Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Review on the antioxidant activity of phenolics in o/w emulsions along with a few important factors affecting their interfacial behaviour“ reviews the studies on antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds in systems based on o/w emulsions.

 

This review is interisting and reflects current trends in the addition of bioactive components to functional foods. However, there are some issues within this paper that need to be resolved before potential publication.

 

General comment: It would also be useful to add a brief discussion of the effect of o/w emulsion droplet size on the stability of the discussed phenolic compounds.

line 105 – I suggest to characterize “specific emulsifiers “ – natural emulsifiers? chemical composition?

line 134 – p-CA and sodium caseinate - I recommend to specify the method of “linking“ - conjugation?

line 150 – What is the mechanismus here to stabilize the droplets against aggregation?

line 159 - Table 1 – check the last line – formula is missing

line 179 – just a note: the blue color for interfacial area and the gray color for aqueous phase might be a bit confusing for the readers? They might automatically assume that the blue area is the aqueous phase ...

line 184: further

line 296 – Figure 2 – citation? or is it your picture?

line 298: studies have

line 325: research

line 426 – 427 – what type of foods with o/w nature would be supposed to be relevant for these phenolic compounds? – based on low pH: fermented products? some juices?

Author Response

Please see attached the response of the authors to the reviewer 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the present review is interesting since it explores the factors affecting the antioxidant activity of phenolics in o/w emulsions. The organization of the review is good and the manuscript is readable. However, It can be improved in some parts.

Lines 107-121 The description of the experimental studies about flavonoids and phenolic acids can be described in more details.

Chemical structures in Table 1 can be better formatted.

Figure 1 and Lines 171-177 Is there any evidence regarding the shown partioning of amphiphilic phenolic antioxidants or is it postulated? If there is an evidence, please add a reference.

Paragraph 3.1 The role of metals at different pH on the interfacial and antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds should be better discussed.

Line 293 Please define the abbreviation CSLM

Paragraph 3.3. The concept of “polar paradox” should be better defined. Moreover, the reported experimental studies must be better described since it is not clear whether more hydrophilic or more hydrophobic compounds display the highest activity as antioxidants in o/w emulsions.

Line 343 Define PV abbreviation.

Author Response

Please see attached the authors responses to the reviewer 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded all required changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered reviewer comments and the manuscript is suitable for publication.