The central thesis of your study, that green technologies provide superior extraction yields, is directly contradicted by the data you have compiled in your own paper. Your Table 1 and Table 3 clearly show that the highest reported yields are not achieved by novel green methods like Cold Plasma or Ultrasound, but by a combination of conventional pre-treatment and extraction. For instance, ‘Pomelo Peel’ treated with ‘Pectinase’ (a conventional enzymatic method) followed by Microwave-assisted distillation yielded 69.17 µmol/g. More damningly, ‘Berkane Clementine’ extracted with simple ‘Microwave-assisted’ technology (which you classify as green) produced a staggering 10.47% yield, which is an order of magnitude higher than almost every other yield listed, including those from other ‘green’ techniques. You fail to explain this massive discrepancy. This suggests that your conclusion is not a result of the data, but a pre-determined narrative that ignores the significant variability introduced by the feedstock itself. How can you claim green technologies are superior when your own evidence shows that feedstock type is a far more dominant factor than the ‘greenness’ of the method, and that conventional methods can produce equivalent or better results?
