Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Evidence and Recommendations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully read the manuscript titled “Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants: evidences and recommendations”. Sustainability should be an appropriate journal. However, I think there are some flaws for this paper to be published in this journal. I recommend MAJOR revision. My detailed suggestions and comments are presented as follows:
The goal of this manuscript (Sustainability-2538636) is to highlight the potential for evaluating processing residues in medicinal and aromatic herbs and to compile good agricultural practices that support sustainability in the production of medicinal and aromatic herbs, specifically in the areas of cultivation, harvesting, drying, extraction, and packaging.
The regulations of various international organizations, including the WHO's "Guidelines on Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP) for Medicinal Plants," the European Medicines Agency, and Europam, were specifically retrieved and compiled in the agricultural sector. However, some references to articles were also included whose examples do not adapt to the specific crop that the MAP has.
On the other hand, it turns out that integrating the waste chapter is crucial for the MAP industry.
Since the production of aromatic and medicinal plants can range from annual and perennial plants to semi-woody to woody herbaceous plants, and the type of cultivation is very different, this manuscript appears scattered in information and needs to be more focused on this particular type of production, which is the production of aromatic and medicinal plants.
Additionally, it was noted that the chapters had a collection of broad concepts regarding sustainability and biodiversity that were repeated frequently, primarily in chapters 1 and 2, many of which had little to do with the MAP in particular.
Only at the very end of its generic abstract does the work state its goals.
There are inconsistent bibliographic sources, acronyms, and mistakes in the scientific names, as well as a lack of information in the captions of the tables and figures. As an illustration, the terms AMP and MAP are used directly at the beginning of the introduction to indicate Aromatic and Medicinal plants.
Overall, the manuscript would benefit from improved arrangement and syntax.
Here are the aspects to change and improve:
1- Figures and Tables
Figures and tables will have to be read by themselves, so they must contain all the information that allows the reader to understand what information is being transmitted. Captions or Titles should be very concrete and specific in the information. See Fig 1 (which indicates the 1, 2, 3), Figure 2 Caption in Portuguese, Fig 3 (which plants are represented) Fig 4 (in figures you choose to put numbers in each image, in this one place a title per image, the image 2 will be aqueous extract and not waste of water), Fig 5 , Fig 6, Fig 7 and Fig 9 with incorrect scientific names of the plants.
In the tables presented as well as in the figures, the references or sources are not presented in a uniform and coherent way. The scientific names of plants are sometimes presented with the classifiers and sometimes not, often the common names are presented together with the scientific names. This aspect will have to be reviewed and improved so that the species meet the correct and updated nomenclature criteria of the botanical taxonomy
Fig1- Review
Fig2- Review Title in english
Fig 3- Review identify the plants in the images, figure not previously mentioned in the text, review the Drying temperatures presented, some of that are not corrected
Fig4- Review
Fig 5-Review
Fig6- Review
Fig 7- Review
Fig8- Review
Fig 9 Review
Table 1- Include the source in the table
Table 2 and Table 3 - Standardize the scientific name of the plants and use it in all classifiers or not use it in any of the scientific names in the table and the Source to be in accordance with the rules of the magazine.
2- A revision of the syntax and punctuation is necessary, as well as the repetition of ideas that occur in different paragraphs by different authors, verifying that chapter 2 should be revised and organized, being more specific for the MAP.
3- Note that scientific names and all words in Latin are written in italics, review throughout the text. The part of the botanical nomenclature of the species presented presents several inconsistencies, from incorrectly written scientific names to species referred to by their common name, others by their scientific name with the classifier, the scientific names are not shown in italics and have accents in some cases.
4- In chapter 3.1 Cultivation from line 204, the vegetation included for ground cover is not adapted to the production of MA herbs, so this information should not be placed in this generalist way and that is not consistent with the MAP species
5- In chapter 3.1.2. PAM species it will be MAP species
6- Chapter 3.1.3 has a single bibliographic reference and is a reproduction of the WHO guidelines. There are other online sources of information that could improve this information. I advise you to check the website https://coop4pam.ctaex.com/. To review
7- Unformatted text. Line 269 to 280
8- There is a compilation of paragraphs by different authors without a reading sequence with a compilation of ideas and concepts see lines 480-498
9- Like in the point 6- in chapter 3.5 a single bibliographic references are used.
10- It does not explain why figure 5 an figure 6 appears and its caption does not tell us why this figure is here, figures not previously mentioned in the text.
11- In Chapter 4.2 lines 932 to 936 is important do Know what kind of fertilizer is used to calendula. It must be concretized.
12- Review the ideas in the lines 937 to 948.
13- Be in account to these authors
Bogers, R. J., Craker, L. E., & Lange, D. (2006). Medicinal and aromatic plants : agricultural, commercial, ecological, legal, pharmacological and social aspects. (Wageningen UR Frontis series; No. vol. 17). Springer. https://edepot.wur.nl/137157
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to thank you for carefully examining our work and for allowing us to revise and improve the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions and modified the paper accordingly. All modifications are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process. Please see below our detailed responses to every single comment raised. We are now confident that the paper is ready to be published.
Yours sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 1/ Comment 1:
I have carefully read the manuscript titled “Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants: evidences and recommendations”. Sustainability should be an appropriate journal. However, I think there are some flaws for this paper to be published in this journal. I recommend MAJOR revision. My detailed suggestions and comments are presented as follows:
The goal of this manuscript (Sustainability-2538636) is to highlight the potential for evaluating processing residues in medicinal and aromatic herbs and to compile good agricultural practices that support sustainability in the production of medicinal and aromatic herbs, specifically in the areas of cultivation, harvesting, drying, extraction, and packaging.
The regulations of various international organizations, including the WHO's "Guidelines on Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP) for Medicinal Plants," the European Medicines Agency, and Europam, were specifically retrieved and compiled in the agricultural sector. However, some references to articles were also included whose examples do not adapt to the specific crop that the MAP has.
On the other hand, it turns out that integrating the waste chapter is crucial for the MAP industry.
Answer: We appreciate your observation and suggestions. Your insights were fundamental to improving the content of the paper.
Reviewer 1/ Comment 2: Since the production of aromatic and medicinal plants can range from annual and perennial plants to semi-woody to woody herbaceous plants, and the type of cultivation is very different, this manuscript appears scattered in information and needs to be more focused on this particular type of production, which is the production of aromatic and medicinal plants.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Some information that was not related to production or waste valorisation was removed, namely Chapter 2 (biodiversity) and 3.2.1. Conservation.
Reviewer 1/ Comment 3: Additionally, it was noted that the chapters had a collection of broad concepts regarding sustainability and biodiversity that were repeated frequently, primarily in chapters 1 and 2, many of which had little to do with the MAP in particular.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The introduction was rewritten to focus on the importance and objectives of the review. The authors also excluded the previous chapter 2, concerning biodiversity, since it was not focused on productive activities and only on general information.
Reviewer 1/ Comment 4: Only at the very end of its generic abstract does the work state its goals.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The Abstract was rewritten, now presenting: a brief background, the purpose of the study, methods, and main conclusions.
Reviewer 1/ Comment 4: There are inconsistent bibliographic sources, acronyms, and mistakes in the scientific names, as well as a lack of information in the captions of the tables and figures. As an illustration, the terms AMP and MAP are used directly at the beginning of the introduction to indicate Aromatic and Medicinal plants.
Overall, the manuscript would benefit from improved arrangement and syntax.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The whole text was revised, and the authors believe all the inconsistencies were corrected.
Reviewer 1/ Comment 5: Here are the aspects to change and improve:
1- Figures and Tables
Figures and tables will have to be read by themselves, so they must contain all the information that allows the reader to understand what information is being transmitted. Captions or Titles should be very concrete and specific in the information. See Fig 1 (which indicates the 1, 2, 3), Figure 2 Caption in Portuguese, Fig 3 (which plants are represented) Fig 4 (in figures you choose to put numbers in each image, in this one place a title per image, the image 2 will be aqueous extract and not a waste of water), Fig 5 , Fig 6, Fig 7 and Fig 9 with incorrect scientific names of the plants.
In the tables presented as well as in the figures, the references or sources are not presented in a uniform and coherent way. The scientific names of plants are sometimes presented with the classifiers and sometimes not, often the common names are presented together with the scientific names. This aspect will have to be reviewed and improved so that the species meet the correct and updated nomenclature criteria of the botanical taxonomy.
Fig1- Review
Fig2- Review Title in english
Fig 3- Review identify the plants in the images, figure not previously mentioned in the text, review the Drying temperatures presented, some of that are not corrected
Fig4- Review
Fig 5-Review
Fig6- Review
Fig 7- Review
Fig8- Review
Fig 9 Review
Table 1- Include the source in the table
Table 2 and Table 3 - Standardize the scientific name of the plants and use it in all classifiers or not use it in any of the scientific names in the table and the Source to be in accordance with the rules of the magazine.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. According to the comments of revisor 2, some figures were removed. The remaining figures and the tables were corrected.
2- A revision of the syntax and punctuation is necessary, as well as the repetition of ideas that occur in different paragraphs by different authors, verifying that chapter 2 should be revised and organized, being more specific for the MAP.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The whole text was revised and chapter 2 was removed since it was not focused on MAP production.
3- Note that scientific names and all words in Latin are written in italics, review throughout the text. The part of the botanical nomenclature of the species presented presents several inconsistencies, from incorrectly written scientific names to species referred to by their common name, others by their scientific name with the classifier, the scientific names are not shown in italics and have accents in some cases.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The scientific names were corrected.
4- In chapter 3.1 Cultivation from line 204, the vegetation included for ground cover is not adapted to the production of MA herbs, so this information should not be placed in this generalist way and that is not consistent with the MAP species
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The list of vegetation for ground cover was removed.
5- In chapter 3.1.2. PAM species it will be MAP species
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. It was corrected in that specific chapter and throughout the text.
6- Chapter 3.1.3 has a single bibliographic reference and is a reproduction of the WHO guidelines. There are other online sources of information that could improve this information. I advise you to check the website https://coop4pam.ctaex.com/.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The authors checked the website and analysed some of the documents available, namely “Instalação das culturas” and “Protecção das culturas de PAM”. However, since the contents did not complement significantly what is mentioned in the paper, it was not added.
7- Unformatted text. Line 269 to 280
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The text was formatted.
8- There is a compilation of paragraphs by different authors without a reading sequence with a compilation of ideas and concepts see lines 480-498.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The text was reformulated (currently, line 323-336).
9- Like in the point 6- in chapter 3.5 a single bibliographic references are used.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. In point 2.1.6. and 3.5., 1 and 2 references were added respectively. The author tried to find additional literature on sustainable practices, but it was not possible to select more references regarding those points.
10- It does not explain why figure 5 and figure 6 appears and its caption does not tell us why this figure is here, figures not previously mentioned in the text.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Figures 5 and 6 were removed, but the authors verified that the remaining Figures and Tables are referenced in the text.
11- In Chapter 4.2 lines 932 to 936 is important do Know what kind of fertilizer is used to calendula. It must be concretized.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The study [62] refers that the fertilizer was “compost produced from the organic waste of the processing of medicinal plants”. That information was added.
12- Review the ideas in the lines 937 to 948.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Some words were corrected, and ideas were clarified. Also, a conclusion was added to summarize the relevance of this study's findings.
13- Be in account to these authors
Bogers, R. J., Craker, L. E., & Lange, D. (2006). Medicinal and aromatic plants : agricultural, commercial, ecological, legal, pharmacological and social aspects. (Wageningen UR Frontis series; No. vol. 17). Springer. https://edepot.wur.nl/137157
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. That reference was added, namely chapter 17, corresponding to reference 31.
Reviewer 2 Report
Peer-review report of the article (sustainability-2538636)
The manuscript entitled, “Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants: evidences and recommendations” is a good and comprehensive article based on an excellent idea submitted for publication in the journal “Sustainability.”
However, this manuscript needs a major revision before acceptance.
Drafting guidelines for sustainable agriculture, generally or a target group, is of excellent focus and has a great potential to attract scientists and related groups. Keeping in view the importance of this topic, the review report of the aforementioned article is as follows.
The idea of this article is well-conceived and publishable. However, the facts and previous research are presented broadly and generically. The specificity of the facts is a key factor that must be considered in compiling past research in one manuscript.
A concise background of AMPs and their role in the world’s economy is missing in the manuscripts.
Agriculture is a vast field that handles numerous plants and every plant or a group of plants has a specific set of guidelines to follow to get the best outcome. Similarly, AMPs are a broad group having unique plants in it, which require different sets of protocols to produce better outcomes.
Primarily, the authors of this manuscript have compiled the guidelines for sustainable agriculture and processing of AMP; however, in the light of given facts, it is very hard to differentiate AMP handling and all other plants. It seems that the guidelines are quite similar with all other plants whether it is agriculture or processing. How are the presented guidelines in the manuscript specifically related to the AMP?
The research and industry are already shifting towards natural resources, as mentioned in this article also, the specificity of a specific set of guidelines is crucial for implementing them. For example, the authors have mentioned “zero tillage practice” in the manuscript. This method is practiced in every possible crop throughout the world. How zero tillage practice is different for AMP along with all other mentioned procedures?
The authors have mentioned the names of different agencies that are giving guidelines related to agriculture, processing, and handling of agricultural produce. Are the presented guidelines specifically for AMP or they are for general agriculture?
Concerning the aim of this manuscript, the authors should mention a few guidelines that may work as footstones for making a workable plan regarding sustainable AMP agriculture and processing.
Line 98-99, there is a mention of providing AMP. What kind of AMP are they providing?
Lines 100-101, there is mention of dependence on non-timber plant products. Does it include AMP, if yes, what kind of AMP are included and to what extent?
Line 102, the authors are using "Many publications"; however, they are citing just 1 reference.
Line 103, how many medicinal plants are there, which are called, "medicinal plants" but their intended use is not medicine?
Typical examples of the herbs are better to mention throughout the manuscript. For example, in lines 121-124, there is a mention of 73 species. However, no example of such a species is given. Name some important herbs that are typical examples of such a notion. It applies to the whole manuscript.
Line 137, there is a mention of invasive alien plant species, Name some relevant species concerning AMP.
Line 353-357, there is a mention of a study. Was this study conducted specifically concerning AMP?
Lines 364-365, what is the relevance of this line with the rest of the paragraph?
Lines 379-380, there is a mention, “Were those species previously found there?” Were those species previously found there?
Lines 594-598, the meaning of this sentence is not clear. Are the given examples solvents themselves or do the eutectic solvents help to extract the given metabolites?
Lines 920-922, there is a mention of a study. Which herbs did they use in that study?
Lines 932-936, there is a mention of organic fertilizer. Was that organic fertilizer from AMP?
The authors have presented formulae for a few calculations. Why only the mentioned formulae are important because AMP undergoes numerous procedures and there is a mention of only a few.
The authors have majorly presented pictures of the herbs. The reviewer fails to understand their significance as this manuscript is about the sustainability of their agriculture and processing and not their botany. It is better to present some figures and pictures related to the aim of the manuscript.
Formatting
The manuscript must be thoroughly formatted as several inconsistencies are found throughout the manuscript.
AMP, PAM, and MAP are inconsistently used throughout the manuscript. A similar terminology or name must be used according to the author's guidelines. Several inconsistencies are found regarding species names. A consistent name for the same substance must be used.
The names of the species are inconsistently formatted.
The language and grammar need improvement.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We would like to thank you for carefully examining our work and for allowing us to revise and improve the manuscript. We have addressed all your comments and suggestions and modified the paper accordingly. All modifications are marked in blue color in the revised manuscript to facilitate the review process. Please see below our detailed responses to every single comment raised. We are now confident that the paper is ready to be published.
Yours sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 2/ Comment 1: The manuscript entitled, “Sustainable Agricultural Practices for the Production of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants: evidences and recommendations” is a good and comprehensive article based on an excellent idea submitted for publication in the journal “Sustainability.”
However, this manuscript needs a major revision before acceptance.
Drafting guidelines for sustainable agriculture, generally or a target group, is of excellent focus and has a great potential to attract scientists and related groups. Keeping in view the importance of this topic, the review report of the aforementioned article is as follows.
The idea of this article is well-conceived and publishable. However, the facts and previous research are presented broadly and generically. The specificity of the facts is a key factor that must be considered in compiling past research in one manuscript.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Your insights were fundamental to improving the content of the paper. The manuscript has been revised according to your comments and suggestions. You will verify that all your concerns have been addressed.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 2: A concise background of AMPs and their role in the world’s economy is missing in the manuscripts.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The introduction was rewritten and the economic relevance was highlighted.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 3: Agriculture is a vast field that handles numerous plants and every plant or a group of plants has a specific set of guidelines to follow to get the best outcome. Similarly, AMPs are a broad group having unique plants in it, which require different sets of protocols to produce better outcomes.
Primarily, the authors of this manuscript have compiled the guidelines for sustainable agriculture and processing of AMP; however, in the light of given facts, it is very hard to differentiate AMP handling and all other plants. It seems that the guidelines are quite similar with all other plants whether it is agriculture or processing. How are the presented guidelines in the manuscript specifically related to the AMP?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. In lines 86-90, it is now mentioned that WHO and EMEA guidelines were directed to medicinal plants and EUROPAM’s to MAP. Therefore, although some practices may be associated with common agricultural practices, they are recommended by these organisations for medicinal/medicinal and aromatic plants. The scientific papers selected present suggestions for medicinal and/or aromatic plants.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 4: The research and industry are already shifting towards natural resources, as mentioned in this article also, the specificity of a specific set of guidelines is crucial for implementing them. For example, the authors have mentioned “zero tillage practice” in the manuscript. This method is practiced in every possible crop throughout the world. How zero tillage practice is different for AMP along with all other mentioned procedures?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The “zero tillage practice” is recommended by WHO for medicinal plants, in cultivation activity. The same WHO document states that conservation agriculture practices should be followed for medicinal plants. To succinctly explain what these practices consist of, the 3 main principles pointed out by FAO for conservation agriculture are referred to.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 5: The authors have mentioned the names of different agencies that are giving guidelines related to agriculture, processing, and handling of agricultural produce. Are the presented guidelines specifically for AMP or they are for general agriculture?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. That information is now in lines 86-90:
“In the second chapter, good practices are presented based on proposals published by the World Health Organization (WHO) [13] (for medicinal plants), European Herb Growers Association [14], [15] (for MAP), and European Medicines Agency [16] (for medicinal plants/herbal substances). Complementary information was included based on scientific papers and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines.”
Reviewer 2/ Comment 6: Concerning the aim of this manuscript, the authors should mention a few guidelines that may work as footstones for making a workable plan regarding sustainable AMP agriculture and processing.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. In the discussion, section was added a summary of guidelines that may be a starting point for such a workable plan.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 7: Line 98-99, there is a mention of providing AMP. What kind of AMP are they providing?
In lines 100-101, there is mention of dependence on non-timber plant products. Does it include AMP, if yes, what kind of AMP are included and to what extent?
In line 102, the authors are using "Many publications"; however, they are citing just 1 reference.
Line 103, how many medicinal plants are there, which are called, "medicinal plants" but their intended use is not medicine?
Typical examples of the herbs are better to mention throughout the manuscript. For example, in lines 121-124, there is a mention of 73 species. However, no example of such a species is given. Name some important herbs that are typical examples of such a notion. It applies to the whole manuscript.
Line 137, there is a mention of invasive alien plant species, Name some relevant species concerning AMP.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Since the biodiversity chapter was not focused on sustainable productive practices, and therefore, not related to the main aim of the study, it was excluded.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 8: Line 353-357, there is a mention of a study. Was this study conducted specifically concerning AMP?
Lines 364-365, what is the relevance of this line with the rest of the paragraph?
Lines 379-380, there is a mention, “Were those species previously found there?” Were those species previously found there?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The previous 3.2.1. Conservation section was eliminated, once it presented generic information and was related to the main aim of the paper.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 9: Lines 594-598, the meaning of this sentence is not clear. Are the given examples solvents themselves or do the eutectic solvents help to extract the given metabolites?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. Natural Deep Eutectic Solvents are constituted of the given metabolites. The sentence was rewritten.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 10: In lines 920-922, there is a mention of a study. Which herbs did they use in that study?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The authors consulted again the article, where is stated:
"The residue remaining after extraction for medicinal herb preparation (Chinese medicinal herbal residues - CMHR) was obtained from the Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine (SUCM). The material we used was from a collection of 30 batches and was composted as previously described (Ma et al., 2019b)."
After consulting the reference mentioned (Ma et al., 2019b), it is said "Traditional Chinese medicine residue (TCMR) is the solid substance remaining after the extraction of pharmaceutical ingredients from medicinal plant materials" and also "The TCMR, sampled from the affiliated hospital in the Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, was a uniform mixture of multiple batches collected over a month to obtain representative samples and maintain the stability of the composition."
The species of the herbs are not referred to. However, it was added that it was used “compost from Chinese herbal medicine”.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 11: In lines 932-936, there is a mention of organic fertilizer. Was that organic fertilizer from AMP?
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The species are not specified, but the organic fertilizer was compost produced from the organic waste of the processing of medicinal plants. This information was added.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 12: The authors have presented formulae for a few calculations. Why only the mentioned formulae are important because AMP undergoes numerous procedures and there is a mention of only a few.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. After consulting the guidelines of WHO, EUROPAM and EMEA, the authors concluded that cultivation, harvesting, drying extraction and packaging were the most commonly mentioned productive activities in MAP processing. For each activity, scientific papers were consulted to identify sustainable practices. The authors present all the formulae in the identified literature that was associated with sustainable practices regarding the productive activities selected for the study.
Additionally, the authors consider that the mentioned formulae allow producers, through simple calculations, to objectively evaluate if their procedures are efficient (regarding MCr calculation) and to assess the environmental impact of different extraction options (regarding relative CO2 emission calculation).
Reviewer 2/ Comment 13: The authors have majorly presented pictures of the herbs. The reviewer fails to understand their significance as this manuscript is about the sustainability of their agriculture and processing and not their botany. It is better to present some figures and pictures related to the aim of the manuscript.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The pictures of the herbs were excluded.
Reviewer 2/ Comment 14: Formatting
The manuscript must be thoroughly formatted as several inconsistencies are found throughout the manuscript.
AMP, PAM, and MAP are inconsistently used throughout the manuscript. A similar terminology or name must be used according to the author's guidelines. Several inconsistencies are found regarding species names. A consistent name for the same substance must be used.
The names of the species are inconsistently formatted.
Answer: The authors of the paper thank you for this comment. The whole text was revised and formatted.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made a considerable improvement in the text and information they have included and having excluded unnecessary information. Congratulations.
However, I still have some small improvements to suggest.
1-Table1 and 2- Mentha xPiperita replace to Menthaxpiperita
2- Table 3- Citrus aurantim replace to the words in Italic form
3- Table 3 and Line 480- remove the classifiers of different species
4- line 635, 759,764 - put in lowercase the common name of the species
5- Line739- See the information on .... to pot marigold marigold la officinallis L.
6-Line 811- Consider renaming the Discussion chapter to Final Thoughts
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Here we enclosed all the revisions made. Please check the file.
Thanks in advance
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have significantly improved the manuscript, and addressed the questions.
Minor English language and grammar revision is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Here we enclosed all the revisions made. Please check the file.
Thanks in advance
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
