Next Article in Journal
Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of Octahydroquinazolinones as Phospholipase A2, and Protease Inhibitors: Experimental and Theoretical Exploration
Next Article in Special Issue
Untargeted Metabolomics Combined with Sensory Analysis to Evaluate the Chemical Changes in Coppa Piacentina PDO during Different Ripening Times
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Natural Aging on the Moisture Sorption Behaviour of Wooden Structural Components
Previous Article in Special Issue
Application of Doehlert Experimental Design for Optimization of a New-Based Hydrophilic Interaction Solid-Phase Extraction of Phenolic Acids from Olive Oils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 28
Issue 4
10.3390/molecules28041947
Review Report
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Investigation on Antioxidant Activity and Different Metabolites of Mulberry (Morus spp.) Leaves Depending on the Harvest Months by UPLC–Q-TOF-MS with Multivariate Tools

Molecules 2023, 28(4), 1947; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041947
by Zili Guo 1, Jiangxuan Lai 1, Yiwen Wu 1, Sheng Fang 2 and Xianrui Liang 1,*
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Molecules 2023, 28(4), 1947; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28041947
Submission received: 6 January 2023 / Revised: 9 February 2023 / Accepted: 14 February 2023 / Published: 17 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Chemistry: Food Quality and New Analytical Approaches)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have several comments on this manuscript:

1. The authors should get some help in English writing as I observed many grammatical errors in the manuscript.

2. Experimental design: not so interesting and missing rationalization.  There are several problems with the experimental design: sample collection and analysis.  Why chose batch B for UHLC analysis?  Shouldn't the authors compare the results from the 4 sets?  Why harvested the leaves over those 4 periods of time?  Why not collect the leave every month or two for comparison?  Why chose to perform DPPH assay but not other antioxidant assays and where are the total phenolic results?

3. DPPH assay results should be expressed as the IC50.

4. The content under discussion should be within the results and some of them should be materials and methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Your work is valuable, well constructed and I believe it will be better with some suggestions. You can find my recommendations below:

(i) Information about the advantages and advantages of the device  mentioned in the title part of the study can be given in the introduction.

(ii) There are some errors about abbreviations in the study, they should be corrected.

It should be clearly stated why ultrasonic sonication and related solvent are used. for example, why did you prefer maceration and soxlet techniques? And why didn' you used other extraction solutions?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision was better than the original submission.  The initial submission did not refer to the supplementary materials at all and the clarity in writing was very low.  I have the following comments:

1. I strongly recommend that the authors have a native English speaker read the manuscript.  There are still many incorrect sentence structures and grammatical errors shown. 

2. The authors should include other antioxidant assays (e.g. FRAP and ABTS) in the report as well. 

3. Lines 131-142 should be moved to the results

4. Lines 144-159 should be moved to the results

5. There is no need to reiterate the information presented in a table in the text (lines 161-213) as this creates redundancy.  Instead, the author should summarize the data differentaly, such as in a form of a diagram or chart.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop