Écrire un commentaire

Major issues

• Abstract: The manuscript presents microbiome-informed personalization as a way to improve fragrance performance, reduce health risks, and promote sustainability. These benefits are not demonstrated in the review. Kindly distinguish the proposed potential benefits from outcomes supported by published evidence.

• Introduction: The research gap was stated, but the review’s scope and approach are not sufficiently defined. Clarify whether this is a narrative review or a conceptual framework, and explain how the literature was identified and selected.

• “Why Fragrance Performance Varies Across Individuals”: The discussion moves from established skin-microbiome and body-odour findings to specific predictions about perfume notes, for example, that Cutibacterium acnes may enhance citrus notes. These predictions are not clearly supported by direct evidence. Label them as hypotheses and provide supporting studies where available.

• “The Skin Microbiome and Fragrance VOC Modulation” and Table 1: The proposed microbial transformations and their effects on fragrance notes are presented with considerable certainty, although the table states that they are extrapolated. Clarify which reactions have been experimentally demonstrated with fragrance compounds and which are speculative. Avoid implying that body-odour metabolism necessarily predicts perfume alteration.

• “Health Risks of Fragrance Components” and “Health and Sustainability Benefits”: The manuscript makes broad claims that personalization can reduce allergic, respiratory, and endocrine-related risks. Kindly explain the evidence linking personalization to these outcomes, or qualify the claims as potential benefits. Distinguish risks associated with particular ingredients and exposure conditions rather than generalizing to fragrances as a whole.

• “Skin Microbiome Testing”: The statement that 16S rRNA sequencing provides accurate profiling needs qualification: it primarily characterizes bacteria and does not, by itself, provide comprehensive profiling of fungi and viruses. The authors should also explain how microbial profiles could reliably predict fragrance performance, given that this predictive relationship remains exploratory.

• “Practical Personalization Strategies” and Table 2: Several recommendations such as matching particular fragrance notes to skin type or application site, are stated as established strategies without sufficient direct evidence. Clarify their evidential basis and distinguish conventional fragrance advice from microbiome-informed recommendations.

• “Environmental and Industrial Microbiology Insights” and “Integrating Biodegradability…”: The discussion draws parallels between environmental microbial degradation and skin microbial activity. Clarify the limits of these comparisons; environmental biodegradation does not establish how a fragrance will behave on skin or its overall environmental impact.

• The Conclusion describes microbiome-based personalization as having a “robust scientific foundation,” which appears stronger than the evidence presented. Reframe this as a promising but still developing research area, and align the conclusions with the review’s limitations.

• Conflict of Interest: The author’s role as founder of a company focused on microbiome-based fragrance personalization is disclosed, but the manuscript should explain how this potential conflict was managed, particularly given its repeated promotion of commercial applications.

Minor issues

• Title: Consider revising “The Future of Fragrance Personalization” if the manuscript’s main contribution is a proposed framework rather than validated personalization methods.

• Throughout, clearly distinguish “skin microbiome,” “skin chemistry,” and “body-odour-producing bacteria”; these concepts are sometimes treated as interchangeable.

• In the introduction and throughout: Some claims about market size, consumer behavior, and social-media-driven purchases need more precise, current sources and clearer attribution.

• Section “The Skin Microbiome and Fragrance VOC Modulation”: The discussion of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus hominis would benefit from more precise wording and stronger alignment between the cited studies and the claims made.

• Figure 1: The figure caption appears twice. Please remove the duplicate and ensure the figure’s data source and method of calculation are clearly stated.

• Table 1: Define “VOC” in the table note and clarify whether the listed reactions are experimentally observed or hypothesized.

• Table 2: The recommendations are presented quite definitively. Consider using cautious wording such as “may” or “could” where direct evidence is limited.

• Reference 17 appears to have an incorrect or duplicated title relative to reference 6. Check the bibliographic details and ensure each reference supports the specific claim attached to it.

• In the references and in-text citations, check citation accuracy and consistency. For example, references 31 and 32 appear to be used for claims that may not match their listed titles.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.