Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Asteraceae Family Plants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The Introduction section was hard to understand, and most of the parts need to be rephrased and simplify
2. Ensure the consistency of scientific names and the common names of the plants throughout the manuscript. The constant interchangeable of names will confuse the readers.
3. The Methodology and Results section was well written, clear and easy to follow; the authors know what they are doing.
4. The discussion section was not appropriately discussed and needs improvement.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript. Below we attached the list of changes made according to your suggestions. In the revised version of the manuscript we have marked the corrected parts of the text in the track change mode.
Yours sincerely,
Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik and co-authors
Reviewer:
Comments to the Author
Point 1: The Introduction section was hard to understand, and most of the parts need to be rephrased and simplify
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we tried to rephrase this section.
Point 2: Ensure the consistency of scientific names and the common names of the plants throughout the manuscript. The constant interchangeable of names will confuse the readers.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we tried to ensure consistency in the manuscript.
Point 3: The Methodology and Results section was well written, clear and easy to follow; the authors know what they are doing.
Response: Thank you kindly for this comment.
Point 4: The discussion section was not appropriately discussed and needs improvement.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we tried to improve this section.
Point 5: Line 20, Abbreviation for?
Response: We added: Association of Official Analytical Chemists
Point 6: Line 21, Please rephrase, sentence unclear.
Response: We changed this sentence to: The content of total polyphenols was determined using methanol extracts.
Point 7: Line 22, abbreviation for? or better mention only as antioxidant activity methods
Response: We changed to: Antioxidant activity was determined by three methods.
Point 8: Line 23, add= of
Response: Thank you, we added „of”.
Point 9: Line 25, which species?
Response: We deleted „both".
Point 10: Line 26, please rephrase and separate with the sentence, this part is a hanging sentence
Response: We separated these sentences.
Point 11: Line 27, change to= for
Response: Thank you, we changed it.
Point 12: Line 32, Rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 13: Line 34, Rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 14: Line 38, what body? humans? plants?
Response: We added „human”
Point 15: Line 39, Which plant? species? family? or considered to change to = plants
Response: We decided to leave this sentence in present form.
Point 16: Line 40, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 17: Line 44, Any references? Rephrase and simplify. Why it is rich in bitterness? Any particular reason?
Response: We added information: „for which tannins are responsible”
Point 18: Line 47, rephrase and simplify. Why are leaves are less used compared to inflorescences?
Response: We added information: „because they are less appealing to the consumer in sensory terms.”
Point 19: Line 48, Any references?
Response: We added reference: 21. Kania-Dobrowolska, M.; Baraniak, J. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinaleL.) as a source of biologically active compounds supporting the therapy of co-existing diseases in metabolic syndrome. Foods 2022, 11, 2858. doi:10.3390/ foods11182858.
Point 20: Line 50, Could you include several examples on its usage in cooking and food industry?
Response: We added appropriate information.
Point 21: Line 52, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 22: Line 53, rephrase and simplify, any references?
Response: We rephrased this sentence and added a reference.
Point 23: Line 54, Which part of the plant?
Response: We added information: of its inflorescences.
Point 24: Line 58, past tense..= was
Response: Thank you, we changed it.
Point 25: Line 60, change to= human scalp care
Response: We changed this sentence.
Point 26: Line 62, could you be specific on which part of the plant?
Response: We added information: this mainly applies to its leaves.
Point 27: Line 96, brand, country?
Response: We added information: FCF 22SP muffle furnace (Czylok, Poland)
Point 28: Line 104: any specified speed?
Response: The authors added the information: 75 c.p.m. (cycle per minute).
Point 29: Line 105, speed, time, temperature?
Response: The authors added the information: (3000 rpm, 10 min, room temperature).
Point 30: Line 106, filtered using? and particular method/ instrument?
Response: The authors added the information: paper filter.
Point 31: Line 106, frozen in? for how long?
Response: The authors added the information: frozen in freezer for futher analysis.
Point 32: Table 1, Table 2 „species” should be inserted above the scientific names column,
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 33: Table 1, Table 2 „part of plant” should be inserted above the leaves column
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 34: Line 276-278, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 35: Line 287-288, how does these two value considered similar?
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 36: Line 305, Could you add some examples?
Response: We supplemented this sentence.
Point 37: Line 307, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 38: Line 309, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Point 39: Line 312, add= (dandelion) to reduce confusion for the reader
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 40: Line 314, Please mention the plant species name + (dandelion) in the first sentence
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 41: Line 314, any references? and examples?
Response: Examples are mentioned in these sentences
Point 42: Line 315, This part was not discussed, compared to previous study.
Response: We added information: „Flowers, if used in food preparation, are usually selected for their appearance and/or taste. However, very rarely treated as a source of high nutritional value, including val-uable dietary fiber or protein. Therefore, also flowers due to the rich source of these nutrients can be included in the daily diet. As a source of dietary fiber, they can act as a prebiotic for intestinal bacteria.”
Point 43: Line 330, add = (tansy)
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 44: Line 331, same comment with previous plant. consider to change to= tansy
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 45: Line 346, add= goldenrod
Response: Thank you, we made appropriate changes.
Point 46: Line 367-368, unclear, rephrase and simplify
Response: We rephrased this sentence.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done well-designed and practically important study on the evaluation of the composition of some common plants with an emphasis on antioxidant properties. This new knowledge can be useful for pharmacists and herbalists. The advantages of the work lie in the assessment of antioxidant activity by several complementary methods. We know that one parameter of antioxidant activity is not indicative, only a set of indicators is important. The authors used adequate methods, correctly processed the results and led the discussion. There are no critical comments on this study, but the English language and terminology require careful checking.
Below, for example, there are some phrases that need to be rephrased:
The protein was the highest…
Antioxidant activity was obtained…
The proximate composition – maybe, approximate composition?
The probes (dried) were used… - maybe, samples?
Please have the text checked by a professional interpreter.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript. Below we attached the list of changes made according to your suggestions. In the revised version of the manuscript we have marked the corrected parts of the text in the track change mode.
Yours sincerely,
Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik and co-authors
Reviewer:
Comments to the Author
Point 1: The authors have done well-designed and practically important study on the evaluation of the composition of some common plants with an emphasis on antioxidant properties. This new knowledge can be useful for pharmacists and herbalists. The advantages of the work lie in the assessment of antioxidant activity by several complementary methods. We know that one parameter of antioxidant activity is not indicative, only a set of indicators is important. The authors used adequate methods, correctly processed the results and led the discussion. There are no critical comments on this study, but the English language and terminology require careful checking. Below, for example, there are some phrases that need to be rephrased:
Response: Thank you kindly for this comment.
Point 2: The protein was the highest…
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we changed this sentence “The protein content was the highest…”.
Point 3: Antioxidant activity was obtained…
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we changed “obtained” to “determined”.
Point 4: The proximate composition – maybe, approximate composition?
Response: With all due respect, this term refers to the proximate components, i.e. dry matter, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, crude ash, and nitrogen-free extracts, which are calculated from the results for the listed components, and this term is correct.
Point 5: The probes (dried) were used… - maybe, samples?
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, we changed “probes” to “samples”.
Point 6: Please have the text checked by a professional interpreter.
Response: Thank you, the manuscript has been checked and minor errors have been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is very interesting, however there are 5 aspects that could improve it significantly.
1. The traditional uses of these plant species such as food, medicine etc. are not discussed
2. The authors do not present photographs of the species and their phenological cycle or the stages of laboratory analysis
3. The authors do not present a map of the collection zone or region, the agroecological conditions are also not described in detail
4. The authors do not discuss their food properties based on the Bromatological Analysis in depth
5. There is no prospective analysis of the use of these species in pharmacology or as a food
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to kindly thank you for the insightful review of our manuscript. Below we attached the list of changes made according to your suggestions. In the revised version of the manuscript we have marked the corrected parts of the text in the track change mode.
Yours sincerely,
Jagoda Kępińska-Pacelik and co-authors
Reviewer:
Comments to the Author
Point 1: The manuscript is very interesting, however there are 5 aspects that could improve it significantly.
Response: Thank you kindly for this comment.
Point 2: The traditional uses of these plant species such as food, medicine etc. are not discussed.
Response: Information on the traditional use of the mentioned plants are presented by the authors in the introduction of the manuscript. In addition, which was also emphasized, the literature lacks data on the use of these plants, e.g. in food. Due to the fact that the work concerns the basic composition and antioxidant properties, the authors did not include the medical use of these herbs in the discussion.
Point 3: The authors do not present photographs of the species and their phenological cycle or the stages of laboratory analysis.
Response: In the material and methods, the authors state that the collection was made in the flowering phase of the plants, additionally we supplemented it with a map (Figure 1) with photos of the analyzed species.
Point 4: The authors do not present a map of the collection zone or region, the agroecological conditions are also not described in detail.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion, a map of the region has been added. What is more, the manuscript gives the geographical location of the collection and a description. We supplemented the methodology with agroecological conditions.
Point 5: The authors do not discuss their food properties based on the Bromatological Analysis in depth.
Response: Authors discussed proximate composition and antioxidant activity – and these are the part of bromatological analysis. The authors realize that it is obvious that further analyzes can be performed, but they may be the basis for the next manuscript. The authors extended the discussion of these aspects.
Point 6: There is no prospective analysis of the use of these species in pharmacology or as a food.
Response: We added some new potential use of these herbs as a food in the text. Additionally, in the conclusion authors mentioned that: „Food producers could consider the possibility of using these herbs as, for example, an addition to bars for athletes, for faster regeneration after training, for the elderly as an important enrichment of their diet. It is worth including them in the diet as ingredients for salads or many other dishes, e.g. for desserts, cakes / pastries, puddings and other similar food products. They can also enrich the daily diet, especially vegan and vegetarian.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
