Chemical Characterization and Antioxidant Activity of Apilarnil, Royal Jelly, and Propolis Collected in Banat Region, Romania
, Ersilia Alexa 2, Ileana Cocan 2,*, Diana Obiștioiu 3, Isidora Radulov 3, Eliza Simiz 1, Adina Berbecea 3, Adrian Grozea 1, Monica Dragomirescu 1, Teodor Vintilă 1 and Silvia Pătruică 1,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper focuses on analysing the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of different bee products harvested from the Authors' own apiary located in Romania compared to commercial products. The scientific relevance and interest lie in the specific origin of the samples. The methodology has been used before, which reduces the novelty of the work. Therefore, this study confirms/adds to existing knowledge.
The present paper is informative and systematic. However, the Authors should address the following issues to improve the quality of the article.
1. Line 37: The general definition of apilarnil should be provided since it is referred not only as "drone larvae harvested at the age of 7 days"
2. Line 76: It is important to specify when the samples were collected, as their composition may depend on the month in which the bees produced them. How many samples were collected, and how many replicates were analysed? There are no statistical analyses in the manuscript. If only one sample of each product was examined, this may affect the reliability of the results. There is no information on the repeatability of the methods.
3. Only propolis tincture from the Authors' own apiary was analysed in this study. What about commercial products?
4. Line 91: There is information about two replicates for each sample. But what about other tests? How many technical/biological replicates were performed for each analysis?
5. Line 126: The type of filter paper and the pore size should be defined.
6. The discussion should include a better description of the importance of selected pesticides for humans. This would justify the purpose of the research carried out.
7. The authors should also justify the choice of the three bee products included in this study.
8. The authors should discuss the impact of the mineral content of honeybee products on humans (concerning EU regulations setting limits for heavy metals, including PB, in food and cosmetics) and bees (bee mortality resulting from environmental pollution). How do humans use bee products, and what is the potential exposure to hazardous contaminants for people willing to use these products?
9. In general, referring to the entire manuscript, the language should be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn general, referring to the entire manuscript, the language should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome errors need revision.
1 Methods need more details and ref. And some methods are wrong.
2 The data in the table and the content were repeated. There is almost no discussion.
3 More information see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The language in the Abstract part is poor. For more information see the attachment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Line 89, determination of water content, not the humidity
2. The format of formula (3) should be revised, “m2/m1”
3. In section 2.7, the presence of phenols in samples would interfere with protein content measurement.
4. What do the letters (a or A) in Tables represent?
5. The error bar should be added in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the line chart must be changed into a histogram.
6. The error bar should be added in Fig. 2.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. I strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript according to the comments. I have no further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required/English language fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main bug of this manuscript is that the chemicals and antioxidant activity of different kinds of bee products were determined and compared but they have no comparability.
Secondly, there is no need to repeat the data in Tables you can state the range and discuss the reasonable cause but not list these ranges. The results and "discussion" of results were separated and isolated, which lost the meaning of discussion.
Thirdly, the meaning is unclear in Figure 1.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
some of them were labeled in the pdf version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved significantly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
