cost, scalability, and industrial feasibility. Emerging technologies such as nanofibers, zeolites, and metal-organic frameworks are introduced without discussion of their technological readiness level, regulatory constraints, or potential toxicological implications. As a result, the practical relevance of these approaches remains unclear. The authors should incorporate a more critical evaluation of advantages, limitations, and real-world applicability.

L570–599: The release modelling section is insufficiently developed. Although the importance of release kinetics is acknowledged, no specific models or equations are presented, and the discussion remains superficial. The reference to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) is generic and lacks concrete examples or validation data. This section should be expanded to include established modelling approaches and their relevance to essential oil delivery systems.

L600–639: The applications section correctly identifies that most studies are conducted in vitro, with limited validation in real food systems. However, the implications of this gap are not critically explored. There is no discussion of how complex food matrices, storage conditions, or supply chain factors influence essential oil performance. Furthermore, the absence of a preharvest perspective limits the ability to interpret postharvest outcomes, as quality and shelf life are inherently shaped by preharvest conditions (Fanourakis et al. 2026, Agronomy 16, 48). This section should be revised to incorporate a more holistic and systems-level perspective.

L643–672: The challenges and future directions section identifies several relevant gaps, including matrix interactions and scalability, but remains general and lacks a clear research roadmap or prioritization. Importantly, it does not integrate climate change challenges or production system constraints. The authors should explicitly incorporate the role of climate-driven stressors (Fanourakis et al. 2025, Plants 14, 3390) and their implications for essential oil effectiveness and postharvest strategies and reinforce the importance of the preharvest–postharvest continuum.

L674–689: The conclusions are overly generic and do not reflect a sufficiently critical synthesis of the literature. They reiterate known limitations without offering strong, forward-looking insights. The conclusions should be revised to clearly articulate key advances, limitations, and prioritized future research directions grounded in the critical analysis presented in the manuscript.

L654–659: A critical conceptual limitation of the manuscript is the absence of a climate change context, despite its direct relevance to postharvest preservation systems. The authors should explicitly incorporate the effects of key climate-driven stressors, including elevated temperature, reduced relative humidity leading to increased vapor pressure deficit (VPD), and salinity, and discuss how these factors influence both crop physiology and the effectiveness of essential oil-based preservation strategies. In addition, the manuscript treats postharvest processes in isolation, which is a major conceptual weakness. It must be clearly stated that preharvest environmental conditions fundamentally determine nutritional quality, tissue susceptibility, and ultimately shelf life. The authors should explicitly integrate the preharvest–postharvest continuum, emphasizing that any postharvest intervention, including essential oil application, is inherently conditioned by the crop’s preharvest history.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

manuscript is generally understandable

English would benefit from minor editing to improve clarity, precision, and flow

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript entitled “Innovative approaches for enhancing the stability and functionality of essential oils in Food Systems: A critical and bibliometric review” aims to (i) synthesize stabilization strategies for essential oils (EOs), (ii) map the research landscape using bibliometric tools, and (iii) identify knowledge gaps and future directions in food systems.

Main strengths: (i) timely topic addressing natural preservatives and postharvest losses, (ii) integration of bibliometric and narrative review approaches, and (iii) broad coverage of stabilization technologies (emulsions, encapsulation, packaging).

Major limitations: (i) weak conceptual framing linking preharvest–postharvest continuum, (ii) overly descriptive rather than mechanistic and critical, and (iii) limited discussion on real-world applicability, scalability, and commercialization, (iv) insufficient emphasis on climate change constraints and system-level challenges, and (v) methodological limitations (bibliometric + PRISMA) not fully transparent or reproducible.

Author’s response: Thank you for this important comment. The concerned sections of the manuscript have been deeply revised to address these major limitations identified.

Comment 2: The Abstract contains several overly generalized statements, particularly those linking essential oil bioactivity directly to improved postharvest quality without sufficient qualification or acknowledgment of variability across systems. The limitations mentioned (e.g., scalability, sensory effects) are not critically elaborated. The abstract should be revised to reflect a more critical synthesis, clearly distinguishing established evidence from assumptions and highlighting key constraints and knowledge gaps.

Author’s response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the original abstract contained overly general statements and did not sufficiently distinguish between established findings and existing limitations in the field.

In response, the abstract has been revised to provide a strengthened scope and critical contribution of the manuscript.

Comment 3: The Introduction, while appropriately framing postharvest losses, lacks integration of climate change as a major driver affecting both production and postharvest performance. The authors should explicitly discuss the role of increased temperature, reduced relative humidity (leading to elevated VPD), higher radiation loads, and salinity stress (Fanourakis et al. 2025, Plants 14, 3390), and how these factors influence essential oil performance and food preservation systems. Furthermore, the novelty of the review is not convincingly demonstrated, as Table 1 does not clearly articulate how this work advances beyond existing literature. Critically, the manuscript omits the preharvest–postharvest continuum. It must be explicitly stated that preharvest environmental conditions determine nutritional quality, susceptibility to spoilage, and shelf life (Fanourakis et al. 2026, Agronomy 16, 48).

Author’s response: Thank you for this insightful comment and for highlighting the broader contextual considerations.

We appreciate the importance of climate-related factors and the preharvest-postharvest continuum in agricultural systems. However, we note that the primary scope of the present review is the stabilization strategies and functional applications of essential oils in food systems. Therefore, while we acknowledge their relevance in the broader agri-food context, we did not directly incorporate them into the revised manuscript to maintain a clear and focused narrative aligned with the objective of this work.

Comment 4: The Methodology raises serious concerns regarding rigor and reproducibility. The exclusive use of Scopus introduces database bias, and the exclusion of other databases (e.g., Web of Science) is not justified. The search string is relatively narrow and omits key terms such as “postharvest,” “food preservation,” and “encapsulation,” potentially limiting coverage. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are insufficiently detailed, and no information is provided regarding bias assessment or quality evaluation of the selected studies. Although PRISMA is cited, its implementation is incomplete, as no protocol registration or systematic quality assessment is presented. The methodology should be substantially revised.

Author’s response: Thank you for this important observation. We have substantially revised and streamlined the methodology section to improve clarity, rigor, and reproducibility. We acknowledge that using a single database may introduce limitations.

Concerning the search string, we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include terms such as “postharvest,” “food preservation,” and “encapsulation.” These terms were not included in the main search string because the review aimed to capture a broad range of EO stabilization and delivery studies across food systems, including in vitro studies, model systems, packaging materials, delivery platforms, and real food applications. Including highly specific terms such as “postharvest” or “encapsulation” could have unintentionally excluded relevant studies that investigated EO stabilization, release, or delivery but did not use those exact terms in the title, abstract, or keywords. Therefore, the search strategy was designed to balance specificity and inclusiveness. To improve clarity, this rationale has been added to the Methodology section. This is also reflected by the number of records excluded after screening.

Comment 5: The section on chemical characteristics and stability is largely descriptive and lacks critical depth. The tables summarizing EOs do not include quantitative comparisons or functional relevance in real food systems.

Author’s response: Thank you for the constructive observation. The section has been revised accordingly.

Comment 6: The discussion of instability mechanisms, such as oxidation and photodegradation, is not integrated with the subsequent sections on delivery systems and lacks kinetic or quantitative perspectives. The subsection on interactions with the food matrix is particularly important but underdeveloped, as it does not sufficiently address mechanistic aspects such as diffusion, partitioning, and binding interactions. This section should be strengthened with a more analytical and integrative approach.

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable comment, the section has been improved accordingly.

Comment 7: The bibliometric analysis provides descriptive information but offers limited scientific insight. Statements regarding the “emerging nature” of the field are not critically benchmarked against comparable research areas. The interpretation of geographic distribution remains superficial and does not consider underlying drivers such as funding structures, industrial engagement, or regional priorities. The section would benefit from deeper analytical interpretation rather than descriptive reporting.

Author’s response: Thank you for the constructive comment. This has been addressed in the revised manuscript

Comment 7: The sections describing stabilization technologies are comprehensive but remain largely descriptive. The discussion of emulsions, encapsulation, and active packaging lacks critical comparison across systems in terms of efficiency, cost, scalability, and industrial feasibility. Emerging technologies such as nanofibers, zeolites, and metal-organic frameworks are introduced without discussion of their technological readiness level, regulatory constraints, or potential toxicological implications. As a result, the practical relevance of these approaches remains unclear. The authors should incorporate a more critical evaluation of advantages, limitations, and real-world applicability.

Author’s response: Thank you for your insightful and constructive comment. We agree that a more critical and comparative evaluation of stabilization technologies was needed to better highlight their practical relevance. In response, we incorporated a more analytical synthesis.

Comment 8: The release modelling section is insufficiently developed. Although the importance of release kinetics is acknowledged, no specific models or equations are presented, and the discussion remains superficial. The reference to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) is generic and lacks concrete examples or validation data. This section should be expanded to include established modelling approaches and their relevance to essential oil delivery systems.

Author’s response: Thank you for the valuable contribution, changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Comment 9: The applications section correctly identifies that most studies are conducted in vitro, with limited validation in real food systems. However, the implications of this gap are not critically explored. There is no discussion of how complex food matrices, storage conditions, or supply chain factors influence essential oil performance. Furthermore, the absence of a preharvest perspective limits the ability to interpret postharvest outcomes, as quality and shelf life are inherently shaped by preharvest conditions (Fanourakis et al. 2026, Agronomy 16, 48). This section should be revised to incorporate a more holistic and system-level perspective.

Author’s response: Thank you for the valuable contribution. We have addressed these concerns in the manuscript

Comment 10: The challenges and future directions section identifies several relevant gaps, including matrix interactions and scalability, but remains general and lacks a clear research roadmap or prioritization. Importantly, it does not integrate climate change challenges or production system constraints. The authors should explicitly incorporate the role of climate-driven stressors (Fanourakis et al. 2025, Plants 14, 3390) and their implications for essential oil effectiveness and postharvest strategies and reinforce the importance of the preharvest–postharvest continuum.

Author’s response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to strengthen the structure; however, we note that climate change-related factors are outside the scope of this review.

Comment 11: The conclusions are overly generic and do not reflect a sufficiently critical synthesis of literature. They reiterate known limitations without offering strong, forward-looking insights. The conclusions should be revised to clearly articulate key advances, limitations, and prioritized future research directions grounded in the critical analysis presented in the manuscript.

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable contribution. The conclusion has been revised as advised.

Comment 12: A critical conceptual limitation of the manuscript is the absence of a climate change context, despite its direct relevance to postharvest preservation systems. The authors should explicitly incorporate the effects of key climate-driven stressors, including elevated temperature, reduced relative humidity leading to increased vapor pressure deficit (VPD), and salinity, and discuss how these factors influence both crop physiology and the effectiveness of essential oil-based preservation strategies. In addition, the manuscript treats postharvest processes in isolation, which is a major conceptual weakness. It must be clearly stated that preharvest environmental conditions fundamentally determine nutritional quality, tissue susceptibility, and ultimately shelf life. The authors should explicitly integrate the preharvest–postharvest continuum, emphasizing that any postharvest intervention, including essential oil application, is inherently conditioned by the crop’s preharvest history.

Author’s response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We acknowledge the importance of climate change-driven stressors and the preharvest-postharvest continuum in shaping crop physiology and postharvest behavior. However, the primary focus of this review is specifically on postharvest preservation systems and stabilization. Accordingly, while we recognize the relevance of these broader agronomic and environmental factors, we did not explore them in depth in this work to maintain a clear and focused scope.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

L30–70: The review lacks integration of climate change drivers. Elevated temperature, increased VPD, salinity, and radiation stress are not discussed despite their direct effects on EO stability, crop physiology, microbial development, and postharvest deterioration. This conceptual omission must be addressed throughout the manuscript.

L68–122: The preharvest–postharvest continuum is ignored. The manuscript treats postharvest preservation independently from crop production conditions, although preharvest environment strongly determines tissue composition, susceptibility to decay, antioxidant status, and shelf life.

L152–206: The bibliometric methodology is insufficiently rigorous. The exclusive use of Scopus introduces database bias, while the search strategy is narrow and excludes several relevant concepts and keywords central to EO delivery and postharvest systems.

L152–206: No study quality assessment is presented. Although PRISMA is mentioned, the manuscript does not evaluate study quality, risk of bias, reproducibility, or experimental robustness of the included literature.

L215–313: The bibliometric analysis remains descriptive. The manuscript reports publication counts and keyword frequencies but does not critically interpret technological evolution, research bottlenecks, or conceptual shifts in the field.

L240–259: Geographic interpretation is superficial. The discussion does not analyze how industrial capacity, regulatory frameworks, biodiversity exploitation, infrastructure, or funding ecosystems shape research productivity.

L317–438: The chemistry section lacks mechanistic depth. EO chemical composition is described without adequately linking molecular structure to oxidation susceptibility, volatility, release kinetics, sensory impact, or stabilization requirements.

L326–349: Table 2 lacks critical comparative analysis. The table remains descriptive and does not compare EOs quantitatively in terms of antimicrobial efficacy, oxidative stability, release behavior, sensory limitations, or industrial suitability.

L353–362: Delivery system selection lacks mechanistic justification. The manuscript states that certain systems are “appropriate” but does not explain the physicochemical basis governing system suitability.

L395–437: Oxidation mechanisms are insufficiently integrated with practical applications. The review explains oxidation chemistry but fails to connect these mechanisms to real storage systems, packaging environments, or formulation design.

L442–507: Thermal and photochemical degradation are not critically evaluated. The practical implications for commercial storage, transport chains, and industrial handling conditions are not sufficiently discussed.

L570–599: Controlled release modeling is critically underdeveloped. The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes release control but does not discuss diffusion models, partition coefficients, kinetic equations, or predictive modeling frameworks.

L570–599: The AI/ML discussion is superficial. References to artificial intelligence and machine learning are generic and unsupported by practical examples, datasets, predictive models, or validation studies.

L600–639: Real-food validation is inadequately addressed. The manuscript acknowledges excessive reliance on in vitro studies but does not critically examine why translation to real food systems remains limited.

L600–639: Food matrix interactions are insufficiently analyzed. Critical mechanisms such as adsorption, partitioning, lipid interactions, protein binding, and diffusion constraints are only briefly mentioned.

L311–533: Industrial feasibility is poorly evaluated. The review discusses numerous technologies without critically comparing scalability, production cost, energy demand, process complexity, or compatibility with industrial workflows.

L311–533: Regulatory and toxicological issues are insufficiently discussed. Emerging systems such as MOFs, nanofibers, and nano-delivery systems are introduced without adequate consideration of food safety, toxicology, migration behavior, or regulatory approval barriers.

L643–672: The future directions section lacks prioritization. The manuscript lists challenges broadly but does not provide a structured research roadmap identifying the most urgent scientific and technological priorities.

L643–672: Consumer acceptance and sensory constraints are underdeveloped. Strong aroma, flavor alteration, and market acceptance are major barriers to EO commercialization, yet these issues receive limited critical discussion.

L674–689: The conclusions are not sufficiently critical or forward-looking. The conclusion mainly summarizes previous sections without synthesizing the key unresolved limitations, technological bottlenecks, or strategic future research needs emerging from the review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

current language quality is below publication standards

Author Response

May 2026

Editor-in-Chief

Plants

Dear Editor,

Title: Innovative approaches for enhancing the stability and functionality of essential oils in Food Systems: A critical and bibliometric review

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have greatly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript submitted to Plants. We carefully addressed all reviewer comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. For ease of editorial evaluation, all modifications made to the manuscript have been highlighted in red font.

The following is an itemized list of detailed responses to each comment:

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: L30–70: The review lacks integration of climate change drivers. Elevated temperature, increased VPD, salinity, and radiation stress are not discussed despite their direct effects on EO stability, crop physiology, microbial development, and postharvest deterioration. This conceptual omission must be addressed throughout the manuscript.

Author’s response: Thank you for the constructive comment. The introduction of the manuscript has been revised to incorporate climate change-related abiotic stressors as a central conceptual component of the review (L86-L95).

Comment 2: L68–122: The preharvest–postharvest continuum is ignored. The manuscript treats postharvest preservation independently from crop production conditions, although preharvest environment strongly determines tissue composition, susceptibility to decay, antioxidant status, and shelf life.

Author’s response: Thank you for the valuable comment. This has been addressed in the revised manuscript (L86-L95).

Comment 3: L152–206: The bibliometric methodology is insufficiently rigorous. The exclusive use of Scopus introduces database bias, while the search strategy is narrow and excludes several relevant concepts and keywords central to EO delivery and postharvest systems.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The study was focused exclusively on Scopus because it provides extensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature, standardized metadata, and citation indexing, all of which are essential for accurate bibliometric mapping. However, we acknowledge in the manuscript that excluding other databases also reduces the generalizability of our results (L148-152). Therefore, the findings from this dataset are indicative and represent a structured synthesis of the Scopus-indexed literature rather than an exhaustive account of all global research on EOs.

Regarding the search strategy, it was intentionally designed without including terms such as “postharvest,” “food preservation,” and “encapsulation,” as suggested by the reviewer in the previous feedback. Using these highly specific terms as keywords could unintentionally exclude “in vitro” studies, packaging materials, and delivery platforms, all of which are important in this study. The search string used captures all EO-related studies, and the screening focused on those within the scope of this review.

Comment 4: L152–206: No study quality assessment is presented. Although PRISMA is mentioned, the manuscript does not evaluate study quality, risk of bias, reproducibility, or experimental robustness of the included literature.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. This study was designed primarily as a bibliometric and literature-based review aimed at mapping the research landscape, identifying thematic trends, and synthesizing current stabilization and delivery strategies for EOs in food systems. Unlike meta-analyses focused on quantitative evidence synthesis, bibliometric analyses do not typically assess study quality or experimental robustness of individual studies. Instead, the objective is to provide a broad and structured overview of the existing body of literature rather than evaluate the methodological quality of specific experiments.

We completely agree with the reviewer that assessing study quality and experimental robustness is essential for moving beyond pure bibliometric counting (like in traditional systematic reviews). We appreciate this constructive suggestion to strengthen the manuscript's methodological rigor. However, we would like to clarify the specific scope and methodology of our study. This manuscript is primarily a combined bibliometric and thematic review aimed at mapping macro-level research trends, evolutionary trajectories, and structural gaps in the literature. While we adapted the PRISMA flow diagram format to ensure strict transparency and reproducibility in our literature search, inclusion, and exclusion workflow, a formal study quality assessment or risk-of-bias auditing (typical of clinical systematic reviews or meta-analyses) was not considered in this bibliometric mapping exercise. Therefore, to ensure clarity for the reader and prevent any misinterpretation of our use of PRISMA, we have made minor text adjustments to the manuscript (L174-177).

Comment 5: L215–313: The bibliometric analysis remains descriptive. The manuscript reports publication counts and keyword frequencies but does not critically interpret technological evolution, research bottlenecks, or conceptual shifts in the field.

Author’s response: We appreciate this insightful comment. We agree that the value of a bibliometric analysis lies in its ability to uncover the underlying narrative of scientific progress, rather than merely counting metrics. In accordance with the reviewer's feedback, we have thoroughly revised the discussion of our bibliometric results (L186–285) to elevate the narrative from descriptive reporting to a critical interpretation.

Comment 6: L240–259: Geographic interpretation is superficial. The discussion does not analyze how industrial capacity, regulatory frameworks, biodiversity exploitation, infrastructure, or funding ecosystems shape research productivity.

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable comment. As indicated in comment 5, this concern has been addressed (L186–285).

Comment 7: L317–438: The chemistry section lacks mechanistic depth. EO chemical composition is described without adequately linking molecular structure to oxidation susceptibility, volatility, release kinetics, sensory impact, or stabilization requirements.

Author’s response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. Table 2 addresses the relationship between EO chemical composition and functional behavior in food systems, particularly in the “Chemistry-based interpretation” column. Further clarification is provided in the following sections (L362-L409).

Comment 8: L326–349: Table 2 lacks critical comparative analysis. The table remains descriptive and does not compare EOs quantitatively in terms of antimicrobial efficacy, oxidative stability, release behavior, sensory limitations, or industrial suitability.

Author’s response: Thank you for this comment. Table 2 was intentionally designed to provide a mechanistic, chemistry-based comparative matrix rather than a raw quantitative inventory. Quantitative metrics, such as minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), oxidative induction times, or release percentages, are highly dependent on specific food matrices (pH, fat content), extraction batches, and testing methodologies across different studies; therefore, a direct numerical comparison would be misleading or lack scientific rigor. Instead, Table 2 is structured to allow readers to perform a critical, qualitative comparison of how different Main chemical classes inherently dictate both the Stabilization and delivery approaches and their Main applications in food systems. Therefore, we believe this structural mapping provides a fundamental comparative foundation for understanding industrial suitability without introducing highly variable, non-standardized quantitative data.

Comment 9: L353–362: Delivery system selection lacks mechanistic justification. The manuscript states that certain systems are “appropriate” but does not explain the physicochemical basis governing system suitability.

Author’s response: Thank you for this important comment. We believe that Sections 4, 5, and 6 address this concern.

Comment 10: L395–437: Oxidation mechanisms are insufficiently integrated with practical applications. The review explains oxidation chemistry but fails to connect these mechanisms to real storage systems, packaging environments, or formulation design.

Author’s response: Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree that bridging fundamental chemical mechanisms to practical food science applications is vital. Therefore, while we designed this section to focus deeply on the underlying chemical pathways of autoxidation, we intentionally integrated mechanistic details to serve as the direct technical blueprint for the practical formulation design and packaging selection discussed throughout the review (L365-378).

Comment 11: L442–507: Thermal and photochemical degradation are not critically evaluated. The practical implications for commercial storage, transport chains, and industrial handling conditions are not sufficiently discussed.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. This comment has been addressed in L365-L411.

Comment 12: L570–599: Controlled release modeling is critically underdeveloped. The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes release control but does not discuss diffusion models, partition coefficients, kinetic equations, or predictive modeling frameworks.

Author’s response: we thank the reviewer for this comment. However, we respectfully disagree with the reviewer's assessment that release modeling and predictive frameworks are not discussed. These elements are already explicitly integrated into the manuscript within the dedicated section "Release modeling and formulation optimization for controlled EO delivery". Also, to prevent an excessively lengthy review and to maintain it as a concise, reader-friendly narrative, we deliberately chose to provide a high-level overview of these frameworks rather than an exhaustive mathematical or thermodynamic dissection. Nevertheless, the specific items highlighted by the reviewer are already integrated into our text. As a result, without making any structural modifications, we would like to point out where the specific items highlighted by the reviewer are already thoroughly addressed in our text:

Kinetic Equations and Diffusion Models: L819-823;

Predictive Modeling Frameworks & Optimization: L827-834

Advanced Predictive Modeling (Machine Learning): L841-848

We believe this section provides a comprehensive, high-level synthesis of both classic kinetic modeling equations and modern AI/ML predictive frameworks, while striking the appropriate balance between introducing necessary modeling concepts and maintaining the structured scope and concise length of the review.

Comment 13: L570–599: The AI/ML discussion is superficial. References to artificial intelligence and machine learning are generic and unsupported by practical examples, datasets, predictive models, or validation studies.

Author’s response: Thank you for this comment. We respectfully clarify that our discussion of AI/ML applications in essential oil delivery systems is structured to provide concrete, domain-specific examples rather than generic overviews. As noted in the response to Comment 12, this section is intended to be a concise subsection of a broader thematic review, and we have intentionally restricted its length. However, we have grounded the AI/ML narrative directly in practical parameters and established predictive models (L825-848).

Comment 14: L600–639: Real-food validation is inadequately addressed. The manuscript acknowledges excessive reliance on in vitro studies but does not critically examine why translation to real food systems remains limited.

Author’s response: Thank you for this observation. Section 9 has been revised to address this concern.

Comment 15: L600–639: Food matrix interactions are insufficiently analyzed. Critical mechanisms such as adsorption, partitioning, lipid interactions, protein binding, and diffusion constraints are only briefly mentioned.

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We believe that section 4.4 (Interaction with food matrix) has already covered these aspects. We would like to direct the reviewer to the specific lines where each critical mechanism is explicitly and mechanistically analyzed using real food system examples (L438-453). Nevertheless, we have revised the manuscript to include additional information.

Comment 16: L311–533: Industrial feasibility is poorly evaluated. The review discusses numerous technologies without critically comparing scalability, production cost, energy demand, process complexity, or compatibility with industrial workflows.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent and highly practical comment. Evaluating industrial feasibility is essential for bridging laboratory-scale innovation with commercial food processing. While a section has not been dedicated to this aspect, the manuscript addresses industrial feasibility, processing complexity, and economic trade-offs throughout Sections 5, 6, and 7. These feasibility indicators were intentionally integrated directly into the discussion of each respective technology. Thus, we would like to highlight where these critical comparative dimensions are explicitly addressed and contrasted across the text: Sections 5 (5.1; 5.2.1 & 5.2.2), Section 6 (6.1), and Section 7. We believe that by consistently tracking these operational, economic, and scaling parameters across all discussed technologies, the manuscript provides a balanced, critical evaluation of industrial feasibility within the context of a thematic review.

Comment 17: L311–533: Regulatory and toxicological issues are insufficiently discussed. Emerging systems such as MOFs, nanofibers, and nano-delivery systems are introduced without adequate consideration of food safety, toxicology, migration behaviour, or regulatory approval barriers.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. Issues such as safety, migration behavior, and regulatory approval remain largely underexplored due to the lack of real food validation studies. Nonetheless, we have highlighted in the revised manuscript the sections where they are discussed or revised the manuscript to include available information.

However, this information represents a clear research gap, and future studies should focus on toxicological evaluation and regulatory compliance to support safe industrial applications.

Comment 18: L643–672: The future directions section lacks prioritization. The manuscript lists challenges broadly but does not provide a structured research roadmap identifying the most urgent scientific and technological priorities.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent recommendation. We agree that structuring future directions into an explicit, hierarchical roadmap adds significant actionability to the review's conclusions. In accordance with the reviewer's feedback, we have thoroughly reconstructed the "Current challenges and future directions" section into a clear, structured roadmap that prioritizes immediate technical fixes over long-term development goals.

Comment 19: L643–672: Consumer acceptance and sensory constraints are underdeveloped. Strong aroma, flavor alteration, and market acceptance are major barriers to EO commercialization, yet these issues receive limited critical discussion.

Author’s response: Thank you for this valuable comment. This aspect was considered in the revised manuscript.

Comment 20: L674–689: The conclusions are not sufficiently critical or forward-looking. The conclusion mainly summarizes previous sections without synthesizing the key unresolved limitations, technological bottlenecks, or strategic future research needs emerging from the review.

Author’s response: Thank you for this important comment. The conclusion has been revised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

current language quality is below publication standards

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. A thorough revision of the manuscript has been implemented to improve the English language

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially and many of the previous comments have been considered. Nevertheless, a few aspects could still be strengthened to further enhance the critical depth and practical relevance of the review.

L 85–94: Climate-change-related factors (temperature, VPD, salinity, radiation) have now been introduced. However, their implications remain largely confined to EO production and composition.

Consider further integrating these environmental drivers throughout the manuscript, particularly when discussing EO stability, storage behavior, delivery systems, and future applications in food preservation.

L 85–94: The preharvest–postharvest continuum is now acknowledged, but its influence on subsequent sections remains somewhat limited.

A stronger linkage between preharvest conditions, EO composition, and postharvest functionality would further improve the conceptual framework of the review.

L 153–158: The search strategy is clearly described. However, the selected keywords may not fully capture the breadth of the literature on EO delivery systems and food applications.

Briefly discussing how the chosen search terms may have influenced literature coverage, or expanding the rationale behind the search strategy, would strengthen methodological transparency.

L 174–176: The authors clearly state that no formal study-quality assessment was conducted.

Although a formal risk-of-bias analysis may not be essential for this type of review, a brief discussion of variability in experimental quality and reproducibility across the included studies would add further rigor.

L 240–284: The bibliometric section now contains more interpretation than in the previous version.

The discussion could be further enriched by highlighting major technological transitions, emerging research priorities, and key factors driving the evolution of the field.

Table 2 (L 312–315): The addition of chemistry-based interpretations considerably improves the table.

The comparative value of the table could be further enhanced by discussing, where available, differences among EOs regarding stability, sensory constraints, release behavior, or industrial applicability.

L 316–325: The rationale for selecting different delivery systems is now clearer.

Additional discussion of the physicochemical principles governing delivery-system performance under different food-system conditions would further strengthen this section.

L 366–410: Practical implications of oxidation, photodegradation, and temperature effects are now better connected to storage and packaging.

Inclusion of additional examples from commercial storage or transportation systems could further improve the practical relevance of this discussion.

L 426–460: The section on food-matrix interactions has been substantially strengthened and now provides useful mechanistic insight.

Future versions may benefit from additional examples illustrating how matrix composition influences EO efficacy across different food categories.

Section 5: Controlled release is appropriately identified as a critical objective of stabilization technologies. The discussion could be further strengthened by briefly introducing commonly used release-kinetic models and their relevance for predicting EO performance in food systems.

AI and ML section: The topic is introduced as a promising future direction. Providing a few specific examples of AI/ML applications, predictive approaches, or validation studies would help illustrate the practical potential of these technologies.

Real-food applications: The manuscript appropriately identifies the imbalance between in vitro and real-food studies. Further discussion of the factors limiting translation from laboratory systems to commercial food matrices would strengthen this important point.

Industrial feasibility: Various stabilization technologies are discussed comprehensively. A more explicit comparison of scalability, economic feasibility, processing complexity, and industrial readiness would further increase the practical value of the review.

Regulatory and safety considerations: Regulatory aspects are mentioned in several sections. Additional discussion of toxicological considerations, migration behavior, and regulatory approval pathways for emerging delivery systems would provide a more complete perspective.

Future perspectives and conclusions: The future directions section identifies several important challenges. Consider providing a more structured prioritization of future research needs and the most critical technological bottlenecks that should be addressed to facilitate commercial adoption.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

current language quality is below publication standards

Author Response

Below are the comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially, and many of the previous comments have been considered. Nevertheless, a few aspects could still be strengthened to further enhance the critical depth and practical relevance of the review.

L 85–94: Climate-change-related factors (temperature, VPD, salinity, radiation) have now been introduced. However, their implications remain largely confined to EO production and composition.

Consider further integrating these environmental drivers throughout the manuscript, particularly when discussing EO stability, storage behaviour, delivery systems, and future applications in food preservation.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Climate-related abiotic stressors, including elevated temperature, vapor pressure deficit, salinity, and radiation, were incorporated into the review’s introduction as factors influencing EO yield, composition, and stability. However, the primary objective of this review is to critically evaluate EO stabilization and delivery technologies in food systems rather than the broader impacts of climate change on EO-producing plants. A comprehensive discussion of these aspects has recently been published in this journal, “Plants” (DOI: 10.3390/plants14243789). Therefore, to maintain the scope and focus of the present review, we limited the discussion to climate-related factors directly relevant to EO composition, stability, and subsequent food-system applications.

L 85–94: The preharvest–postharvest continuum is now acknowledged, but its influence on subsequent sections remains somewhat limited.

A stronger linkage between preharvest conditions, EO composition, and postharvest functionality would further improve the conceptual framework of the review.

Author’s response: We appreciate this comment. The revised introduction explicitly recognizes that preharvest environmental conditions influence EO yield, composition, and subsequent functionality in food and postharvest systems. While we agree that stronger integration of the preharvest–postharvest continuum is scientifically valuable, a comprehensive treatment of crop production factors, plant physiology, and environmental stress responses would considerably broaden the scope of the present review. Therefore, the manuscript maintains its primary emphasis on EO stabilization, delivery systems, and food applications while acknowledging the important role of preharvest factors as upstream determinants of EO functionality.

L 153–158: The search strategy is clearly described. However, the selected keywords may not fully capture the breadth of the literature on EO delivery systems and food applications.

Briefly discussing how the chosen search terms may have influenced literature coverage, or expanding the rationale behind the search strategy, would strengthen methodological transparency.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. The search strategy was intentionally designed to remain sufficiently broad and inclusive. More restrictive terms such as “encapsulation”, “active packaging”, “food preservation”, “postharvest”, or specific delivery technologies (as suggested by the reviewer in previous feedback) were deliberately excluded to avoid unintentionally excluding relevant studies that address EO stabilization through alternative approaches or broader food-system contexts. The rationale for this search strategy has been clarified in the methodology section (L142-155 & L168-174).

L 174–176: The authors clearly state that no formal study-quality assessment was conducted.

Author’s response: We appreciate this important suggestion. As clarified in the methodology section, the present study was designed as a bibliometric-assisted critical review rather than a traditional systematic review or meta-analysis. Consequently, a formal study-quality or risk-of-bias assessment was not included as a selection criterion. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that variability in experimental design, food matrices, EO composition, and validation approaches exists across the literature and may influence the interpretation of reported outcomes. Therefore, this consideration has been acknowledged in the manuscript as a limitation of the available literature (L174-177).

L 240–284: The bibliometric section now contains more interpretation than in the previous version.

The discussion could be further enriched by highlighting major technological transitions, emerging research priorities, and key factors driving the evolution of the field.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We believe the current discussion provides a balanced interpretation of both research trends and technological development while remaining aligned with the bibliometric objectives of the review. This bibliometric discussion moves beyond descriptive reporting to identify major technological transitions, emerging research priorities, and key drivers shaping the field's evolution (Section 3.3).

Table 2 (L 312–315): The addition of chemistry-based interpretations considerably improves the table.

Author’s response: We appreciate this recommendation. Table 2 was intentionally developed as a chemistry-based comparative framework linking EO composition, dominant chemical classes, stabilization requirements, and food-system applications. Direct quantitative comparison of stability, release behavior, antimicrobial efficacy, or industrial suitability across studies is challenging because these parameters are strongly influenced by extraction methods, food matrices, formulation variables, storage conditions, and analytical methodologies. As a result, the table emphasizes mechanistic interpretation and comparative understanding rather than potentially misleading cross-study numerical comparisons.

L 316–325: The rationale for selecting different delivery systems is now clearer.

Additional discussion of the physicochemical principles governing delivery-system performance under different food-system conditions would further strengthen this section.

Author’s response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to enhance the discussion on physicochemical principles. However, to maintain a concise narrative and avoid expanding the review beyond its intended scope, we have kept this discussion focused. The core physicochemical principles are already systematically detailed within the existing paragraphs of Section 4 and summarized structurally in Table 2. We believe further expanding to polymer physics would distract from the main focus on food application functionality.

L 366–410: Practical implications of oxidation, photodegradation, and temperature effects are now better connected to storage and packaging.

Inclusion of additional examples from commercial storage or transportation systems could further improve the practical relevance of this discussion.

Author’s response: Thank you for this constructive comment. While additional case studies from commercial systems could further enrich the discussion, this section is primarily designed to establish the mechanistic basis underlying EO instability and the corresponding stabilization requirements. Hence, we believe the current level of practical integration is appropriate for the scope of this review.

L 426–460: The section on food-matrix interactions has been substantially strengthened and now provides useful mechanistic insight.

Future versions may benefit from additional examples illustrating how matrix composition influences EO efficacy across different food categories.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comment regarding the section on food matrix interactions. The revised manuscript, in Section 4.4, already includes mechanistic examples illustrating the influence of matrix components.

Author’s response: Thank you for this comment regarding release-kinetic models. Given the relevance of release kinetic modeling, the manuscript already includes a dedicated discussion of release modeling and formulation optimization, including kinetic equations, diffusion behavior, and predictive approaches. Thus, we believe the current discussion appropriately introduces release-kinetic modeling while preserving the overall scope and readability of the review.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. The AI/ML subsection was intentionally included as an emerging future direction rather than a primary focus of the review. Consequently, the discussion emphasizes the potential role of predictive modeling, formulation optimization, and release-performance prediction within EO stabilization systems. Nevertheless, the current section provides representative examples illustrating the practical relevance of AI/ML approaches in this field (Section 8).

Author’s response: We appreciate this observation. The current version of the manuscript highlights the persistent gap between in vitro efficacy and real-food performance and discusses factors contributing to this discrepancy, including food matrix interactions, partitioning behavior, sensory constraints, and release dynamics (L897-904). As the reviewer did not indicate any specific improvement areas, we believe these adequately explain the associated challenges. In addition, the reviewer mentions “translating laboratory findings into commercial food systems”, but we are discussing the translational gap from in vitro studies to real food matrix validation studies.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To provide a balanced assessment of industrial feasibility while maintaining the thematic structure of the review, industrial implementations are discussed throughout the sections addressing individual stabilization technologies, with comparisons to other technologies.

Author’s response: We appreciate this important comment. Regulatory compliance, safety considerations, and migration behavior are discussed throughout the manuscript as important challenges associated with the commercialization of advanced EO delivery systems. However, comprehensive toxicological evaluation and regulatory assessment remain underdeveloped areas within the available literature, particularly for emerging platforms such as nanofibers, nano-delivery systems, and metal–organic frameworks. Consequently, these aspects have been identified as important research gaps and priorities for future investigation, rather than topics that can be reviewed comprehensively at present based on available evidence.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive recommendation. From the previous feedback, the future directions section has already been revised to provide a more structured prioritization of research needs and technological bottlenecks. Particular emphasis is placed on real-food validation, controlled-release optimization, safety and regulatory evaluation, techno-economic feasibility, consumer acceptance, and scalable industrial implementation. We believe this framework provides a clearer roadmap for future research and commercial translation. As the current version already incorporates a prioritized structure addressing the key challenges identified by the reviewer, and no specific alternative framework was proposed, we respectfully believe that the present organization adequately achieves the intended objective and therefore no further modifications were made in this section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

current language quality is below publication standards.

Author’s response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The manuscript has undergone thorough language editing to improve grammar, sentence structure, clarity, readability, and overall scientific presentation. We believe that the English language quality has been substantially improved throughout the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx