Improving the Efficiency and Antioxidant Activity of Essential Oil Extraction from Abies sachalinensis by Underwater Shockwave Pretreatment for the Construction of Low-Energy and Sustainable Essential Oil Extraction System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Find the review comments in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank the reviewers for their kind suggestions in the preparation of the revised manuscript. We have also followed the reviewers' comments and addressed specific remarks in the attachment. We also confirmed that the format of the manuscript is consistent with the journal guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed this manuscript entitled "Improving the efficiency and antioxidant activity of essential oil extraction from Abies sachalinensis by underwater shockwave pretreatment for the construction of low-energy and sustainable essential oil extraction system". This manuscript aims to increase the yield and quality of A. sachalinensis extracts using shockwaves. The topic is interesting and the manuscript is well organized. The manuscript can be further considered for recommendation after the following a few minor comments and concerns are addressed.

1) Abstract is not informative enough and should be rewritten more scientifically. The abstract section needs to be edited, such as the importance of the topic, the method of work, and a summary of the results & conclusions.

2) Page 2 Line nos. 71-73, please complement and enrich this statement: "When a shockwave penetrates an interface with different impedance, a reflected expansion wave is generated at the intracellular air–space interface, and the cell is peeled off by tensile force due to spalling, resulting in cellular destruction.” with related literature. I do think the following paper can be reviewed and employed to support the potential mechanism: “Modeling of kinetic characteristics of alkaline‑surfactant-polymer-strengthened foams decay under ultrasonic standing wave (2022). Petroleum Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petsci.2022.04.012.”

Moreover, in the introduction section, by comparing the research of others, the author should focus on describing the differences and innovations of your own research with others.

3) The highlight of the article is the experimental device used in the study of steam distillation. The author should focus on supplementing the working principle of the experimental device.

4) Improve Figures, all the legends must be corrected and the resolution should be ensured.

5) Have the authors compared your findings with the existing method? Please enrich your results discussion.

6) The current conclusion has been explained well, but it can be improved. The novelty of this work should be highlighted in the section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewers for their kind suggestions in the preparation of the revised manuscript. We have also followed the reviewers' comments and addressed specific remarks in the attachment. We also confirmed that the format of the manuscript is consistent with the journal guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This study is very interesting and well written and compiled. The content flow is smooth and easy to read. The experiments were executed in a well-designed manner with experimental controls. The aim and objectives of the study are well addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank the reviewer for their positive comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

The work is very interesting, especially from the perspective of how to pre-treat the plants.
Materials and methods were clearly presented. The experimental results are clear and concise. The conclusions agree with the experimental data.
Notifications:
Another specification should be made in table 1, for the dual values of fresh/dry leaves.
Also, it is not very clear why the SW5 sample was not included in the antioxidant activity experiments and determination of total phenols with antioxidant activity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We thank the reviewers for their kind suggestions in the preparation of the revised manuscript. We have also followed the reviewers' comments and addressed specific remarks in the attachment. We also confirmed that the format of the manuscript is consistent with the journal guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is corrected according to the reviewer comments. The results of this work are interesting. I recommend it for publication.