Adding UVA and Far-Red Light to White LED Affects Growth, Morphology, and Phytochemicals of Indoor-Grown Microgreens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written and provides interesting results on microgreens grown in different lighting treatments. I found minor grammatical mistakes that should be addressed but nothing that would prevent publication. I have the following suggestions regarding the manuscript:
Lines 16-21: This statement sounds conflicting the way it is worded. Consider rewording to ensure clarity.
Lines 29-38: This paragraph is slightly choppy, you may want to vary sentence length to improve flow.
Line 85: Is a 1020 tray the number of cells or a brand? Please specify.
Lines 160-168: Authors refer to TPC and TEAC for lettuce leaves. This should be changed to microgreens.
Line 197: Remove "grown under indoor environment"
Line 251: Change add to adding
Line 293: Change play to played
Author Response
Thanks so much for your comments! Please see the attached file for our responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 81: you were growing all four different species in the same chamber? This is not clear with your description. Please clarify it.
Line 84: it is not very clear your description. Please rephrase to be more understandable. Each container had one species or they were all the four examined species combined?
Line 96: How much was the irrigation schedule for each plant. Was it the same for all the different species?
Line 102: please also mention the CO2 values inside the growth chamber.
Line 131: and the rest was W-LED? please be precise on that.
Table 3: W+U-T+FR In this scenario the total PFD is 99% Check it again
W+U-E+FR In this scenairo the TPFD is 101 and the PAR is 46 instead of 47 that you mention. Please check again the numbers and revise them.
Table 4 & 5 & 6: in this table we cannot see any details about the statistical test such as df, F-stat. Where are the results for Mean Values and Standard Deviation? Please include the statistical data in your table and note the significant difference with "*" or "a,b, ab" values
Line 296: You have not included anywhere the mean values from FW and DW. How can we understand this without any visualization of the data (table, figure etc.)
Line 300 .. sensitive for basil than other species: How do you explain this result? Is it related with the physiological responses of basil, is it because of photoreceptors activation?
Line 306 (replacing PPFD to UVA): To what extent you can replace PPFD with UVA? Are you generalizing your results of 21-23% UVA with total replacement of PPFD? Please be more specific.
Line 310: Since it had no effect in plant growth when it was applied at the final 5 days, would you recommend the UVA adding even if it would increase the capital cost and the energy demand for such lighting operation?
Line 329: I believe you should also mention here the parameters that could affect the microgreens biomass accumulation in all the species that you study and not only in kohlrabi. Meaning, why we see differentiations in plant biomass for the other species.
Line 356: How you explain the different trends in Anthocyanin for the different species with and without the application of FR?
Fig S2: How you explain so big variation in Anthocyanin for basil plants?
Line 369: Shouldn't these two paragraphs be under the Conclusion Chapter?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions. Please see the attached file for all responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. This manuscript is contribute knowledge in using LED to improve quality, even though most of data show no significant differences. However, pls adding more information about antioxidant which related to this study in the introduction section.
2. Why authors interested in TEAC? So authors should convince reader.
3. Discussion section: Due to light intensity differ among treatments, can you explain more detail how light intensity affect to tested parameters
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please see the responses in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Again, the total photon proportion in the LED of this scenario W+U-T+FR is 99%. Check your values.
Still, the doi link for reference No28 cannot be found. Please check your URL link.
Author Response
Thank you again for your careful and detailed review, comments, and suggestion.
1) We have fixed the number and now the total is 100
2) we have provided the correct doi link.
thanks!
