Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Two Types of Cress Microgreens Depending on the Mineral Nutrition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
The study reports data on the effects of mineral nutrition on nutritional and sensory quality of two types of Cress microgreens. The topic is interesting and suits to the aim and scope of the Journal. Although the study includes only basic nutritional parameters, the added new knowledge is sufficient since the data on the nutritional and sensory quality of vegetables in the form of microgreens is very limited.
Specific comments:
L17: change ‘whereas is’ to ‘whereas in’
L96-67: revise the table’s legend
L110-113: the sample size for these measurements should be reported. How many plants per replications were used?
L185-186: The parameters for visual appearance in the table 3 are missing.
L206-207 & Fig 2: The linear equation does not seem to be the best fit equation for all treatment solution. E.g., for tap and demineralized solutions a logarithmic or polynomial equation could have a higher R2 than the linear equation.
Discussion: In my opinion this section could be improved discussing the nutritional importance of the key results. For example the best species/solution combinations could be compared with the nutritional status of other important/popular vegetable species.
Author Response
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of the reviewers and excuse for the missing information in the tables 1 and 3. The language has been double-checked as suggested.
L17: change ‘whereas is’ to ‘whereas in’ – done as suggested
L96-67: revise the table’s legend – done as suggested
L110-113: the sample size for these measurements should be reported. How many plants per replications were used? – this part of “materials and methods” has been extended and we assume that the supplied information is regarded sufficient by the reviewers.
L185-186: The parameters for visual appearance in the table 3 are missing. – parameters were added
L206-207 & Fig 2: The linear equation does not seem to be the best fit equation for all treatment solution. E.g., for tap and demineralized solutions a logarithmic or polynomial equation could have a higher R2 than the linear equation. – Reviewer 1 is correct in criticising the use of the term “best”, since this could have different meanings in this context. Though a higher R2 can be achieved with other equations, the authors believe that using the same equation for all fits is the better approach. The less good fit in the case of demineralized water is discussed in the text. In addition, the criticism of Reviewer 1 has been incorporated in the manuscript.
Discussion: In my opinion this section could be improved discussing the nutritional importance of the key results. For example the best species/solution combinations could be compared with the nutritional status of other important/popular vegetable species. – We extended the discussion of the manuscript considerably and tried to incorporate the suggestions of Reviewer 1 as we understood them.
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting paper. Need more information on experimental design. It is not clear what your replication is. Please double check the English grammar throughout the manuscript.
Line 82: What was your replication? Tray? What was the dimension of the tray? What was your experimental design?
Line 86: What material was the pad?
Line 87: How did you determine the seed rate?
Line 96: Add Table 1 title.
Lines 107-112: How many plants per treatment did you measure for shoot length and leaf area?
Line 122: How many replications did you use for chemical analysis?
Lines 233-237: Was there a significant difference?
Line 244: Again, was there a significant difference?
Line 337: Table 3, in the column ‘Presence of off-flavors”, check “4.31±0.91 ab” or “4.31±0.91 a”.
Line 341: How do you define “positive” rating?
Line 407: …might reflect that …
Line 506: …was funded by…
Author Response
The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of the reviewers and excuse for the missing information in the tables 1 and 3. The language has been double-checked as suggested.
Line 82: What was your replication? Tray? What was the dimension of the tray? What was your experimental design? – we had 10 replications/repetitions of both garden and radish cress. The replications are independent experiments with each experiment having 5 trays. The tray dimensions have been added.
Line 86: What material was the pad? – Pads were made of seed testing cellulose paper.
Line 87: How did you determine the seed rate? – the seeds were counted (row x column)
Line 96: Add Table 1 title. – done as suggested
Lines 107-112: How many plants per treatment did you measure for shoot length and leaf area? – this part of “materials and methods” has been extended and we assume that the supplied information is regarded sufficient by the reviewers.
Line 122: How many replications did you use for chemical analysis? – 5
Lines 233-237: Was there a significant difference? – Fig. 4 is based on two (highly reproducible) repetitions. As a consequence, we did not test for significances. The “root specialist” at our department in Vienna suggested this additional measurement as an additional control of the nutrient solution.
Line 244: Again, was there a significant difference? – for Fig. 5 see above comment, though significances can be expected. It would be an interesting additional experiment to compare the mineral uptake characteristics of both cress cultivars and relate them to cress quality, since there are obvious differences between garden and radish cress. However, this was not intended in the present study.
Line 337: Table 3, in the column ‘Presence of off-flavors”, check “4.31±0.91 ab” or “4.31±0.91 a”. – This is indeed the result of the Friedman Test. The adjusted significance is 0.081 for the comparison “demineralised water” vs. “Hoagland 1/1”, but 0.038 for the comparison “demineralised water” vs. “Hoagland ½” despite the fact that the difference between “demineralised water” and “Hoagland 1/1” is larger. It is the consequence of the applied test procedure.
Line 341: How do you define “positive” rating? – The sentence has been rephrased.
Line 407: …might reflect that … – “hat” has been changed to “that”
Line 506: …was funded by… – improved as suggested
