Effect of Different Post-Harvest Processing Methods on the Chemical Constituents of Notopterygium franchetii by an UHPLC-QTOF-MS-MS Metabolomics Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction:
“Among them, coumarins, especially isoimperatorin, notopterol, and bergapten, are well known to be the major bioactive compounds, and contribute to NF’s anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-cancer activities[8-9].”
Could you add references with deal with coumarins biological activities in Notopterygium spp?
Results (3.3 Quantification of six analytes in fresh NF and NF dried by different methods)
-“The content in far infrared radiation dried samples decreased by 63.44%, which was the most significant change in all samples. This interesting phenomenon suggests that far infrared radiation drying destroys some of the chemical constituents”.
Table 3 reported that the far infrared ray drying has a reduction rate of 58.04% and not 63.44%.
-“Obviously, the durations required for vacuum and hot air drying were much shorter than those of sunlight and shade drying, which may lead to greater degradation of all six components”
According to the Table 1, hot air drying was not the shorter. Furthermore, I suggest to write again the sentences because it seems that a short duration leads to a greater degradation of all six components.
“In summary, shade and sunlight drying were superior to far infrared radiation and vacuum drying.”
What does “Superior” means?
“Obviously, shorter drying durations can preserve better for the bioactive constituents….. However, due to its long drying duration, hot air drying in the oven resulted in a similar chemical composition to that of fresh”. It is not clear
In my opinion, this paragraph should be written more clearly
3.5 Chemical trasformation of NF during drying
"The increase in compound 17 after shade drying was 10.0-fold..."
What does "sensitive" to shade drying means?
Conclusions
Could you explain better the reason for which hot air drying method is optimal drying method?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the manscript is the cientific interest and is very well written
Author Response
We have consulted native English speakers for paper revision and attached here the statement of editing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very well written, well researched, experiments carried put scientifically. All the methods are presented clearly. Results have been analyzed and presented well.
Author Response
The paper had been revised by a native English speaker. The statement of editing was attached here.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This work is a well-done research in the field of analytical chemistry. From my point of view, it is suitable for publication in Molecules after major revision.
Authors have compared extraction systems, nevertheless they did not include in the manuscript an optimization for each system. How did authors select extraction parameters? it has been described the type of solvent, but for example optimization of microwave or freeze drying (first and second freeze drying parameters) has not been described and has to be included in the new version. In addition, more details about technical parameters could provide useful information in order to carry out the extraction in other laboratory.
Concerning optimization of HPLC analysis, authors have reported the optimization of the chromatographic separation using different columns, mobile phase, temperature and gradients. This part has to be rewritten for a better understanding. Authors selected a column based on the best chromatographic separation under a specific conditions. Since the stationary phases are different more than one conditions should be tested before to choose a column. Author should justify the selection of the column.
Concerning detector, is DAD or PDA? Optimization of wavelength? Or selection?
Author Response
Please see the attachment. English language and some minor spell has been checked by a native English speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The new version is suitable to be published in Molecules
