GENERAL COMMENTS:
The manuscript contains the authors' efforts to encapsulate glucosyl-hesperidin using different proteins. The work is interesting because glucosyl-hesperidin is a new topic in literature, especially using plant-based proteins. On the other hand, I am not sure if conjugates were formed because there are not medium modifications. I think that the microencapsulation was made by mixing wall material with the bioactive and then freeze-drying to obtain the microparticles. Additionally, the manuscript needs important modifications to be in conditions to be published.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Title: Pea protein was not the only protein used, my recommendation is to use pea protein in the keywords and, in title use plant-based proteins.

Keywords: please use different words than those used in the title.

Introduction:
The introduction section needs to be improved, and explain the following points:
why the authors studied pea, rice, almond, and pumpkin protein? What is the importance of studying different protein concentrations?, Has the Glucosyl-hesperidin been encapsulated before by other works?, What are conjugates, and what is their importance in encapsulation?. Please explain the microencapsulation using conjugates; which works have used the conjugates methodology (active material-wall material) to microencapsulate?

Material and methods
Please add a material item, explaining if the materials used were purchased or donated and where the materials were acquired. At a minimum, please report the protein content of the materials. I doubt if the authors extracted or acquired the proteins by a company, and the protein content was reported in the datasheet.

Preparation of glucosyl hesperidin/protein conjugates:
Please cite a reference of a microencapsulation process: conjugates of active material – wall material)
Line 41: What is the concentration of the GH solution?
I have doubts if conjugates are formed by simply mixing materials. How is the phenomenon of formation of conjugates without modifying the medium (temperature, chemical reaction, pH)?
I think that the authors are microencapsulating by freeze-drying methodology.

Please add the encapsulation efficiency methodology.

Page 4 line 3 What is the importance of determining the water adsorption capacity of proteins? Please move this characterization before the particle formation because it is a material characterization.
Line 12: Please add an item with the statistical analysis used to discuss the results.

Results and discussion
Amounts of glucosyl-hesperidin and the antioxidant activity of protein conjugates are too much information for only one item. Please divide them (encapsulation efficiency, WHC, antioxidant activities), and discuss their results individually.
Pag 4 lines 18 – 21: please move the objective to the introduction section.
Lines 18 – 47: please divide the paragraph into three independent paragraphs.
Lines 31 – 38: This sentence is related to encapsulation efficiency. Please add this methodology in material and methods.
Figure 1. please standardize water adsorption capacity or water holding capacity. It is not necessary to present the GH amount with two decimals.
Please write that antioxidant activity results are in table 1. Table 1: what is nmol related to?
What is the GH non-encapsulated and each protein antioxidant activity value?

It is necessary to compare all results with other studies.

Pag 5
Line 55 – 56: why is this happening?
Lines 12 – 35: is this discussion related to antioxidant activity? Or the studies cited are comparing the encapsulation efficiency with WHC? Please reformulated it.

Comparing IR spectra of protein conjugate: looking at figures 2 – 6, it is difficult to confirm if conjugates were formed. No new peaks were formed, or any peak disappeared. All IR spectra are similar to the protein. In the rice case, the spectra are very similar.
I still doubt if the authors have conjugates because it is necessary to have covalent bonds to be a conjugate.

Please verify if all figures were mentioned in the text.

Conclusion: I agree with the authors when they expose that pea protein is efficient. Please highlight its encapsulation efficiency. Do the authors have any conclusions about antioxidant activity and the FT-IR analysis?

The article has been improved, and most of the issues have been addressed. Results and discussion items are difficult to read because there are no separate paragraphs. Please divide the discussion into different paragraphs.

The article has been improved, and most of the issues have been addressed. Results and discussion items are difficult to read because there are no separate paragraphs. Please divide the discussion into different paragraphs.
On the other hand, I still feel that it is necessary to compare the results of encapsulation efficiency and antioxidant activity with other authors in the discussion.