Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint through Conventional and Ultrasound-Assisted Maceration: Differences in Oxidative Stability, Microbial Contamination and Sensory Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The revised version of the manuscript entitled “Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint through Conventional and Ultrasound-Assisted Maceration: Differences in Oxidative Stability, Microbial Contamination and Sensory Properties” testifies some English editing, still it appears clearly that English language is not a strength of the authors.

There are various minor issues, e.g., 

a few typesetting mistakes:

line 118: Milli-Q

line 233: physico-chemical

It is more correct to write “polyphenols” rather than “phenols” throughout the text.

line 134: “will be published” instead of “will published”

line 163: “…, when the addition of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent” is obscure 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

the MS is good now and accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thank you.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- There are typing  and grammatical errors in  text. They should be corrected,

-it needs to major revision about typing errors. 

-text should be revised according to Instruction.

-The discussions with other studies should be relevanted and completed.

- below references  should be added and discussed  with results.

- Antioxidant activity, phenolic content and peroxide value  of essential oil and extracts of some medicinal and aromatic plants used as condiment and herbal tea  in Turkey. Journal of Medicinal Food 12(1),198-202.

-Evaluation of drying methods with respect to drying parameters, some nutritional and colour characteristics of peppermint (Mentha x piperita L.)

-- Mineral contents of some plants used as condiments in Turkey.    Food Chemistry, 84, 437 – 440.

-.Antioxidant properties of some plants growing wild in Turkey. Grasas y Aceites 60(2):147-154.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Reviewer 2 Report

Some of the sentences are too long and unclear. Some of the words and phrases (e.g. of them; and) are constantly repeated. The authors should read the paper one more time, check the spelling and consult the native English speaker.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “The Differences between Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint Fabricated using Conventional Maceration and Ultra-sound-Assisted Maceration: Oxidative Stability, Microbial Survival and Sensory Attributes” compared two maceration methods, i.e., traditional maceration vs. ultrasound-assisted maceration; Numerous oil quality attributes, such as acid value, peroxide value, chlorophyll, phenols, microorganism colony were studied. An accelerated storage method was applied to evaluate oil deterioration during storage. Overall, it was a very interesting study. The subject fits the theme of the journal, and this type of work is needed in the literature given the importance of developing functional oils with enhancement of flavoring and storage stability.

However, the manuscript needs major improvement to improve clarify and logic flow. The followings offer suggestions and comments for the authors to consider.

1. Extensive editing of English language and style is required. It is sometimes difficult to understand what authors tried to say. For example,

Line 14-19 this sentence was too long and confusing. Suggest dividing it to several simple sentences and using concise language.

Be careful to use “fabrication” or “fabricate” to describe processing of oils. Suggest carefully reading related literature to find most appropriate terminology. In most cases, fabrication refers to a mechanical process.

Line 13, avoid using abbreviation (MM07; MM14) when it is first introduced. Readers do not understand what does MM07 or MM14 mean.

Line 99-101, suggest replacing it with corresponding objectives.

2. Line 96, it might not be reported in China. How about other countries or regions?

3. Line 104, what does “*20” mean?

4. The analytical methods used in this study were Chinese National Standard. However, it is not yet used and accessible worldwide. To be published in an international journal, the paper must find a general and well-known standard method or association, such as Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC). Suggest reading the paper: Comparative Analyses of Three Dehydration Methods on Drying Characteristics and Oil Quality of In-Shell Walnuts. Drying Technol. 2018, 36(4), 477–490. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2017.1351452. Authors may be able to find these corresponding methods and cite this paper.

5. Accelerated storage method was not explicitly described. Accelerated storage is based on Q-10 value established by Taoukis et al. (1997) in Kinetics of Food Deterioration and Shelf-Life Prediction. CRC Press: New York, 1997, pp. 374. Q-values may vary according to the chemical reaction. To find equivalent high-temperature storage, an equation is required. Please read a paper published in Drying Technology (DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2017.1351452). Authors need to add the equation in the manuscript (as shown as Eq. (3) in the suggested paper).

6. Statistical analysis is needed for all data in this study. Please add p-value and indicate whether there is a significant difference between data in Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled: “The Differences between Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint Fabricated using Conventional Maceration and Ultra-sound-Assisted Maceration: Oxidative 

Stability, Microbial Survival and Sensory Attributes” reports a detailed characterization of the sunflower oil used to extract spearmint whole plants by two different maceration methods. The most interesting aspect is that in such a way the oil contains various biological active molecules beside those responsible for the aroma. The former, namely chlorophylls, carotenoids, polyphenols and tocopherols, are nutritionally very advantageous. Furthermore, the authors take into consideration the issue of microbial contamination as well as the sensory aspect, aiming at the marketing the product.

The work is complete, well organized and clearly written, therefore of good readability, except for various issues of minor importance.

I would suggest to change the title into a simpler and more incisive one, such as: “Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint through Conventional and Ultrasound

-Assisted Maceration: Differences in Oxidative Stability, Microbial Survival and Sensory Attributes”

or 

“Sunflower Oil Flavored by Spearmint through Conventional and Ultrasound

-Assisted Maceration: Differences in Oxidative Stability, Microbial Contamination and Sensory Properties”

Several instances of improperly used terms require attention:

line 99: “availability”

line 123: “absolutely”

line 124: consistently”

lines 169 and 170: “burette”

line 279: “appending”

line 332: “append”

line 374: “indispensable”

line 401: “expansive”

I suggest further slight lexical changes:

“polyphenols” instead of just “phenols” throughout the manuscript

line 88: better “with” than “by means of”

line 94: delete one duplicate of “in our previous investigation”

line 133: probably “MM” instead of “CM”

line 134: “2” as upper script  after cm

line 136: either report the reference or change into “will be published elsewhere”

line 146: delete “the specific extinction values including”

lines 151 and 160: better “vortex mixer”

Section 3.5 title: better “Microbial Survival in Flavored SFO”

lines 334-335: “during maceration” instead of “ in the maceration period of production procedure of them”

line 337: “owing to” rather than “by the manufacture of”

Tables 3 and 4: refer note b to Samples, as in the former tables

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 5 Report

The MS is good, but it needs revision according to my comments in pdf copy as attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors failed to provide a point-by-point response to the reviews. The revised manuscript is not qualified for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc