Valorization of Flourensia cernua Foliage Through a Multiproduct Fungal Solid-State Bioprocess and Its Effect on In Vitro Digestibility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

# I found the manuscript easy to read and understand. However, there are some grammatical and punctuation errors and, in some instances. I recommend checking the language of the paper.

# There are minor editorial matters and corrections to be made in the manuscript, including (italic forms of some scientific issues, abbreviations style, the reference numbering and style, headings and subheadings, etc.).

# Define abbreviations at the first time they appear in the main text. After the first appearance of the acronym, the abbreviation should always be used in the rest of the manuscript instead of the complete term.

# The authors are advised to clarify whether daughter ions (fragment ions) were utilized for the detection and identification of metabolites. This information is crucial for confirming the reliability and specificity of the mass spectrometric analysis. Were the authors using the daughter ion mass spectra?

Author Response

• Comments:I found the manuscript easy to read and understand. However, there are some grammatical and punctuation errors and, in some instances. I recommend checking the language of the paper.

Response: Agree. We have revised and corrected  all gramatical and punctuation errors.

• Comments: There are minor editorial matters and corrections to be made in the manuscript, including (italic forms of some scientific issues, abbreviations style, the reference numbering and style, headings and subheadings, etc.).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Appropriate corrections were made according to the observations issued.

• Comments: Define abbreviations at the first time they appear in the main text. After the first appearance of the acronym, the abbreviation should always be used in the rest of the manuscript instead of the complete term.

Response: Corrected observations throughout the manuscript. Corrections are highlighted.

• Comments: The authors are advised to clarify whether daughter ions (fragment ions) were utilized for the detection and identification of metabolites. This information is crucial for confirming the reliability and specificity of the mass spectrometric analysis. Were the authors using the daughter ion mass spectra?

Response: Not applicable

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a sufficiently innovative approach by integrating a multiproduct solid-state fungal bioprocess aimed at valorizing Flourensia cernua, a largely underutilized desert shrub. The study combines enzyme production (β-glucosidase), identification of phenolic compounds, and improvement of in vitro digestibility in a single process. This multipurpose strategy reflects a novel application of Aspergillus niger in solid-state fermentation and offers a sustainable biotechnological route for enhancing the nutritional and industrial potential of arid-zone biomass. The article is generally quite well-prepared and addresses a relevant scientific topic. However, I have several comments and concerns that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication:

• There is a missing reference in the section describing the method used for determining β-glucosidase activity (section 2.4.1). A proper citation should be included to support the analytical procedure applied.
• line 131-132- Sentence is stylistically incorrect and should be revised for clarity and grammatical correctness.
• The graphs are missing error bars, which are essential for representing data variability and supporting the reliability of the results. They should be included in all relevant figures.
• Figure 2, particularly the data on the Y-axis, is difficult to read. The axis labels and numerical values should be revised to improve clarity and ensure proper interpretation of the data.
• It is unclear why Figure 4 is included, as it has not been discussed in the text. If it is relevant, it should be properly referenced and analyzed within the manuscript. Otherwise, it may need to be removed.
• The Latin names should be italicized, as per standard scientific writing conventions.

Author Response

Comments: There is a missing reference in the section describing the method used for determining β-glucosidase activity (section 2.4.1). A proper citation should be included to support the analytical procedure applied.

Response: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a section describing the methodology used to evaluate the enzyme. The correction is highlighted in the corresponding paragraph.

Comments: Line 131-132- Sentence is stylistically incorrect and should be revised for clarity and grammatical correctness.

Response: Agree. The writing style has been corrected.

Comments: The graphs are missing error bars, which are essential for representing data variability and supporting the reliability of the results. They should be included in all relevant figures.

Response: Not applicable

Comments: Figure 2, particularly the data on the Y-axis, is difficult to read. The axis labels and numerical values should be revised to improve clarity and ensure proper interpretation of the data.

Response: The Y-axis measures the absorbance units of the compounds as they elute from the column and is expressed as AU (absorbance units). The X-axis measures the time it takes for a compound to elute from the column; it is measured in minutes and is known as retention time. The peaks indicated with letters correspond to the main compounds detected in the sample (see Table 1).

Comments: It is unclear why Figure 4 is included, as it has not been discussed in the text. If it is relevant, it should be properly referenced and analyzed within the manuscript. Otherwise, it may need to be removed.

Response: Agree. Figure 4 is mentioned and analyzed in the text, but it was not cited. However, it has now been correctly cited.

Comments: The Latin names should be italicized, as per standard scientific writing conventions.

Response: Corrected observations throughout the manuscript. Corrections are highlighted.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed allthe comments