Glucose Oxidase and Catalase Activities in Honey Samples from the Southwestern Region of Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors describe the results of various analytical parameters determined on Saudi Arabian honey samples.

The following revisions are necessary:

General comment: the template file is not completely correct, e.g. it lacks line numbers which makes peer review extremely difficult

Abstract: define Gox and all other abbreviations at first use

Abstract and throughout, all numer presentation: the symbol in the units is the wrong way around, it should be U/g and not U\g. Correct throughout!

Abstract: sentence in the middle is a fragment: “…, the Acacia honey…”

Introduction, line one and throughout: taxonomic names should be printed in italics

Introduction, middle: the claims about therapeutic effects such as cancer should be toned down or deleted.

Sections 2.2-2.5: the methods section does not allow replication of the research. Please at least specify the exact method that has been applied (for some parameters there are several), and also state the exact analyzer with manufacturers used.

Section 2.5: the exact method for cluster analysis should be pointed out

Discussion, line 2: provide reference to CODEX standards

Throughout: the reference style should be changed to journal guidelines, e.g. Khan et al. (2021) [32]. The year is unnecessary in numbered style.

Table 1: the full data for all samples must be provided as data annex

Figure 1: state magnification

Figure 2: the quality is very bad and the text is unreadable

Author Response

Many thanks for your valuable comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript under the title "Studies on honey samples from the south western region of Saudi Arabia" is well written and can be accepted in its current form after minor changes concerning the name of the genus "Ziziphus" and "Acacia" should be in italics. should be revised and corrected all over the manuscript.

Author Response

Many thanks for your review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript describes the comparison of two honey samples from different region of Saudi Arabia based on the effect of floral and geographical origins through a series of distinct in vitro assays. The present draft has weaknesses that should be included in the updated version. My comments and suggestions:

1.      Can the authors construct a title telling what is the major conclusion? The word “studies” tells a procedure. Consider rewriting the sentence for clarity.

2.      The abstract must be revised (i.e. ‘’With regard the GOx activity in the different honey samples, the Acacia honey of Asir (5.19± 2.33 U\g), Ziziphus honey of Asir (4.01± 1.17 U\g) and polyfloral honey of Asir (5.69±1.67 U\g). ‘’, ‘’the GOX activity of the Ziziphus honey was significantly more than that of the polyfloral honey of Jazan region’’ , ‘’With regard the CAT activity in different honey samples the mean value of the Acacia honey of Asir (2.89± 1.08 U\g), Ziziphus honey of Asir (3.58±1.59 U\g) and polyfloral honey of Asir (2.84±1.24 U\g).’’

3.      Materials and Methods are characterized by missing information. The authors should describe in details all the experimental procedures they follow (main draft or as supp info)

4.      Table 2: Please define the statistically significant value

5.      Figure 2 can not be read it. Please increase the quality

6.      Conclusions could be strengthened and re-organized increasing the five-line paragraph

Author Response

Many thanks for the valuable review and comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments have been addressed.