Extractable Compounds in a Birch Tree—Variations in Composition and Yield Potentials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Reviewer notes the lack of valuable discussion regarding the amount of resources (e.g. energy, equipment, solvents, and carbon emissions) needed to create value-added products and how this compares to the actual usefulness of the products. Especially because the use of triterpenoids is given by the Authors as a reason to proceed with this work. Is it, not the case that triterpenoids are mostly used as a folk remedy? However, the reviewer understands that this is not the aim of the study.
2. The reviewer views this work as a solid report from known experiments made on new material. The article fills the knowledge gap and can be useful in future studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We want to thank you for the invested time you spent on reviewing the manuscript. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for the comments provided, which have allowed us to gain new aspects on the research.
Please find the our answer on your annotations and recommendations on the attached file.
Best regards
J. Appelt
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have conducted a large number of experiments for the analysis of silver birch wood, but the information provided in this article does not bring new information, it only verifies what is already known. The main meaning of the entire post is missing. Many authors have already dealt with the analysis of betulin and lupeol from birch wood and bark, and the extraction methods are also well known. What is the novelty of this contribution? If I were to analyze the errors in the entire post in detail, I have the following comments:
- Abstract: contains only general information, there are no concrete conclusions resulting from the research;
- Introduction: it is written very well, but there is a lack of information about the importance of the contribution, why the amount of betulin and lupeol is determined, why are these substances important?
- The experimental part is written well and clearly.
- Results and discussion: it is written very precisely and there is also a comparison with the results of other authors and a statistical evaluation
- Conclusions: they are general and most of them are well known.
Despite the fact that the contribution is very well written, it does not bring new knowledge, it only verifies what is already known, so I do not recommend publishing the article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We want to thank you for the invested time you spent on reviewing the manuscript. In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for the comments provided, which have allowed us to gain new aspects on the research.
Please find the our answer on your annotations and recommendations on the attached file.
Best regards
J. Appelt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No other comments.
