Next Article in Journal
Simultaneous Determination of Pyrethroid Insecticides in Foods of Animal Origins Using the Modified QuEChERS Method and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Next Article in Special Issue
Mechanical Properties, Microstructure, and In Vitro Digestion of Transglutaminase-Crosslinked Whey Protein and Potato Protein Hydrolysate Composite Gels
Previous Article in Journal
Continuous and Pulsed Ultraviolet-C LED on Germicidal Effect and Energy Consumption in Fresh Products: Applications in Tomatoes as a Model
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Improved Light and In Vitro Digestive Stability of Lutein-Loaded Nanoparticles Based on Soy Protein Hydrolysates via Pepsin

Foods 2022, 11(22), 3635; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11223635
by Renyi Wu 1,2, Xuejiao Qie 1,2, Zhaojun Wang 1,2, Qiuming Chen 1,2, Maomao Zeng 1,2, Jie Chen 1,2, Fang Qin 1,2 and Zhiyong He 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Foods 2022, 11(22), 3635; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11223635
Submission received: 16 October 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 November 2022 / Published: 14 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Application of Hydrocolloids in Food System)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic that has been presented in the manuscript is interesting. I have some minor suggestions 

the introduction can be improved in a way to focus on the similar approaches. Concentrating too much on the several agents for encapsulation is misleading.

also in the last paragraph of the introduction, the auther has mentioned the in vitro study which is not presented here in the data.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have demonstrated light and digestive stability of lutein-loaded nanoparticles. Overall, the manuscript has some merits. However, there are some key information that are missing and authors are advised to revise or clear the following queries;

1. The manuscript requires English language proofreading.

2. On page 3, line no. 104, Authors mentioned enzymatic hydrolysis took 45 minutes at two different conditions (pepsin at 2.0 pH) and (alcalase at pH 8.0); however, it is not mentioned how much time was given for each condition.

3. On page 4, line no.161, authors mention 2 min. sonication. Please elaborate this further. At what frequency sonication was performed?

4. In Section 2.5, please recheck equation 2 and 3 for EE% and LC calculations. 

5. Which statistical method was used to check the significance in difference? Please mention.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop