Review of: The Consumption of Iceberg Lettuce May Reduce the Adhesion of Dietary Fat to the Mucus Surface of the Stomach Barrier Lining Decreasing the Risk of Triggering Acute Gastroesophageal Reflux

I commend the author, Thomas J. Hurr, for the intriguing exploration into the potential impact of iceberg lettuce on reducing the risk of acute gastroesophageal reflux (GER). The study delved into the context of dietary choices and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The author effectively established the backdrop by addressing the prevalence of GERD worldwide and the common use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in its management. The motivation behind exploring dietary interventions is well-founded, particularly considering concerns the safety and long-term use of PPIs. The reference to a preliminary case report within the research unit adds a personal touch to the rationale, creating a compelling narrative for further investigation. The comprehensive review of existing literature provided a solid foundation for the study, underscoring the importance of dietary choices in managing GERD. The integration of leafy green vegetables, particularly iceberg lettuce, into this discourse is a unique approach that piques curiosity. Even though the introduction seemed a bit long, the materials and methods, results, discussions and concluding sections were well written, and I will not bother you (editors and authors) writing the strengths of these sections but rather go straight into a few points worth considering enhancing the image of the manuscript prior to acceptance for publication. I grouped these comments into two; General and Specific Comments as below. General Comments 1. Several sub-headings commencing from the “Materials and methods” section end up with periods or full stops. This is inappropriate and should be rectified throughout the entire manuscripts. 2. Scientific units of measurement should be separated by a single space from their specified figures or data. For example, 81-87g/day, 10-30%, 53-65mN/m, 45J, and 38N should be captured as 81-87 g/day, 10-30 %, 53-65 mN/m, 45 J, 38 N, respectively. 3. Even the author created a list of abbreviations, there are still a lot more abbreviations, for example, DPPC for dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine, that were not included in this list. This need to be checked and rectified. 4. In some cases, the citations / references are too many to the extent that a citation could be as much as five. It will be okay to limit the maximum number of citations per instance to be three. Specific Comments The following are the specific comments but are not necessarily limited to the cited cases/instances. 1. Sub-section 1: The word, “of” should be inserted between “CA” and “60-80° CA” for the sentence starting and ending with the phrases, “The DPPC surface layer …” and “… due to gastric inflammation”, respectively. 2. Sub-section 2: The sentence commencing and ending with the phrases, “Dish washing detergents …” and “… lauroyl /myristoyl methyl glucamides) SF”, respectively should be captured in the past tense. 3. Sub-section 2.2: The sentence commencing and ending with the phrases, “The WS was thought …” and “… changes to the IL surface”, respectively did not sound logically correct. The author should rectify this. 4. Sub-section 2.2: The sentence, “To prepare a solution to …  0.005g of solid Sudan …” is grammatically inappropriate. 5. Section 2.2: It is more scientifically acceptable to write expressions such as “2.24±0.89g/25cm2” rather as “2.24 ± 0.89 g/25cm2”. Issues like this need to be corrected throughout the entire manuscript. 6. Section 2.3: Apart from a few subsections describing the source or sourcing of some experimental materials, the remaining sections should have sub-headings indicating the actual analysis underway. The sub-heading, “2.3. The use of dish washing detergents /surfactants” did not specify the actual analysis/determination that the section was about. This needs to be rectified throughout the rest of the “Materials and methods” section (Section 2). 7. Section 2.3: The following sentence is not clear enough and needs to be reconstructed. “Commercial DWD contain … 0.1 – 0.2 g pure SF/litre”. 8. Section 2.3: The word, “creaming” should be changed to creamy from the following sentence “To make the solutions … the IL were added.” 9. Section 2.3: The sentence, “If the fats were … a stable emulsion.” is grammatically incorrect. 10. Section 2.3: The sentence, “No significant differences … the fat solutions.” is inappropriate under Section 2. It should rather be moved to results section. 11. Section 2.4: The phrase, “intact samples IL” should be replaced with “intact samples of IL”. 12. Section 2.4: The sentence under this section is extremely too long, misleading, and difficult to carry the busy reader long. 13. Section 2.6: Should the sub-heading, “The ratio of lettuce:stomach surface area” not better be “The ratio of lettuce to stomach surface area”? 14. Section 2.6: Should the expression not be “1 serving”, instead of the “1 serve”? 15. Figure 1: In scientific writing, tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Under no circumstance should abbreviation(s) be stated without being fully introduced in each separate figure thereby compelling the busy reader having to refer elsewhere in the manuscript to pick the full name(s) of such (an) abbreviation(s). Therefore, abbreviations such as IL, WS, ARW, OO, BU, LF, LD etc. need to be fully stated. They can be introduced with their abbreviations if such abbreviations will be reused within the footnote of the same figure or table. 16. Section 3.2: The sentence starting with “For pure LF, the ARW ≈ 43}34g/100g IL ….” And ending with “… solid fats adsorb, that resisted draining” lacks grammatical appropriateness. 17. Section 3.2: The noun, “leaf fat” has appeared for the first time. Did the author want to write lamb fat instead of the leaf fat? This seemed quite confusing and hence should be looked at again. 18. Section 3.2: The last sentence starting from the phrase, “Scanning electron microscopy …” to the phrase, “… these leaf surfaces” tends to be a discussion and not results. This anomaly needs to be corrected throughout the entire manuscript. 19. Table 1: The same comments as in Figure 1 applies here too. 20. Table 1: The water needs to be written starting with a capital letter. 21. Section 3.3: The entire section from section 3.0 is about results. However, I did not see what results the writeup from section 3.3 is talking about. There was no reference to any Table nor Figure of results. 22. Section 3.4: This section also has statements commencing from the phrase, “The IL …” to the phrase, “… bath at 37 ℃” that better fit the materials and methods section rather. Simply put different statement(s) depicting statement of results need to be made in this section rather talking about the methodology. 23. Section 3.4: The citation of “figure 3” and “figure 3A” is inappropriate. The figures need to be cited properly (“Figure 3” and “Figure 3A”) as it is portrayed by the figure footnote. 24. Figure 2: The same comments as in Figure 1 applies here too. 25. Figure 2: Expressions such as “10%OO/0.1%” DWD2” need to be properly written like “10% OO/0.1 % DWD2”. 26. Table 2: Same comments as before. 27. Table 2: The items written in the first and last column should start with capital letters. 28. Table 2: The expression “… weight %” in the three column headings should be written as “… weight (%)”. This should equally reflect in the table footnote. 29. Table 2: It is quite interesting how a figure was cited within the footnote of the table. Personally, this looks quite strange to me. 30. Figure 3: same comments as before (Figure 1). 31. Section 4: The statement commencing and ending with the phrases, “Although only a very …” and “stomach barrier lining” is not clear and should be reconstructed.

This study has assessed the consumption of iceberg lettuce may reduce the adhesion of dietary fat to the mucus surface of the stomach barrier lining decreasing the risk of triggering acute gastroesophageal reflux which his very important from consumer health safety point of views. The facts and technical approaches adopted in the paper are well written however some corrections are required. Many sentences are poorly constructed. There are several grammatical and typographical errors. Abstract: Data is missing associated with important parameters. Introduction section may be shortened. To grasp the true facts, the results and discussion section must be considerably summarized.