A Cocktail-Based Formula for the Design of Nanosized Cosmeceuticals as Skincare and Anti-Age Products
, Federica Fulgheri 1, Matteo Perra 2, Gianluigi Bacchetta 1, Laura Fancello 1, Francesco Corrias 1, Iris Usach 3, Josè Esteban Peris 3, Maria Letizia Manca 1,* and Maria Manconi 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, a series of Nasco and Bovale grape pomace extracts loaded emulsion were prepared as skincare and anti-age products. The work is interesting, however, quite preliminary.
1. For Figure 2, authors should provide emulsion information of each glass tubes.
2. In Figure 3, author should clarify whether the statistical analyses were performed against mean diameters or PDI.
3. Why cell viability can be as high as 130 % in Figure 6? Author should indicate what is the lower panel in Figure 6.
4. Rheological properties are extremely important for skin cosmetics, rheological analyses results should be added to support the conclusion of this research.
5. Besides keratinocytes viability, the direct contact of emulsion with rabbit eyes should be performed to demonstrate the biocompatibility.
It is OK.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Based on Figure 2, the appearance does not resemble that of a nanoemulsion; it appears to exhibit aggregation.
Have potential side effects or adverse reactions of the nanoemulsion been addressed, and have these products undergone skin irritation testing? Conducting allergenicity tests on a nanoemulsion, intended for widespread application on the skin as skincare or cosmetics, can better ensure the overall safety of the product.
Did the author discuss the cost-effectiveness of different combinations of extracts and surfactants, and how this affects the practical application and market competitiveness of the products?
Lines 26-28: The author mentions that the stability of the nanoemulsion is influenced by the extracts and surfactants. How were these influences specifically observed and quantified? Is the author referring to the efficacy of the extracts?
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors.
During reading this research I catch some unclears, which I marked below.
Introduction: in the final part of this chapter I miss information about the amount of phytocomplexes obtained from grape pomace compared to, for example, apple pomace? Generally, I miss the answer to the question why the authors used pomace from these fruits?
Section 2.4: Please specify the power of the ultrasonic probe per unit volume of the solution. Was it tested what amount of ultrasonic energy was used to obtain emulsion nanoparticles and what part of it was used only to raise the temperature of the emulsion solution?
Chapter 2.7: How were the UV blocking properties of the nanoemulsion tested?
On Figure 4 in the upper panel, in my opinion, the dispersion value of the presented results is missing. It is difficult to compare changes in the average nanoparticle diameter without knowing the variability of the diameter. It is difficult to get an answer to the question whether time affects, for example, the aggregation of nanoparticles?
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
At present revision should be accepted.
It is OK.
