Feasibility of United Arab Emirates Native Seaweed Ulva intestinalis as a Food Source: Study of Nutritional and Mineral Compositions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is undoubtedly interesting and the research setting is appreciable. The bibliographic references cited are also numerous. However, I found in the article a notable series of spelling errors and various inappropriate citations (wrong Latin names, quantities of mineral elements incorrectly cited by the original authors). As a whole, the article therefore appears valuable but rather roughly written.
I invite the Authors to correct the various typos that I have highlighted in the review file that I am attaching.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks for your comments, we agreed 100%. We have corrected all the points you have raised in your review file. Your comments have improved the quality of our manuscript.

 Kindest regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Farzanah and colleagues, entitled “Feasibility of United Arab Emirates Native Seaweed Ulva intestinalis as a Food source: Study of Nutrition and Minerals”, reference number Phycology-1489858 is a very simple, straightforward manuscript focusing on the detailed characterization of the macroalga Ulva intestinalis from a nutritional point of view. In this sense, the manuscript covers the determination of macronutrients as well as micronutrients, including the compounds of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, heavy metals and minerals. Unfortunately, the authors failed to quantify the fatty acid composition as well as amino acids profile of this seaweed. Yet, one of the biggest drawbacks of this manuscript is the English, both grammar and syntax. I suggest you ask a native English speaker to help you with the revision of the entire manuscript. Moreover, the standard deviation (SD) values are missing for the analytical determinations. This is important! The literature is well cited and the number of references adequate.

Apart from these general comments, along I was reading the manuscript, some major and minor problems, many of them of structural origin, came up. And here they are, point by point:

 Major and minor comments: 

1. In line 18 of the Abstract, please replace “sources” by “source”.
2. Please, replace “nutrition” by “nutritional composition” in Keywords.
3. Always write Ulva intestinalis in italics. Check the entire manuscript.
4. In lines 23-24, please replace “… showed a less than detection limit.” by “… was below the detection limit”.
5. Please re-write the last sentence of the Abstract, like this: “To the best of our knowledge this might be the first experimental study that examines the feasibility of UAE native marine seaweed as a source of nutritional and sustainable food to address the challenge of food security in the country” (lines 25-28).
6. In line 48, please provide a bibliographic reference.
7. Please, replace “poly-unsaturated fat” by “polyunsaturated fats” (line 46).
8. I do not understand the relevance of describing the nutritional composition of other seaweeds rather than Ulva intestinalis in the Introduction (lines 56-62). This information is useful for the Discussion section.
9. In line 81, please replace “growth” by “grows”.
10. In my opinion, Figure 1 is not necessary.
11. Replace “Composition analysis” by “Chemical composition analysis” (line 94).
12. In line 96, please replace “was” by “were”.
13. In line 112, the word “calories” is badly written.
14. Lines 113-116, could be easily replaced by “Nitrogen content was determined by the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 2000) and CP calculated as 6.25 × N.” Am I right?

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, volume 1, 17^th edition. AOAC. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

15. In line 125, replace “triacylglycerides” by “triacylglycerols”.
16. Was the crude fat determined using Soxhlet? (lines 124-130).
17. In line 158, please replace “The fresh sample were prepared…” by “The fresh samples were prepared…”
18. In line 163, replace “was” by “were”.
19. Please, reformulate the sentence in lines 168-170 because it is too confusing for the reader.
20. For Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5, delete de column of Unit and place the units (% or ppm) next to the parameter.
21. In line 192, delete “…calculated to…”
22. In line 198, replace the title “3.2. Nutrient minerals and heavy metal contents” by “3.2. Minerals and heavy metal contents”.
23. Re-write lines 201-202, like this: “Potassium is an essential dietary element for human health with a daily adequate intake set at 4700 mg/day [45]”.
24. In line 210, replace “Iron” by “iron”.
25. Regarding lines 239-246, please use “men” for males and “women” for females.
26. For Tables 1, 2 and 3, the standard deviation (SD) values are missing.
27. For the footnotes of Tables 2 and 3, please consider to write: “* indicates below the detection limit (LOD)” (line 259 and line 275). The same in line 264.
28. There is no need to write the names of vitamin B compounds and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in capital letters (lines 262, 263, 269, 271 and 273).
29. Please, re-write the sentence in lines 285-286 because it is too confusing for the reader.
30. Please, replace “contents” by “content” in line 291.
31. In line 293, please replace “Ash and moisture contents was higher in…” by “Ash and moisture contents were higher in…”
32. In Tables 4 and 5 captions, Phoenix dactylifera should be written in italics.
33. Please, reformulate the sentence in lines 305-306.
34. Please delete the comma in line 318.
35. Replace “nutrition” by “nutritional value” or “nutritional composition” throughout the manuscript, including the title.
36. Rewrite the sentence in lines 320-322, as follows: “Seaweed and seaweed extracts are mixed with meats to increase their fiber content, and to promote anti-oxidant capacity, amino acid profile, fatty acid composition and protein content [74]”.
37. In line with the previous point, how can seaweeds promote amino acid profile and fatty acid composition? What do you mean exactly? Be more specific.
38. In line 330, please replace “sources” by “source”.
39. In line 339, please replace “make” by “makes”.
40. In line 340, please replace “… exceed or comparable to those…” by “… exceed or are comparable to those…”
41. In lines 343-345 of the Conclusions, please introduce the name of the seaweed.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thanks you for your comments. They have improved the quality of our manuscript. Please find here below our answers, in blue italics, to your comments.

The manuscript by Farzanah and colleagues, entitled “Feasibility of United Arab Emirates Native Seaweed Ulva intestinalis as a Food source: Study of Nutrition and Minerals”, reference number Phycology-1489858 is a very simple, straightforward manuscript focusing on the detailed characterization of the macroalga Ulva intestinalis from a nutritional point of view. In this sense, the manuscript covers the determination of macronutrients as well as micronutrients, including the compounds of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, heavy metals and minerals. Unfortunately, the authors failed to quantify the fatty acid composition as well as amino acids profile of this seaweed.

Yet, one of the biggest drawbacks of this manuscript is the English, both grammar and syntax. I suggest you ask a native English speaker to help you with the revision of the entire manuscript. - We have extensively revise the English in our manuscript.

Moreover, the standard deviation (SD) values are missing for the analytical determinations. This is important! - We have include the respective SD values.

The literature is well cited and the number of references adequate.

Apart from these general comments, along I was reading the manuscript, some major and minor problems, many of them of structural origin, came up. And here they are, point by point:

 Major and minor comments: 

1. In line 18 of the Abstract, please replace “sources” by “source”. - we have wrote source now.
2. Please, replace “nutrition” by “nutritional composition” in Keywords. - agreed, we have done the modification.
3. Always write Ulva intestinalis in italics. Check the entire manuscript. - Now the name is in italics throughout all the manuscript
4. In lines 23-24, please replace “… showed a less than detection limit.” by “… was below the detection limit”. - replaced.
5. Please re-write the last sentence of the Abstract, like this: “To the best of our knowledge this might be the first experimental study that examines the feasibility of UAE native marine seaweed as a source of nutritional and sustainable food to address the challenge of food security in the country” (lines 25-28). - done. 
6. In line 48, please provide a bibliographic reference. - The references are [11,12] (line 53).
7. Please, replace “poly-unsaturated fat” by “polyunsaturated fats” (line 46). - done.
8. I do not understand the relevance of describing the nutritional composition of other seaweeds rather than Ulva intestinalis in the Introduction (lines 56-62). This information is useful for the Discussion section. - we agree with your comment, but we also would like to give a context for the readers as earlier as in the Introduction.
9. In line 81, please replace “growth” by “grows”. - done.
10. In my opinion, Figure 1 is not necessary. - We would like to keep it, in order to document how this algae is found in the UAE coast.
11. Replace “Composition analysis” by “Chemical composition analysis” (line 94). - done.
12. In line 96, please replace “was” by “were”. - done.
13. In line 112, the word “calories” is badly written. - now is writing calories, and appears in Line 117.
14. Lines 113-116, could be easily replaced by “Nitrogen content was determined by the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 2000) and CP calculated as 6.25 × N.” Am I right? - yes you are right. Still we would like to keep the explanation.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, volume 1, 17^th edition. AOAC. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

15. In line 125, replace “triacylglycerides” by “triacylglycerols”. - done.
16. Was the crude fat determined using Soxhlet? (lines 124-130). - We have use a similar equipment. In our case we have used an ANKOM XT15 extractor.
17. In line 158, please replace “The fresh sample were prepared…” by “The fresh samples were prepared…” - done, now in line 168.
18. In line 163, replace “was” by “were”. - done, now in line 173.
19. Please, reformulate the sentence in lines 168-170 because it is too confusing for the reader. - we have reformulated it as "For the vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid) analysis, the fresh samples were treated with zinc acetate dihydrate and potassium Ferrocyanide trihydrate solution before introducing the sample into HPLC-UV." (now in Line 178-180).
20. For Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5, delete de column of Unit and place the units (% or ppm) next to the parameter. - done.
21. In line 192, delete “…calculated to…” - We have deleted it.
22. In line 198, replace the title “3.2. Nutrient minerals and heavy metal contents” by “3.2. Minerals and heavy metal contents”. -  done, now in line 211.
23. Re-write lines 201-202, like this: “Potassium is an essential dietary element for human health with a daily adequate intake set at 4700 mg/day [45]”.  - We have modified it to: "Potassium is an essential dietary element for human health, with an adequate daily intake set at 4700 mg/day [45]." Now located in line 214-215.
24. In line 210, replace “Iron” by “iron”. - done.
25. Regarding lines 239-246, please use “men” for males and “women” for females. - done, now it is located in line 256-260.
26. For Tables 1, 2 and 3, the standard deviation (SD) values are missing. - we have corrected that.
27. For the footnotes of Tables 2 and 3, please consider to write: “* indicates below the detection limit (LOD)” (line 259 and line 275). The same in line 264. - Done.
28. There is no need to write the names of vitamin B compounds and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in capital letters (lines 262, 263, 269, 271 and 273). - Done.
29. Please, re-write the sentence in lines 285-286 because it is too confusing for the reader. - we have wrote the following (lines 299-300): "This comparison will serve as a benchmark for determining the worth of local seaweed as a nutritious, long-term dietary source."
30. Please, replace “contents” by “content” in line 291. - done.
31. In line 293, please replace “Ash and moisture contents was higher in…” by “Ash and moisture contents were higher in…” - done, now in line 307.
32. In Tables 4 and 5 captions, Phoenix dactylifera should be written in italics. - done.
33. Please, reformulate the sentence in lines 305-306. - we have wrote now (line 319-321): "Some of the health-risk-related heavy metals identified in Ulva intestinalis were substantially lower than those found in date palm."
34. Please delete the comma in line 318. - done. now line 332.
35. Replace “nutrition” by “nutritional value” or “nutritional composition” throughout the manuscript, including the title. - done.
36. Rewrite the sentence in lines 320-322, as follows: “Seaweed and seaweed extracts are mixed with meats to increase their fiber content, and to promote anti-oxidant capacity, amino acid profile, fatty acid composition and protein content [74]”. - we have wrote (line 335-337) "Seaweed and seaweed extracts are mixed with meat to increase their fibre content and promote antioxidant capacity and protein content"
37. In line with the previous point, how can seaweeds promote amino acid profile and fatty acid composition? What do you mean exactly? Be more specific. - to avoid confusion, we have removed the "fatty acid composition"
38. In line 330, please replace “sources” by “source”. - done, in line 345.
39. In line 339, please replace “make” by “makes”. replaced.
40. In line 340, please replace “… exceed or comparable to those…” by “… exceed or are comparable to those…” - done, now in line 355.
41. In lines 343-345 of the Conclusions, please introduce the name of the seaweed. Done, now in line 358.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript submitted to Phycology and entitled “Feasibility of United Arab Emirates native seaweed Ulva intestinalis as a food source: study of nutrition and minerals” provides information on composition properties of Ulva as essential for food resources. The author showed that Ulva intestinalis biomass is an important key property for the nutrition and minerals contents, especially vitamins and UAE.

Introduction and discussion in next chapters show the deep understanding of the issue. The descriptions of mineral content dynamics and data analysis are described in details. The manuscript is written in a good scientific language and illustrated in an appropriate way. References used in the article were correctly selected to presented problems.

In my opinion, this manuscript can be accepted for publication in “Phycology”.

The manuscript has been prepared very carefully.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

Thanks for your encouraging comments.

Kindest regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. There is still a need for revising the English, both grammar and syntax. Although the manuscript has been improved, some grammatical errors urge for correction.
2. Also, please replace “nutritious” by “nutritional” along the entire manuscript (for example, see line 260 and line 299).
3. Please revise the significant numbers on Results description, including Tables.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thanks for you thorough comments. Please find our answers here below in blue italics

1. There is still a need for revising the English, both grammar and syntax. Although the manuscript has been improved, some grammatical errors urge for correction. We have review and modify where needed.
2. Also, please replace “nutritious” by “nutritional” along the entire manuscript (for example, see line 260 and line 299). done
3. Please revise the significant numbers on Results description, including Tables. done

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article " Feasibility of United Arab Emirates Native Seaweed Ulva intestinalis As a Food Source: Study of Nutrition and Minerals." reports on the nutritional value of the seaweed Ulva Intestinalis collected from the waters of the Emirates of Abu Dhabi.

This is a well prepared and written paper, however, the study was conducted on a single species of seaweed while the authors also mentioned other native species in the waters of Abu Dhabi. It seems (from the text in section 2.1 and from the section “Results and Discussion”) that the collected samples were pooled together to obtain only one sample for analysis. Therefore, possible differences in chemical composition between the different sampling sites along the coast of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi were not taken into account. This is necessary because the data were collected for only one year. In my opinion, this is a very simple study that lacks novelty. I propose to reject this paper in its present form and resubmit it after improving the experimental design and including information on the chemical composition of other species such as Chaetomorpha linum and Cladophora, and Ulva intestinalis with variations. When the authors compared the chemical composition of Ulva intestinalis with similar Ulva species from other studies, the ash, fiber and protein contents were low. It could be that the other native species are better sources for the nutrient parameters measured. Vitamin C content was below the detection limit in this study. In my opinion, the reported values are not reliable due to improper sample preparation (drying at 50 °C). Vitamin B1 is also relatively sensitive to high temperatures.

  

Abstract:

Lines 24-25: (limit of detection 3 ppm for vitamin B complex and ……) - text should be moved to the “Experimental” section.

Line 26: replace word nutrition

Introduction

The authors compare the nutrient data of seaweed and date palm “because of their wide availability as a local food source”. Is there any other reason for comparing these two botanically completely different plants? Furthermore, the purpose of the two foods in the human diet is completely different.

They are two

Materials and Methods:

Please provide more information about: How was the experiment designed to account for differences between sampling locations? How was the representative sample prepared?

Line 93: Instead of “The 50 °C dried …….”, I suggest, The dried sample was stored

Lines 98-100: You dried the sample at 50 °C for 4 hours and then it was dried at 105 °C to determine the dry weight. It is likely that the samples lost some water while drying at 50 °C.  

Which “volatile solids” were determined?  

Line 107: Replace “protein” with “total N”, and “calculated” with “determined”. Using the Kjeldahl method, we get the total N content, which is then converted to crude protein content using a conversion factor.

Line 110: “Trapped in boric acid.” delete “estimated” and replace with The excess of boric acid was neutralized by automatic titration.

Line 112: rewrite “based weight different”

Results and iscussion

Line 125: substitute “chemical analysis”

Table 1: complete the missing carbohydrate content

Line 130: Please provide a reference that proves that water content in seaweeds depends on structure and tissue morphology.

Line 132-134: In the study (ref 36), the samples were also washed with distilled water before analysis. The reported ash content is about 4 % which is lower than in this study.

The difference between the carbohydrate content of the seaweed in this study (5.15 %) and other studies (71.1 %, 49.09 %) is huge. And why? Is the low crude fiber content the only reason?

Line 236: In checking the titles of the papers (refs 74, 75 and 76) I found that they are seaweeds and not date fruits. Please check. The same comment applies to the references in Tables 4 and 5.

Line 242: “in” instead of “is”

I suggest to include the review paper Bahare Salehi et al. Current trends on seaweeds: Looking at chemical composition, phytopharmacology, and cosmetic applications. Molecules, 2019, 24, 4182. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting topic. Generally, the study was well designed. However, I have some issues:

1. Abstract: It should be added the information about the content of toxic elements.
2. Materials and methods: ICP-MS method should be described in detail including the information about the certified materials which was used in the analysis. In tab. 1 the content of carbohydrates should be included.
3. Results and Discussion: it will be better to separate these two parts.
4. Tab1 and tab 4 and also tab 2 and tab 5 have repeated results, the number of tables should be reduced without the repetition of the results.
5. Point 3.2: Authors wrote that „seaweed increased iron absorption in the rice meal ..” what was the reason for this result? Is it an increase in iron bioavailability from rice? from a whole meal? Or just an increase in the amount of iron followed by an increase in the bioavailability of Fe.
6. Moreover, Author mentioned an interesting aspect of this study that „The level of aluminum concentration can be manipulated through optimum seaweed pretreatment…” It should be described in detail because this method may be used to lower the level of Al. And maybe other toxic elements in Ulva intestinalis, but how about the level of essential elements?
7. In what amount daily this food may be eaten by a person? It is important information to assess the safety intake of this food. Authors should discuss the problem of Pb, Al., Ni, As contents in this food and show the safety of intake of this food and also eventually threats. This aspect should be also included in the conclusion.