Recent Advances in Marine Microalgae Production: Highlighting Human Health Products from Microalgae in View of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the review is attractive and generates high expectatives about this trending topic. Nevertheless, the review is generalistic and in my opinion it is not a significative contribution for researchers or industry, as it only describes qualitatively already existing research without any new insight. Many conceptual errors are found . To illustrate that, som examples are listed below:
_Tables are not illustrative and mistakes can be found along the paper and tables. In table 4 for example, authors wrongly reported carbohydrate productivity in mg per litre? , as well as they talk about metabolite improvement, without defining that term.
_Page 2 line 58 authors mentioned 87000 Tns of biomass produced in 2019 and in line 60 56465 tonsfor the same period?
_Page 15 line 565 " the most extracted molecule from microalgae is oil either PUFA or biodiesel?? Authors should note that biodiesel is not a substance contained in microalgae biomass
_ Figure 3 illustrates for example phycobiliproteins as a pigment and phycocyanin as another pigment (it is also a phycobiliprotein, as well as phycoerythrins)
Author Response
SUMMARY OF AUTHOR(S) RESPONSE TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS
Manuscript ID: fermentation-1866714
Manuscript Title: Recent Advanced Technologies Enhance Microalgae Biomass, Highlighting the Human Health Products from Microalgae, Focusing on Coronavirus Epidemic (COVID-19)
Authors: Mohamed Ashour; Ashraf M.M. Omran
|
Reviewer 1# Round 1 Comments |
Author(s) response |
|
The title of the review is attractive and generates high expectatives about this trending topic. Nevertheless, the review is generalistic and in my opinion it is not a significative contribution for researchers or industry, as it only describes qualitatively already existing research without any new insight. Many conceptual errors are found. To illustrate that, some examples are listed below: |
The authors would like to thank Reviewer # 1 for his kind and his interesting and valuable comments. Reviewer # 1 comment has been considered carefully by the authors. The author's responses to Reviewer #1 comments were made in Yellow shadow |
|
Tables are not illustrative and mistakes can be found along the paper and tables. In table 4 for example, authors wrongly reported carbohydrate productivity in mg per liter?, as well as they talk about metabolite improvement, without defining that term. |
Sorry for this, it was a typing mistake. The carbohydrate productivity and biomass productivity were corrected to “carbohydrate production (mg L−1)” and “biomass production (mg L−1)”, respectively. The metabolite improvement here refers to the enhancement percentages (%) as a result of applying the nutrient limitation strategy, it was explained in the text. Kindly please, see Lines: 376-377, and Table 4. |
|
Page 2 line 58 authors mentioned 87000 Tns of biomass produced in 2019 and in line 60 56465 tons for the same period? |
Sorry for this typing mistake. It was corrected to “87000 Ts in 2018” (Line 54) |
|
Page 15 line 565 " the most extracted molecule from microalgae is oil either PUFA or biodiesel?? Authors should note that biodiesel is not a substance contained in microalgae biomass |
Thank you for your investigation. This sentence was deleted and extended on Page 16, Lines:599–618. |
|
Figure 3 illustrates for example phycobiliproteins as a pigment and phycocyanin as another pigment (it is also a phycobiliprotein, as well as phycoerythrin) |
Thank you for your investigation. Phycobiliprotein was deleted while phycocyanin and phycoerythrin are still present (Fig. 3). |
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewer(s) and editorial board. Their comments and guidance added a lot to the research and increased its scientific content. Therefore, the words cannot express their gratitude for the time and effort they put into evaluating this research.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is well written and clear paper. Although the composition of the content is traditional for such reviews, especially in the first part of the paper, it contains an overview and analysis of new studies in the field. I think that paper is publishable after major revision as listed below:
- My main suggestion is the following. Section 3.3. Extraction Technologies focuses mainly to biofuel extraction. I suggest to expand the review of the extraction of high-value bioproducts, because then you discuss mainly bioproducts-against-virus applications. Section 4 is now practically unrelated to the beginning of the article.
- Title. Specify the main action of your work and shorten the title.
- Abstract. “blue biotechnology”. What is this?
- Abstract. “… and (2) drying of algal biomass (wet weight).” What does “wet weight” mean?
- Abstract. I suggest to decrease the part devoted to the introduction and increase the part devoted to the outcomes that you made from your review and analysis.
- Page 2, line 51. I suggest to add biooil as possible product of microalgae-to-biofuel conversion. I recommend you considering the following papers: (https://doi.org/10.32908/hthp.v48.716, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1070427219110028)
- Page 2, line 57. I suggest to specify “FAO”
- Page 2, line 94. I suggest to explain the “super-strain concept”
- Page 3, first paragraph. I suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs.
- Page 3, line 108. Use “technology” instead of “technological”
- Page 3, line 115. I suggest using “including” instead of “especially”.
- Page 5, line 189. I suggest using “to” of “for producing” instead of “into”.
- Page 7. “Microalgae are a rich source of protein, which contribute 30 – 70% of the algal bio-mass, having nutritional benefits higher than traditional protein sources such as egg, meat, milk, legumes, and soybean” needs citation.
- Page 7, line 256. PBR instead of PPR. Also line 734 on page 20
- Page 7, line 263. Specify OP
- Tables 4, 5 and 6. Productivity unit. Is it per day? mg per L per day?
- Table 7. I suggest to specify what industry. I also suggest you considering the following paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02947-7
- Page 13 lines 470 and 471: double flotation
- Page 16 line 587, 589. I suggest deleting “biologically”
- There are grammatical errors in the text. It is recommended to conduct an additional grammatical check of the text of the publication.
Author Response
SUMMARY OF AUTHOR(S) RESPONSE TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS
Manuscript ID: fermentation-1866714
Manuscript Title: Recent Advanced Technologies Enhance Microalgae Biomass, Highlighting the Human Health Products from Microalgae, Focusing on Coronavirus Epidemic (COVID-19)
Authors: Mohamed Ashour; Ashraf M.M. Omran
|
Reviewer 2# Round 1 Comments |
Author(s) response |
|
It is well written and clear paper. Although the composition of the content is traditional for such reviews, especially in the first part of the paper, it contains an overview and analysis of new studies in the field. I think that paper is publishable after major revision as listed below: |
The authors would like to thank Reviewer # 2 for his kind and his interesting and valuable comments. Reviewer # 2 comment has been considered carefully by the authors. The author's responses to Reviewer #2 comments were made in Pink shadow |
|
My main suggestion is the following. Section 3.3. Extraction Technologies focuses mainly to biofuel extraction. I suggest to expand the review of the extraction of high-value bioproducts, because then you discuss mainly bioproducts-against-virus applications. Section 4 is now practically unrelated to the beginning of the article. |
The extraction of high-value bioproducts was expended, as per your suggestion (Lines: 599 - 618). For about Section 4 (4. Microalgae Derivatives to Reduce the COVID-19 Cytokine Storm), the application of microalgae bioproducts in the field of human health, immunity, and nutrition was mentioned indirectly at the beginning of the Introduction (Lines: 33-34, 39, and 41-43) and also it mentioned directly in the last paragraph of the end of the introduction (Likes: 104-111). |
|
Title. Specify the main action of your work and shorten the title. |
As per your suggestion and also as per the Academic Editor's suggestion, the title has been changed. |
|
Abstract. “blue biotechnology”. What is this? |
Blue biotechnology means the biotechnology, economy, and commercialization that depend on the oceans and aquatic organisms. As well as, biotechnological based on aquatic organisms such as the biotechnological applications based on microalgae. |
|
- Abstract. “… and (2) drying of algal biomass (wet weight).” What does “wet weight” mean? |
It means the drying of the wet weight of algal cells. However, it has been deleted. |
|
- Abstract. I suggest to decrease the part devoted to the introduction and increase the part devoted to the outcomes that you made from your review and analysis. |
The abstract introduction was decreased. |
|
- Page 2, line 51. I suggest to add biooil as possible product of microalgae-to-biofuel conversion. I recommend you considering the following papers: (https://doi.org/10.32908/hthp.v48.716, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1070427219110028) |
These interesting articles were added Line: 46 |
|
- Page 2, line 57. I suggest to specify “FAO” |
Specified. Line: 52 |
|
Page 2, line 94. I suggest to explain the “super-strain concept” |
It was explained at “2.1. Super-Strain-Concept“ Lines:120-123 |
|
Page 3, first paragraph. I suggest avoiding single-sentence paragraphs. |
Avoided
|
|
Page 3, line 108. Use “technology” instead of “technological” |
Used. Line: 110 |
|
Page 3, line 115. I suggest using “including” instead of “especially”. |
Used Line: 117 |
|
Page 7. “Microalgae are a rich source of protein, which contribute 30 – 70% of the algal bio-mass, having nutritional benefits higher than traditional protein sources such as egg, meat, milk, legumes, and soybean” needs citation. |
Ref. has been added Line: 237 |
|
Page 7, line 256. PBR instead of PPR. Also line 734 on page 20 |
Thank you for your valuable investigation. Corrected. Lines: 258 & 734. |
|
Page 7, line 263. Specify OP |
Specified. Line: 265 |
|
Tables 4, 5 and 6. Productivity unit. Is it per day? mg per L per day? |
Thank you for your valuable investigation. It was biomass production (the unit is mg L−1) not biomass productivity and it was corrected |
|
Table 7. I suggest to specify what industry. I also suggest you considering the following paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02947-7 |
This interesting paper was considered (Line: 406-407). |
|
Page 13 lines 470 and 471: double flotation |
Corrected and deleted. |
|
Page 16 line 587, 589. I suggest deleting “biologically” |
Deleted. |
|
There are grammatical errors in the text. It is recommended to conduct an additional grammatical check of the text of the publication. |
Thank you for your valuable comment. The grammatical errors were fixed by an additional grammatical checker program. |
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to the reviewer (s) and editorial board. Their comments and guidance added a lot to the research and increased its scientific content. Therefore, the words cannot express their gratitude for the time and effort they put into evaluating this research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No more comments
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments.
