Optimizing Bioactive Compound Recovery from Chestnut Shells Using Pressurized Liquid Extraction and the Box–Behnken Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study demonstrates originality and novelty by optimizing the recovery of bioactive compounds from chestnut shells using advanced green extraction techniques. The research provides valuable insights into the valorization of an underutilized agro-industrial by-product, contributing to both scientific knowledge and sustainable practices.

The introduction comprehensively summarizes the importance of chestnut shells as a source of bioactive compounds and the relevance of green extraction techniques. However, I believe that including more recent and diverse references on the application of PLE and similar green extraction methods to other plant-based wastes would further engage readers. Additionally, the environmental and economic significance of valorizing chestnut shell waste should be emphasized more clearly.

The research design is appropriate and systematic. The use of Box-Behnken design and response surface methodology is well-suited to the study’s objectives. However, the rationale for selecting the experimental parameter ranges should be explained in more detail, and the possible limitations of the design, as well as the reasons for choosing this statistical approach, should be briefly discussed.

The methods are generally clear and easy to follow. Sample preparation, extraction, and analytical techniques are well described. It would be beneficial to visualize the experimental methodology with a figure to enhance understanding of the experimental design. Additionally, including images from the experimental work could further improve clarity.

The results are presented clearly, with appropriate tables and figures. However, the findings should be compared more extensively with similar studies in the literature, and the practical applications and industrial scalability of the results should be discussed in greater detail.

The conclusions are consistent with the data obtained, and the contribution of the study is clearly stated. Nevertheless, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research should be more explicitly addressed, and recommendations regarding the industrial and environmental impacts of the results should be included.

Abbreviations should be explained at their first occurrence and the use of the SI unit system throughout the text should be checked in detail.

The similarity index was found to be 37%. This rate is expected to be in the range of 15-20%. The authors are advised to review the manuscript, use more original expressions, and reduce the similarity index to avoid plagiarism.

Author Response

This study demonstrates originality and novelty by optimizing the recovery of bioactive compounds from chestnut shells using advanced green extraction techniques. The research provides valuable insights into the valorization of an underutilized agro-industrial by-product, contributing to both scientific knowledge and sustainable practices.

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her insightful comments.

The introduction comprehensively summarizes the importance of chestnut shells as a source of bioactive compounds and the relevance of green extraction techniques. However, I believe that including more recent and diverse references on the application of PLE and similar green extraction methods to other plant-based wastes would further engage readers. Additionally, the environmental and economic significance of valorizing chestnut shell waste should be emphasized more clearly.

Additional information was provided, as requested.

The research design is appropriate and systematic. The use of Box-Behnken design and response surface methodology is well-suited to the study’s objectives. However, the rationale for selecting the experimental parameter ranges should be explained in more detail, and the possible limitations of the design, as well as the reasons for choosing this statistical approach, should be briefly discussed.

The selection criteria for the Box-Behnken design as well as constraints and selection criteria for the parameters studied were added to the manuscript as requested.

The methods are generally clear and easy to follow. Sample preparation, extraction, and analytical techniques are well described. It would be beneficial to visualize the experimental methodology with a figure to enhance understanding of the experimental design. Additionally, including images from the experimental work could further improve clarity.

The graphical abstract has been added, as suggested.

The results are presented clearly, with appropriate tables and figures. However, the findings should be compared more extensively with similar studies in the literature, and the practical applications and industrial scalability of the results should be discussed in greater detail.

More discussion of the results was added, as asked.

The conclusions are consistent with the data obtained, and the contribution of the study is clearly stated. Nevertheless, the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research should be more explicitly addressed, and recommendations regarding the industrial and environmental impacts of the results should be included.

Recommendations were added, as suggested.

Abbreviations should be explained at their first occurrence and the use of the SI unit system throughout the text should be checked in detail.

Abbreviations were explained in their first appearance, as requested.

The similarity index was found to be 37%. This rate is expected to be in the range of 15-20%. The authors are advised to review the manuscript, use more original expressions, and reduce the similarity index to avoid plagiarism.

The similarity index has been reduced in accordance with the reviewer's recommendation. However, a significant portion of the remaining similarities are found within the “Materials & Methods” section, where modification is particularly challenging due to the standardized terminology, instrument specifications, reagent names, and procedural descriptions that must remain consistent with established protocols.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The utilization of byproducts from the agrifood industry is highly relevant for industrial practices. Chestnut shells contain bioactive compounds, making their valorization particularly significant. Therefore, the development and optimization of methods for extracting these bioactive compounds is of great importance. Pressurized Liquid Extraction (PLE) is considered an efficient and environmentally friendly extraction method. Consequently, the topic of the manuscript is interesting for readers.

The manuscript is logically structured. The Introduction summarizes well the background and significance of the study. The Methodology section is detailed. Experimental results are discussed in details with relevant references.

In my opinion, the manuscript demonstrates high scientific quality. I have only a few minor technical comments, listed below.

Comments and Suggestions:

• Considering the time, pressure, and temperature requirements, I suggest discussing the effects of process parameters on the energy demand and cost of the process, in relation to the extraction yield.
• Please clarify in the manuscript how the minimum and maximum values for extraction time and temperature were determined or selected.
• In my opinion, lines 385–388 would be more appropriately placed in the Methodology section.

 

Author Response

The utilization of byproducts from the agrifood industry is highly relevant for industrial practices. Chestnut shells contain bioactive compounds, making their valorization particularly significant. Therefore, the development and optimization of methods for extracting these bioactive compounds is of great importance. Pressurized Liquid Extraction (PLE) is considered an efficient and environmentally friendly extraction method. Consequently, the topic of the manuscript is interesting for readers.

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments.

The manuscript is logically structured. The Introduction summarizes well the background and significance of the study. The Methodology section is detailed. Experimental results are discussed in details with relevant references.

In my opinion, the manuscript demonstrates high scientific quality. I have only a few minor technical comments, listed below.

Comments and Suggestions:

• Considering the time, pressure, and temperature requirements, I suggest discussing the effects of process parameters on the energy demand and cost of the process, in relation to the extraction yield.

More discussion was added, as asked.

• Please clarify in the manuscript how the minimum and maximum values for extraction time and temperature were determined or selected.

An explanation was added, as requested.

• In my opinion, lines 385–388 would be more appropriately placed in the Methodology section.

Lines 385-388 were moved in section 2.7., as suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The requested revisions have been made.