The Quality of Ecologically and Conventionally Grown White and Brown Agaricus bisporus Mushrooms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Comparison of the Quality of Ecologically and Conventionally Grown White and Brown Agaricus bisporus" by Aurelija Paulauskienė et. al., describes the analysis of several quality parameters of ecologically and conventionally grown of white and brown agaricus bisporus mushrooms.

 

EVALUATION

The manuscript fit the aims and scope of the Sustainability journal. The title is uninformative and confusing, and should be revised. For example, the title can be changed to: “Analysis of the Quality of White and Brown Agaricus Bisporus Mushrooms from Ecologically and Conventionally Farming”. The abstract is adjusted and summarize the developed study.

The introduction is confusing, with some themes being repeated in different sections of the text. The introduction must be reorganized and the information contained must be synthesized.

There are some concerns about the methodology used in the study. There is no information on the number of samples being analyzed. It is not possible to know whether the size of the sample gives robustness to the results obtained. The analysis of the P-Value parameter is scientifically doubtful, and the bibliography that supports the validity of this parameter comes from studies published in low impact scientific journals. The validity of this parameter must be supported by studies published in internationally renowned journals, since the authors of this article state that this parameter determines the quality of the product.

The results should be better illustrated, there are no figures in the present study. Some of the information contained in tables, can be illustrated in graphs, and the tables should be submitted as supplementary material. Moreover, all data from statistical analysis should be provided as supplementary material. Additionally, the results from significant differences described in Table 1,2 and 4 should be provided in different format, due to fact that the use of letters are confused.

The conclusion section should be extensively revised, and it now appearance similar a second abstract. The sentence described in Line 291: “These low P-values values meant that the product was healthier and more nutritious, and therefore more suitable as a food.” is biased, and is not supported by scientifically valid evidence and studies. Although there is a document that states that English has been revised, I think that the text should be structurally revised.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comprehensive reviews and remarks. Remarks have been taken into account and corrected. Corrections and comments are made and included in the text.

 

1. “The manuscript fit the aims and scope of the Sustainability journal. The title is uninformative and confusing, and should be revised. For example, the title can be changed to: “Analysis of the Quality of White and Brown Agaricus Bisporus Mushrooms from Ecologically and Conventionally Farming”. The abstract is adjusted and summarize the developed study.”

The title was changed to “The Quality of Ecologically and Conventionally Grown White and Brown Agaricus bisporus Mushrooms”

2. 2. “The introduction is confusing, with some themes being repeated in different sections of the text. The introduction must be reorganized and the information contained must be synthesized.”

The introduction was redesigned and structured: in the first paragraph we wrote about the importance of organic products; in the second paragraph – about the biochemical composition of mushrooms, and usefulness for the human body; in the third paragraph – about the flavor properties of mushrooms, and in the fourth paragraph – about electrochemical investigations.

3. 3. “There are some concerns about the methodology used in the study. There is no information on the number of samples being analyzed. It is not possible to know whether the size of the sample gives robustness to the results obtained. The analysis of the P-Value parameter is scientifically doubtful, and the bibliography that supports the validity of this parameter comes from studies published in low impact scientific journals. The validity of this parameter must be supported by studies published in internationally renowned journals, since the authors of this article state that this parameter determines the quality of the product.”

Corrections were made and wrote in the line 114-115: ‘Before analysis, 6 samples of each species (4 species of 1.5 kg each) …’

Researchers state that means value of pH and redox potential at plant and organ level can be a good indicator, integrating the various stresses as well as beneficial factors by the whole plant, and can bring important information and knowledge on molecular redox processes at the cell.

Two references (No. 19 and No. 20) about redox potential and pH investigations on soil, plants and microorganisms were added.

The electrochemical parameters provide only additional information about products quality and supports the results of the chemical analysis performed by traditional methods.

4. “The results should be better illustrated, there are no figures in the present study. Some of the information contained in tables, can be illustrated in graphs, and the tables should be submitted as supplementary material. Moreover, all data from statistical analysis should be provided as supplementary material. Additionally, the results from significant differences described in Table 1,2 and 4 should be provided in different format, due to fact that the use of letters are confused.”

The results of the main chemical composition of the mushrooms are presented in the graph (Figure 1). The results in Table 2 and 4 differ greatly in their values, ranging from 1 to 90 in Table 2 and from 30 to 1150 in Table 4. In our opinion, the graphical presentation of the results would be inappropriate.

5. “The conclusion section should be extensively revised, and it now appearance similar a second abstract. The sentence described in Line 291: “These low P-values values meant that the product was healthier and more nutritious, and therefore more suitable as a food.” is biased, and is not supported by scientifically valid evidence and studies. Although there is a document that states that English has been revised, I think that the text should be structurally revised.”

The conclusion section was revised and rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper is interesting and consists logically planed methodology.

However I have a few remarks.

First of all study materials are not enough described. In lines 101-103 Authors presented too little information about mushrooms, only sentence about  orgin. In that parts should be described growing   A. bisporus white and brown mushrooms ecologically and conventionally aspects. More details about growing, harvesting, stage of development, physical properties of mushrooms. I suggest ad a new part in material and methods chapter.

Lack of information about source in using method 2.2. Electronic Nose Analysis of Volatile Compounds.

Second of all lack of “discussion” chapter. Authors described results and discuss with another publications, at part "results" in my opinion should be new chapter “Discussion” .

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comprehensive reviews and remarks. Remarks have been taken into account and corrected. Corrections and comments are made and included in the text.

1. “First of all study materials are not enough described. In lines 101-103 Authors presented too little information about mushrooms, only sentence about origin. In that parts should be described growing A. bisporus white and brown mushrooms ecologically and conventionally aspects. More details about growing, harvesting, stage of development, physical properties of mushrooms. I suggest ad a new part in material and methods chapter.”

Information about mushrooms was added in the line 110-114:

“Ecologically grown mushrooms were certified with the ecolabels EU organic products label and LT-EKO-001. These mushrooms were grown in a modern farm on the producer own organic mushroom substrate made exclusively from natural ingredients. Conventional mushrooms were grown on the non-organic substrate.”  

2. “Lack of information about source in using method 2.2. Electronic Nose Analysis of Volatile Compounds.”

Reference (No. 28) about the method in using e-nose was added.

3. “Second of all lack of “discussion” chapter. Authors described results and discuss with another publications, at part "results" in my opinion should be new chapter “Discussion”.”

The correction was made in line 167. The title of the section was to be “Results and Discussion”.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "The Quality of Ecologically and Conventionally Grown White and Brown Agaricus bisporus Mushrooms" by Aurelija Paulauskienė et. al., describes the analysis of several quality parameters of ecologically and conventionally grown of white and brown agaricus bisporus mushrooms.

 

EVALUATION

Some concerns about the methodology remain. Authors need to prove the scientific validity of the analysis of the P-Value parameter, where it must be supported by international references studies published in high impact scientific journals.

All data from statistical analysis should be provided as supplementary material. Additionally, the results from significant differences described in Table 1,2 and 4 should be provided in different format, due to fact that the use of letters are confused.

Again, the sentence described in Line 284: “These low P-values values meant that the product was healthier and more nutritious, and therefore more suitable as a food.” This statement has no scientific validation. How do you associate an organoleptic property or the fact that it is healthier with P-Value? What studies prove these facts? This information is not supported by scientifically valid evidence and studies.

Author Response

1. “Some concerns about the methodology remain. Authors need to prove the scientific validity of the analysis of the P-Value parameter, where it must be supported by international references studies published in high impact scientific journals.”

The authors have already done similar studies with other raw materials (pumpkins, Aktinidia kolomikta, herbal teas) and the results confirmed the relationships between product quality and P value. Similar results have obtained and other researchers. But, the results of such studies are not available in journals with a high citation index.

A sentence was added to the conclusions text: “Studies of the electrochemical parameters are presented only as complementary and as requiring further studies.”

 

2. “All data from statistical analysis should be provided as supplementary material. Additionally, the results from significant differences described in Table 1,2 and 4 should be provided in different format, due to fact that the use of letters are confused.”

We respect the opinion of reviewer’s, but we are confused by the requirement to provide statistical analysis as supplementary material and that significant differences described in Tables should be provided in a different format.

The explanation is given below the tables. In our practice such presentation of results is normal. But for better clarity, we have written the letters in superscript.

We add links from high impact journals published in ScienceDirect and Wiley Online Library where the statistical differences are presented in letters:

Jaworska, G.; Pogon, K.; Bernas, E.; Duda-Chodak. A. Nutraceuticals and antioxidant activity of prepared for consumption commercial mushrooms Agaricus bisporus and Pleurotus ostreatus. J. Food Qual. 2015, 38, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfq.12132;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.03.033;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2015.07.002.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the data from Table 1 were presented in Figure 1. Therefore, Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 have remained in the main text. In Table 2 no statistical analysis was presented.

If such explanations are incorrect, perhaps the reviewer could explain in more detail what data from the statistical analysis we should provide as supplementary material and what format would be correct.

 

3. “Again, the sentence described in Line 284: “These low P-values values meant that the product was healthier and more nutritious, and therefore more suitable as a food.” This statement has no scientific validation. How do you associate an organoleptic property or the fact that it is healthier with P-Value? What studies prove these facts? This information is not supported by scientifically valid evidence and studies.”

This sentence has been deleted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor, I have no remarks. 

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

.