Determination of Lipids and Fatty Acids in Green Coffee Beans (Coffea arabica L.) Harvested in Different Agroclimatic Zones of the Department of Quindío, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work by Luz Fanny Echeverri-Giraldo and colleagues, The objective of this research was to compare two lipid extraction methods and to characterize the fatty acids present in the lipid fraction and the relationship of the fatty acid profile with the agroclimatic zones of the department of Quindío.

 

I have found some minor details in the ms that need to be revised, which hopefully will improve the quality of the present work.

 

. 1)           In the description of the figures, abbreviations should not be used. 2)           Keywords: Please do not include words mentioned in the title of the ms, and Sort key-words alphabetically

 

3)           Why use the Soxhlet method and the Soxtec method for determination of lipid content by

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I hope you are doing well

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript tried to decipher two lipid extraction methods on fatty acid profile in different regions of coffee growth area of Colombia. After carefully evaluating the present work, a decision of "reconsider after drastic revision" was reached. The major concerns were as follows:

1. In the initial part of abstract, the authors should describe the limitations of the previous studies and strengthen the innovation of the present work.  Indeed, the present work was only a method comparison experiment, and no innovation has been detected.

2. The last paragraph of introduction was so strange. The propose of the study should focus on providing new strategies for coffee farmers to gain better quality, not for the project of the government.

3. In materials and methods, Figure 1 is apparently downloaded from other websites or governments, not the original work of the authors. The language in this figure is not English and difficult to understand. The authors should make their own figure to illustrate their work.

4. All of the tables should be 3-line tables. Figure legends should be moved to the head of the figures, not below the figures.

5. In the whole part of materials and methods, no literatures have been cited concerning the methods. These methods were absolutely not developed by the authors of the present work.

6. How many replicates were there in the experiment?

7. I highly suggest the authors increase the aesthetic of the figures and tables. Advanced software such as Sigma plot and Origin are highly recommended.

8. In conclusion part, the authors should put forward the highlights and innovations of their work for the coffee industry of Columbia, identify the existing shortcomings, and propose the future directions in their further experiments.

The present manuscript should be properly revised by native English speakers for a lot of grammar mistakes have been detected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer   I hope you are doing well. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I have concerns about the number of used analysis if it is enough for the scientific article. The authors analyzed samples from two regions and they conducted fat content analysis with two regularly used methods and also authors did fatty acids profile estimation. I have doubts if this is enough for the scientific article.

1.       Why Authors have not done the analysis of the presence of at least some bioactive compounds such as polyphenols, caffeine and so on.

2.       Line 11-15: this part is too long for the abstract.

3.       Line 42: the reference is missing.

4.       Line 37: the reference is missing.

5.       Line 56-69: this part is too long.

6.       Line 91: Authors should not describe the methodology part here.

7.       Line 95: this part is belonging to the Material part not here.

8.       The amount of the sample used 224 is giving a good scientific value.

9.       Authors are trying to emphasize the differences between fat content methodology, but that is not the aim of the research. Especially because these differences are well described in already published papers. I would suggest authors not to emphasize this part of the research at these quantities as it is now.

10.   Table 4: why there are different number of samples for two methods?

11.   Figure 4: what does it mean TIC:RQ958?

12.   Table 5: do not separate mean and stdev numbers in different column; you should separate it with the following sign: ±

13.   Line 269: the statistical correlation was not conducted.

14.   Line 304: sensory analysis was not conducted.

15.   Authors should explain better in the discussion part the chemical mechanisms how altitude and climate influence the fatty acids profile of coffee beans.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer   I hope you are doing well. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the revision. I only have one minor concern: In the revised manuscript, Table 1 and Table 4 were not revised. These tables should be 3-line tables. Please revise them properly.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I hope you are doing well. 

We apologize for the inconveniences. The table was reorganized according to the reviewer's suggestions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors should discuss with the references the issues how the elevation is influencing the fatty acids profile.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I hope you are doing well.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx