Conceptual Design of the Process for Making Cosmetic Emulsion Using Amazonian Oils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The entire article needs to be restructured from the abstract to the conclusion. The abstract should begin with a brief background, highlighting the current knowledge on the topic addressed in the study, and connecting it to the work in question (2-3 sentences). The objective is clear but should not appear at the beginning; it should follow the research question, which should be established after the background. After presenting the objective, the methods should be explained, detailing how and what was done. This should be followed by the results, which must answer the question: What has been found? Finally, the conclusion should explain why the findings are important and what they might mean for that specific field of research. Additionally, the keywords should be improved, as there are more relevant terms available.
2. The introduction covers the necessary elements; however, in the third paragraph, it directly addresses what an emulsion is without first mentioning its importance or why it is being introduced. You mention cosmetics and their usage percentage, but it is essential to explain the relevance of emulsions before defining them.
3. Should et al. be italicized or written in regular font in the text?
4. The methodology does not follow the structure of a scientific article. You include a diagram that is not self-explanatory, making it difficult for the reader to understand the sequence. Additionally, the content in the diagram is the same as the three steps you mention, but instead of outlining a proper methodology, you only explain what should be done without providing the actual steps. When checking the reference, it turns out to be a thesis from which the methodology was taken, but it should be properly developed in the article. This methodology, with each of its steps, is presented in the results section. In the results, you should focus on presenting the findings obtained from the procedures to provide enough data for a proper discussion.
5. The discussion is appropriately separated and supported with references. However, the conclusion is too brief for an article that focuses on designing a process.
6. My recommendation is that the article be properly restructured to meet the standards of a scientific article. There is strong support in terms of data, diagrams, and discussion, but it is essential to follow the correct structure and writing conventions of a scientific paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Non comments

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer.

Comments 1: The entire article needs to be restructured from the abstract to the conclusion. The abstract should begin with a brief background, highlighting the current knowledge on the topic addressed in the study, and connecting it to the work in question (2-3 sentences). The objective is clear but should not appear at the beginning; it should follow the research question, which should be established after the background. After presenting the objective, the methods should be explained, detailing how and what was done. This should be followed by the results, which must answer the question: What has been found? Finally, the conclusion should explain why the findings are important and what they might mean for that specific field of research. Additionally, the keywords should be improved, as there are more relevant terms available.

Response 1: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have the whole article has been restructured, and the abstract has been rewritten following all your recommendations

Comments 2: The introduction covers the necessary elements; however, in the third paragraph, it directly addresses what an emulsion is without first mentioning its importance or why it is being introduced. You mention cosmetics and their usage percentage, but it is essential to explain the relevance of emulsions before defining them.

Response 2:  We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have the introduction now mentions the importance of emulsions at the suggested point.

Comments 3: Should et al. be italicized or written in regular font in the text?

Response 3: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have changed it throughout the document, all the et al.

Comments 4: The methodology does not follow the structure of a scientific article. You include a diagram that is not self-explanatory, making it difficult for the reader to understand the sequence. Additionally, the content in the diagram is the same as the three steps you mention, but instead of outlining a proper methodology, you only explain what should be done without providing the actual steps. When checking the reference, it turns out to be a thesis from which the methodology was taken, but it should be properly developed in the article. This methodology, with each of its steps, is presented in the results section. In the results, you should focus on presenting the findings obtained from the procedures to provide enough data for a proper discussion.

Response 4: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have the following:

• The methodology has been expanded and clarified, and Figure 1 has been described better.
• The description of results within the methodology has been deleted.
• It has been clarified that Phase 1 is based on observation and not on direct experimentation.
• The craft scale has been specified, and the phenomenological and heuristic ones have been included.
• The figures have been improved.

Comments 5: The discussion is appropriately separated and supported with references. However, the conclusion is too brief for an article that focuses on designing a process.

Response Comment 5: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have extended the Conclusions section.

Comments 6: My recommendation is that the article be properly restructured to meet the standards of a scientific article. There is strong support in terms of data, diagrams, and discussion, but it is essential to follow the correct structure and writing conventions of a scientific paper.

Response Comment 6: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made the recommended changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study explores the formulation of cosmetic products with special attention given to oils from the Amazon region. This contributes to natural and eco-friendly product development. The design is credible because SuperPro Designer is used for process simulation. The presented document appears systematic, showing the stages in data collection, process clearness, and diagram formulation.

Comments:

1. A few parts of the document require minor language edits.

2. Please ensure that all references follow the same format.

3. The Gantt chart and block diagram need more description to improve understanding.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor corrections are required.

Author Response

Comments 1: A few parts of the document require minor language edits.

Response 1: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have modifications and clarifications in all sections of the document.

Comments 2: Please ensure that all references follow the same format.

Response 2: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have formatting changes to the references.

Comments 3: The Gantt chart and block diagram need more description to improve understanding.

Response 3: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have changed parts of the Gantt chart’s legend and the block diagram’s legend are now more specific.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Conceptual design of the process of making cosmetic emulsion

Abstract:

• 4,25 hours is estimated- Kindly correct as 4.25 hours.
• 6,24 years- Kindly correct it to 6.24 years.
• The abstract lacks the specific outcome of the study.

Keywords: Arrange alphabetically

Introduction:

• I feel the paragraph length was too short, which can be combined and re-written.
• There is no mention of Figure 1 in the text.
• There is no mention of literature on formulations of Amazonian oils; I request the authors to justify the hypothesis by suitable mention of Amazonian oils in the introduction.

Materials and Methods:

2.3 Case studies

• “Concerning the case studies, the methodology described in the previous section was………. to produce cosmetic cream”.- The methodology was not described earlier; only the review procedure was described. A detailed explanation may be given in the M&M section for a better understanding of the readers.
• Line 159: Replace “plant material” with fruits.

Results:

• I am surprised that Lines 141- 163, which were supposed to be in the M&M section, were given in the results. The authors kindly re-look into it.
• Table 2: It is unclear how methods are employed for the operations. Kindly recheck
• Table 3: Since the same equipment is used, which can be directly mentioned in the table title “Cosmetic emulsion preparation using Turbo emulsifier”
• Line 203- 209: The procedure already described can be removed and written as defined in section 3.1.
• Line 233: Figure 4 or Figure 5....?
• Tables 3, 4, and 5 have the same legend. Kindly rewrite as per the content.
• What about Figure 6?

Discussion:

• Line 274- 280: Compare the yield and quality of the oils obtained in this study with those reported in other studies. Discuss any discrepancies and propose potential reasons for the differences.
• Line 283-286: Rephrase the sentence.
• Line 286: The results of the present study show that the oil recovery was only 0.6%, which contradicts the previous results, which show 19% oil recovery. Do your results justify the benefit: cost ratio? Discuss the reasons for the low yield and propose potential improvements in the extraction process. For example, consider exploring alternative methods (e.g., supercritical fluid extraction) that might yield higher oil recovery.
• Line 328: Please check the reference format...? Mosquera, Noriega, Tapia and Pérez [32]
• Line 354: Wrongly cited- Bom et al. (2019) and [40]. Arrange according to author guidelines.
• Line 362-365: What is this..? Are the authors serious about what they have written in this paragraph?

Conclusion:

• Discuss the potential applications of cosmetic emulsions in the cosmetics industry and the economic and environmental benefits of using Amazonian oils.

After a thorough review, I suggest that the title be modified to " Conceptual design of the process for making cosmetic emulsion using Amazonian oils.

General suggestions:

• Ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal's guidelines.
• English needs improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It need improvements

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract:

    4,25 hours is estimated- Kindly correct as 4.25 hours.

    6,24 years- Kindly correct it to 6.24 years.

    The abstract lacks the specific outcome of the study.

Response 1: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made these changes.

Comments 2: Keywords: Arrange alphabetically

Response 2: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made this change.

Comments 3: Introduction:

I feel the paragraph length was too short, which can be combined and re-written.

There is no mention of Figure 1 in the text.

There is no mention of literature on formulations of Amazonian oils; I request the authors to justify the hypothesis by suitable mention of Amazonian oils in the introduction.

Response 3: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made these changes.

Comments 4: Materials and Methods:

2.3 Case studies

“Concerning the case studies, the methodology described in the previous section was………. to produce cosmetic cream”.- The methodology was not described earlier; only the review procedure was described. A detailed explanation may be given in the M&M section for a better understanding of the readers.

Line 159: Replace “plant material” with fruits.

Response 4: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have totally modified the Materials and Methods section and replace “plant material” with fruits.

Comments 5: Results:

I am surprised that Lines 141- 163, which were supposed to be in the M&M section, were given in the results. The authors kindly re-look into it.

Table 2: It is unclear how methods are employed for the operations. Kindly recheck

Table 3: Since the same equipment is used, which can be directly mentioned in the table title “Cosmetic emulsion preparation using Turbo emulsifier”

Line 203- 209: The procedure already described can be removed and written as defined in section 3.1.

Line 233: Figure 4 or Figure 5....?

Tables 3, 4, and 5 have the same legend. Kindly rewrite as per the content.

What about Figure 6?

Response 5: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made the necessary changes to improve the Results section.

Comments 6: Discussion:

Line 274- 280: Compare the yield and quality of the oils obtained in this study with those reported in other studies. Discuss any discrepancies and propose potential reasons for the differences.

Line 283-286: Rephrase the sentence.

Line 286: The results of the present study show that the oil recovery was only 0.6%, which contradicts the previous results, which show 19% oil recovery. Do your results justify the benefit: cost ratio? Discuss the reasons for the low yield and propose potential improvements in the extraction process. For example, consider exploring alternative methods (e.g., supercritical fluid extraction) that might yield higher oil recovery.

Line 328: Please check the reference format...? Mosquera, Noriega, Tapia and Pérez [32]

Line 354: Wrongly cited- Bom et al. (2019) and [40]. Arrange according to author guidelines.

Line 362-365: What is this..? Are the authors serious about what they have written in this paragraph?

Response 6: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made changes to improve the Discussion section.

Comments 7: Conclusion:

Discuss the potential applications of cosmetic emulsions in the cosmetics industry and the economic and environmental benefits of using Amazonian oils.

Response 7: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have made changes in the text to improve the Conclusions section.

Comments 8: After a thorough review, I suggest that the title be modified to " Conceptual design of the process for making cosmetic emulsion using Amazonian oils.

Response 8: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have changed the title to the one recommended by you.

Comments 9: General suggestions:

Ensure that all references are correctly formatted according to the journal's guidelines.

English needs improvement.

Response 9: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have adjusted them according to the journal’s guidelines. The text has now been proofread by a professional proofreader who is a native English-speak

Comments on the Quality of English Language: It need improvements

Response 1: The Quality of English Language was improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim at line 105 must be improved 
Title of figure 1 at line 124 mentions conceptual design phases of what?
It is necessary to separate the experimental section, it is not mentioned here. 
In methodology you dont mention how the análisis and economic feasibility is carried out it must be a section.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs to be improved 

Author Response

Comments 1: The aim at line 105 must be improved.

Response 1: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have reworded the aim to improve clarity and alignment with the study's overall purpose. Also, the necessary adjustments have been made to the abstract to maintain consistency.

Comments 2: Title of figure 1 at line 124 mentions conceptual design phases of what?

Response 2: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have modified Figure 1's title to clearly specify that these are the methodological phases implemented in the conceptual design of the cosmetic emulsion production process.

Comments 3: It is necessary to separate the experimental section, it is not mentioned here.

Response 3: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. However, a structural modification was not made to the document since, as indicated in the previous revision, this study did not include a direct experimental phase. In the Materials and Methods section, it is specified that in Phase 1, we observed experiments carried out by other authors (work that has not yet been published), from which the data necessary for the development of this phase were obtained.

Comments 4: In methodology you don’t mention how the analysis and economic feasibility is carried out; it must be a section.

Response 4: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have added Subsection 2.1.3.1 which details the methodology used to perform the economic feasibility analysis. Although this section does not go into extensive detail, reference is made to previous research that supports the analysis, allowing us to maintain the methodological approach of the study submitted following the first review process.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Needs to be improved.

Response 1: The Quality of English Language was improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are suitably addressed. Hence, I recommend the manuscript for publication. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The comments are suitably addressed. Hence, I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Response 1: We have taken on board your suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate your positive feedback and your recommendation for the publication of the manuscript. We are pleased to know that the adjustments made were satisfactory.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx