Preparation and Characterization of a Topical Delivery System for Nanoemulsions Using a Composite Film of Pectin and Tapioca

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. p.2 line 46 - the abbreviation “NE” should be clarified here, it is used here in the text for the first time.

2. In section Materials, all INCI names should be written in capital letters, instead of "sorbitan monooleate" it should be "Sorbitam Monooleate".

3. p. 3 line 120 instead of "t= tangential ..." should rather be "at - tangent ..."??

4. p. 4 line 140 end of sentence missing, text missing.

5. p. 4 line 144 there should be added interpretation of the results obtained in Table 1.

6. p. 5 line 178 instead of "umectants" there should be "humectants".

7. p. 7 Figures 7a and 7b on the X axis there are errors (“0, a, 15, 15a” etc.).

 The authors used correctly selected research methodologies, to which I have no objections. The literature cited in the paper is up-to-date and correct. The authors need to make the mentioned corrections.

Author Response

Thanks for your review.

As requested, the responses for your comments follows:

1. Definition for the abbreviation NE was included
2. INCI names were corrected
3. Term was corrected
4. Sentence was corrected
5. Interpretation of the table was included
6. Term was corrected
7. Figure legend was corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have fabricated nanoemulsions containing gels formed from pectine and rice starch, crosslinked by Ca cations, and plasticided by PEG or glycerol. The two polymers are from natural origin, biocompatible and biodegradable, which is in line with the requirements of future cosmetics and pharmacology. Hence, the topic is of interest and within the aims of the journal. However, there are minos changes that have to be made before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

COMMETS:

1.- The authors have to include uncertainties of the different variables in the tables, as well as error bars in the figures. For the sake of example, the degrees of swelling for the samples with different concentrations of plastiziers are very close in come  cases, thus the discussion done is uncertain.

2.- There are some typos, e.g., after Table 4, umectants should be substituted by humectants.

3.- The authors have to write the references in a homogeneous way. One of them contains text writen in capital letters, and some contain text in Portuguese in addition to the title of the paper.

4.- A quantitative comparison with existing commercial formulations must be given to justify that the new ones are better or equal in performance, and also stress the advantages/disadvantages of the ones presented in this manuscript.

Some typos have to be corrected, as mentiones in the Suggestions and Comments for Authors.

Author Response

Thanks for you review. As requested, the answers for the comments follows:

1. The standard deviation was included in the graphic
2. terms were corrected
3. references were corrected
4. comments were included in the text.