Maximization of Sulforaphane Content in Broccoli Sprouts by Blanching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- 1. The abstract should mention the significance of this study at the beginning. Then the aim and objective should appear.
- 2. The study didn’t mention the novelty of the study. Is this investigation being novel? Were some studies done on this topic earlier? If so, what’s the difference compared to the current study. In brief, the literature review needs to be improved in the Introduction. Novelty should be outlined clearly.
- 3. Please maintain consistency of all unit formats such as some places authors mention one gram, some places 1g.
- In the discussion, the author explained the results of how blanching improved SFN content, and how different parameters work. I would recommend including the mechanism behind the result to be elaborated further. Besides, compare the outcome with other related studies so that readers can catch the significance of these experimental outcomes.
- 4. Authors mentioned the possible industrialization of SFN for its use in the food industry. Do the authors recommend this technology can be directly applied to the commercial sector or the experimental approach should be further modified prior to commercialization. Is it feasible for a larger scale? Will this process be lucrative for the food market in terms of economical aspects? Is this technological application in the market already? Authors must clarify all key outcomes and further steps for the realistic implication of the technology.
5 5. Overall, the manscript outcome seems interesting. But it lacks the process mechanisms behind the obtained experimental outcomes and lacks the correlation with related studies in the field. Authors must improve these points before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General and specific comments:
Title - in relation to hydrothermal treatment, this is a chemical reaction in water in a sealed pressure vessel, which is a type of reaction at both high temperature and pressure. (From: Journal of Power Sources, 2018)
In fact, blanching would be more suitable; see the use of this word throughout the document and even in the keywords.
line 16 - correct to central composite design;
line 44 - the sentence is not finished
lines 103; 261; 273; 295; 296; 277 and 283 - there are several inaccuracies in the writing
line 49 – the authors write “Some studies…..” the sentence must have the references that support these studies.
Line 78 - the use of this tool requires that more information would be presented to the reader about the theoretical basis that comprises this analysis
Line 90 - would be appreciated if the authors could present a short summary of the procedure performed by Perez.
Line 92 - Place in this sentence the ranges used for time and temperature, because as it is, the reader must go from page 2 to page 4 to know the values that were studied.
line 97 - write the name of the authors of reference 18, as you did for example in line 90;
This correction should also be applied to the lines 112; 231 and 246.
line 108 - in this case, for the quantification, wouldn't it be important to have a sulforaphane standard curve?
on lines 115 and 129 - two types of centrifugal force are shown. Shouldn’t there be only one type? For line 115 the writing should be 13,000 x g
line 121 – could tell the reader the meaning of TFA
line 124 - should the authors use and present a calibration curve using sinigrin? Should the results appear in sinigrin equivalents/g dry matter and what are the units?
Line 141 - complete the results mg of ???? (what). Shouldn’t it be mmol, as this is the unit presented in the table 1?
line 224 - The authors write "Good agreement", normally this is for a minimum R2 of 80% or superior to this value. So, it should instead say a “reasonable agreement”, meaning that the adjustment of the model to the experimental data gave a determination coefficient (R2) equal to 76.0% and 77.9%, i.e. the model is able to explain about 76.0% and 77.9% of the data variability.
line 300 –the authors didn´t present the item Conclusions; please highlight this topic in the document.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presented a research dataset and supported the statement of how good the results are but the mechanism why this research output was achieved in such a way, is still missing. Besides, readers may not expect techno-economic analysis, but the future direction for a realistic approach is expected. The authors denied the importance of these points.
