Polyphenol Content, Antiradical Properties, and α-Amylase Inhibition Activity of Vaccinium myrtillus L. (Bilberry) and Vaccinium vitis-idaea L. (Lingonberry) Leaf and Aerial Parts Extracts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is interesting and contains new data. However, it needs some additions and clarifications. First of all, the results of the statistical analysis should also be presented in the paper, especially the significance of differences in the figures. The results of TPC determination are puzzling, e.g., the value of 968.52 mg GAE/g in the freeze-dried sample suggests that there are only phenolic compounds in the sample, maybe some water. What about other compounds?
In addition:
1) the origin of chemicals and standards should be checked, conflicting information is given in 2.2 and in method descriptions (e.g. Trolox from Acros Organics or Fluka);
2) determination procedures are presented either in drawings or descriptively, it would be better to standardize;
3) an explanation of abbreviations should be presented where the abbreviation first appears, rather than later in the manuscript (e.g., DPPH, Trolox);
4) more details of the equipment used in the study should be provided, in addition to the company, the city and country;
5) in Chapter 3 Results, "determination" should not be used in the titles of subsections, since results and not analytical procedures are described;
6) Tables 1 and 2 should be reorganized, presenting results separately for the type of determination rather than the type of samples, as discussed;
7) the way units are written should be standardized, numerical values separated by a space from the unit, and "mL" instead of "ml.";
8) minor errors: line 28 - doubled "was observed", line 109 - "et. al.", line 482 - missing symbol (-amylase), line 508 - "acid acid.";
9) there should be no Latin names in the key words, as they are included in the title of the manuscript.
The text needs to be corrected in terms of the writing of some words, e.g., written by a dash (without spaces, e.g., "Folin-Ciocalteu" instead of "Folin - Ciocalteu", etc.), Latin names (should be written in italics), cited references (should be written without firstname and initials of names, and "et al. " instead of "et. al."), capitalized names in the middle of a sentence even though they are not proper names (e.g., "Tannin Content," "Herbal Ethanol," "Antiradical," "Liquid," and many others).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is potentially interesting but there are some issues that should be carefully addressed by authors before making the paper suitable for publication in the Applied Sciences.
Specific comments and suggestions are given below.
Please define meaning of the ‘’herbs extracts’’. Is it the whole plant of aerial part of the plant? Please explain and use different term throughout the manuscript.
In the Abstract, please add the general conclusion regarding difference between ethanolic and freeze-dried extract.
Line 19: How many samples?
Line 28: did you mean alpha-amylase inhibitory activity?
Line 48: how these compounds influence glucose metabolism? Please explain in the manuscript.
Lines 50-54: Please explain the relation between antiradical properties and T2DM.
Line 55: Please explain why tannins are important in the context of T2DM.
Lines 79-88: These are the well-known facts and can be deleted.
In introduction, some parts reporting results can be moved to Discussion.
In introduction, please add the novelty of the study.
Line 162: Please use word, not number at the beginning of the sentence.
Line 170: -70 °C, not 70 °C
Line 194: Did you express results per 100 g of plant or 100 g of freeze-dried extract? What was the procedure for ethanolic extracts without freeze-drying?
Line 211: Did you express results per g of dried plant or freeze-dried extract?
Line 219: How did you prepare freeze-dried extract for measuring antioxidant activity?
Line 230: ‘’dry weight’’ of what? Dried plant or freeze dried extract?
Line 254: Concentration cannot be expressed in mg.
Line 261: Please briefly describe LC-MS procedure (model of the instrument, type of the column, mobile phase, volume of the sample, etc.).
In results, please highlight only the most important results.
Figures and tables: Please explain D and S.
Tables 1 and 2: Please define IC50 in the footnote.
Line 357: Significant difference between what?
Line 363: Stem extracts are mentioned for the first time here.
Please check throughout the manuscript: alpha amylase activity or inhibition of alpha amylase activity?
In Discussion section it might be useful to compare/discuss the results with other authors instead of repeating results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall scientific quality of the work described in the manuscript is satisfactory. However, I would not recommend publishing the article in its current format due to several areas that require significant improvement. The main drawbacks of this manuscript can be summarized as follows:
Methodology:
The specific type of LC-MS used in the experiments needs to be clearly stated and described in detail.
The methods section should be expanded to provide a comprehensive description of the experimental procedures, including detailed information about the equipment used.
Statistical Analysis:
The authors should use established statistical methods, such as Tukey's multiple range test or Duncan's multiple range test, to compare multiple means and determine which groups are significantly different from each other.
Results Presentation:
Throughout the manuscript, the results should be presented in the appropriate format, including the mean values ± standard deviation (SD).
The results and discussion sections require extensive improvement. They should be revised to provide a more thorough analysis and interpretation of the data.
Figures should have clearer labeling of the x and y axes, and the authors should consider using significant letters (e.g., from Tukey's or Duncan's test) instead of written values in the columns.
Language and Style:
The manuscript exhibits significant issues with English grammar, syntax, and typographical errors. These errors should be corrected throughout the manuscript, including the lack of commas after introductory phrases, improper usage of verb tenses, and missing or unnecessary article usage.
The authors should be mindful of their use of prepositions (e.g., "on" and "in") and ensure consistent and appropriate usage.
Extensive editing is needed to improve the overall English language and style of the manuscript.
In conclusion, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to address the aforementioned issues and meet the standards necessary for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript exhibits significant issues with English grammar, syntax, and typographical errors. These errors should be corrected throughout the manuscript, including the lack of commas after introductory phrases, improper usage of verb tenses, and missing or unnecessary article usage.
The authors should be mindful of their use of prepositions (e.g., "on" and "in") and ensure consistent and appropriate usage.
Extensive editing is needed to improve the overall English language and style of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are only some minor issues that should be addressed by authors.
Line 57: Please correct VM to VV. Also define meaning of the ‘’better results’’.
Line 536: What did you mean by ‘’obtained results0’’? Please be more specific.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken into consideration the most comments/suggestions of the reviewers during the revision of the manuscript
Author Response
Thank you for your comment and the opportunity to revise our paper. The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the methodology, results and other aspects of the paper.
