Influence of Microgreens Biofortification with Selenium on Their Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters
, Miroslav Šlosár and Ján MezeyRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would suggest extensive rereading, most desirably proofreading by a native English speaker to provide higher quality of the work.
The discussion of the results should be improved and not rely merely on comparing the obtained results with other works.
The calculation of the coverage of RDA for selenium would improve the quality.
Additional remarks are provided in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. We attempted to accept all the suggestions. Along with the answers we were explaining all the changes we have done. All changes are shown in red. Please see the attachment. We'd want to thank you one more for taking the time to look through our work, for pointing out the errors, and for encouraging us to submit.
The answers to point in review:
Point 1: I would suggest extensive rereading, most desirably proofreading by a native English speaker to provide higher quality of the work.
Response 1: The extensive rereading and proofreading were done; the changes are highlighted by revision.
Point 2: The discussion of the results should be improved and not rely merely on comparing the obtained results with other works.
Response 2: We took the feedback into account and revised the results area by adding some other ideas.
Point 3: The calculation of the coverage of RDA for selenium would improve the quality.
Response 3: The calculation was added to the results.
Point 4: Additional remarks are provided in the attached file.
Response 4: All comments were considered, and the adjustments have been highlighted by revisions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper effect of selenium treatment on microgreens was tested. During the experiment dry mass, chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b parameters were investigated, as well as concentration changes of selenium and some selected elements were followed.
Comments:
- In the Results section concentration values are expressed in dry weight, however, in the Materials and Methods the sample preparation for drying is missing. What was the drying procedure of the samples?
- Line 128: Why did you add water to the dried samples?
- What is the reason that fresh samples were digested instead of the dried ones?
- Line 141-142: remove this part: “on a dual Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry”
- Line 146: information must be inserted, that this part is relating to the operation conditions of ICP-OES.
- Why did you apply other analytical technique for selenium determination than in case of other elements? Selenium can be also quantified by ICP-OES.
- Table captions must be merged in the entire manuscript e.g. line 173-174 and 175-177.
- Line 182: remove “3” from the superscript
- Accuracy of the values must be corrected in the entire manuscript (e.g. 6798.14 in Table 5, etc.)
- Figure 6 is not clear. What does it mean: “mineral element content”? Are these results concentration values? SD or RSD values, as well as unit in the y-axis are missing in the figure. Values varied in a very wide range, logarithmic scale should be used.
- Format of the references should be unified (e.g. in some cases the names of journals are capital letters)
Author Response
The answers to point in review:
- Point 1: In the Results section concentration values are expressed in dry weight, however, in the Materials and Methods the sample preparation for drying is missing. What was the drying procedure of the samples?
- Response 1: The drying procedure of the samples was added.
- Point 2: Line 128: Why did you add water to the dried samples?
Response 2: As we use the same method of determination for the determination of selenium in fresh plant material, we therefore add 1 ml of water to the dry sample to ensure the same mineralization conditions. We used dry plant material to determine selenium.
- Point 3: What is the reason that fresh samples were digested instead of the dried ones?
- Response 3: The analysis was performed in dry plants, but using dry matter, the values were converted to fresh mass, as the microgreens were used fresh.
- Point 4: Line 141-142: remove this part: “on a dual Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry”
- Response 4: It was removed from the methodology.
- Point 5: Line 146: information must be inserted, that this part is relating to the operation conditions of ICP-OES. Why did you apply other analytical technique for selenium determination than in case of other elements? Selenium can be also quantified by ICP-OES.
- Response 5: We have 20 years of experience with the determination of selenium on ETAAS, the method is validated (Hegedűs et al., 2008), so we use it.
- Point 6: Table captions must be merged in the entire manuscript e.g. line 173-174 and 175-177.
- Response 6: Thank you for your feedback; we fixed it.
- Point 7: Line 182: remove “3” from the superscript
- Response 7: Thank you for your feedback; we fixed it.
- Point 8: Accuracy of the values must be corrected in the entire manuscript (e.g. 6798.14 in Table 5, etc.)
- Response 8: Thank you for your feedback; we fixed it.
- Point 9: Figure 6 is not clear. What does it mean: “mineral element content”? Are these results concentration values? SD or RSD values, as well as unit in the y-axis are missing in the figure. Values varied in a very wide range; logarithmic scale should be used.
- Response 9: We took the feedback into account and revised the chart area, as well as adding a description.
- Point 10: Format of the references should be unified (e.g. in some cases the names of journals are capital letters)
- Response 10: Thank you for your feedback; we fixed it.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript ‘Influence of microgreens biofortification with selenium on their quantitative and qualitative parameters’ is very interesting. I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest for readers. The results provide an insight into the new possibilities of fortification of microgreens species
My specific comments, that I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript:
Line 55 – Delete ‘.’
Line 104 - I suggest rewording the legend of table 1 with the addition of supplementary information.
The font used in the table should be the same as the font used in the text of the document.
Line 112 - I suggest improving the images because they are too dark (Figure 1).
Line 115 - Please delete 'statistical analyses'. The following text already suggests the subject that is going to be dealt with.
Line 200 - Need space between 'm2in'.
Line 298 - I suggest that table 5 is not cut off (if possible). You can add the value of (ug/g)±SD and thus reduce the space. The significant figures should be corrected in all columns.
Line 300 - 'izuna' , 'C' and 'SeAp' should be corrected, bolded or the table changed
Line 340 - The font (figure 6) should be the same as the article text; horizontal lines should be eleminated; letters should be black; title can be deleted. Why do they use SD in table 5 and LSD here?
Line 478 – please confirm the reference 40
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments. We attempted to accept all the suggestions. Along with the answers we were explaining all the changes we have done. All changes are shown in red. Please see the attachment. We'd want to thank you one more for taking the time to look through our work, for pointing out the errors, and for encouraging us to submit.
The answers to point in review:
Point: Line 55 – Delete ‘.’
Response: Thank you for your feedback; it was deleted.
Point: Line 104 - I suggest rewording the legend of table 1 with the addition of supplementary information.
Response: The legend was rewording.
Point: The font used in the table should be the same as the font used in the text of the document.
Response: The font was changed according to the comment.
Point: Line 112 - I suggest improving the images because they are too dark (Figure 1).
Response: The image has been adjusted according to the comment.
Point: Line 115 - Please delete 'statistical analyses'. The following text already suggests the subject that is going to be dealt with.
Response: Thank you for your feedback; It was deleted.
Point: Line 200 - Need space between 'm2in'.
Response: The space was inserted.
Point: Line 298 - I suggest that table 5 is not cut off (if possible). You can add the value of (ug/g)±SD and thus reduce the space. The significant figures should be corrected in all columns.
Response: Table 5 was adjusted according to the comments.
Point: Line 300 - 'izuna' , 'C' and 'SeAp' should be corrected, bolded or the table changed
Response: The table has been changed; the errors have been fixed.
Point: Line 340 - The font (figure 6) should be the same as the article text; horizontal lines should be eleminated; letters should be black; title can be deleted. Why do they use SD in table 5 and LSD here?
Response: The font (figure 6) should be the same as the article text – the text was changed according to comments, SD = standard deviation, LSD - a statistical significance test
Point: Line 478 – please confirm the reference 40
Response: The reference has been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
