Physico-Chemical and Melissopalynological Characterization of Czech Honey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is very interesting, with a significant cognitive value. The selection and implementation of the methodology does not raise any objections. Also the presentation and discussion of the results are of a high standard, however the manuscript needs some minor technical corrections, as listed below.

1. The drawback of the work is the quality (resolution) of the presented figures. The Authors should improve the quality of the figures, as well as in figure 1 should include the names of the countries in English (including the neighboring countries).
2. Tables 2 and 3 should have an explanation of "a", "b" and "c" in the footer.
3. The Authors should also pay special attention to the explanation of all abbreviations used in the work, e.g. 5-hydroxymethylfurfural or the sum (and also the ratio) of fructose and glucose.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for these pertinent comments.

 

We agree that parts of article were not specified in detail. We revised and we corrected all yours comments. The correction according to your comments are highlighted by green colour in the manuscript.

Correction list is in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Article: Physico-Chemical and Melissopalynological Characterization of Czech Honey.

The article deals with studied data for the quality control of Czech Honey, which are interesting its importance as food.

1. Which type of Adulteration of honey may be found in Europe?

2. Which positive or negative standard can be used in the methods. Example, it is will be better if used sucrose syrup as negative or adulterated sample.

3.can you compare your results with standard data of honey in the British Pharmacopoeia or in other international pharmacopoeia.

4. Table 3.: in the first column it is better to write the names of the plants families not in italic form, and the names of the plant genera must be written in italic form, such as "Artemisia sp." instead "Artemisia sp.".

5. "Umbellifereae"; this is not clear, can give name of genera or species.

6. In the first column in table 3; there are no names given for the plant species, can you identify the species names according to the flora data of your country.

7. Figures are not clear, not easy to read. Therefore, they must be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for these pertinent comments.

 

We agree that parts of article were not specified in detail. We revised and we corrected all yours comments. The correction according to your comments are highlighted by blue colour in the manuscript.

Correction list is in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

This manuscript reports about the original research topic:  Characterization the physico-chemical properties of honeys and the melissopalynological profile of Czech honeys and their comparison with the published data on European honeys.

Research is interesting as well as it has a scientific value. However, the submitted manuscript has some flaws that have to be revised before publication:

 

• Lines: 45-46 The chemical composition of honey  includes natural bioactive substances as well as bacteriostatic or antibiotic substances. Also presence of lactic acid bacteria in these products has some impact on their quality. The next important matter is a microbiological quality of honey and health risks. Please, complete these informations.
• Line 89: Split the section 2.1 into several subsections depending on the performed examinations.
• The name of the manufacturer, the city and the country of company should be added to the names of the reagents, equipment or raw used  materials.
• Line 91: What the higher or lower value for the color expressed in  mm Pfund, means?  Please complete it.
• Line 142: For which p-value were performed statistical tests? It is in the text of manuscript (line 300), but not in suitable section 2.3 Statistical Analysis.
• Line 144: add the authors,” …. Persano Oddo and Piro [5]”.
• Figure 1: title missing, unreadable. Please complete and correct it.
• Figures 2,3: unreadable, please correct it.
• Table 2: Below  the Table 2 add explanatory notes with informations: data are expressed as mean value±standard deviation. That way you avoid repeating. There is no result of statistical analysis for example for maltose content.
• In the order to structure of terms used in manuscript, add section Abbreviations.
• Table 3: Please, below Table 3 add explanatory notes with following informations: data are expressed in [%] as mean value±standard deviation. There is no result of statistical analysis for example for Quercus sp.*.
• Please also add below Table 2, Table 3 short note: Mean values denoted by the same letters aren’t significantly different (p> 0.05 or p> 0.01?). I’m not sure  which one

p-value is correct, because these informations are missing in subsection 2.3. Statistical Analysis.

The important part of this study could be a microbiological analysis of  quality and sensory analysis of  tested honeys, what can be done as part of the continuation of this research theme in the future.   

From my point of view, this manuscript is  appropriate for publication in Journal  Applied Sciences after minor revision, given the above aspects.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for these pertinent comments.

 

We agree that parts of article were not specified in detail. We revised and we corrected all yours comments. The correction according to your comments are highlighted by red colour in the manuscript.

Correction list is in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections are good done.

In table 3. "Apiaceae and Apiales". Move the two words to exchange each other's place. It will be better, if you have a genus name instead the order name of Apiales.

Umbelliferae is a synonym name for Apiaceae. Both are Latin names of a family of plants.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for yours comment.

 

We agree with your comment. We revised the table 3. We exchange Apiaceae and Apiales. And we choose used all of term Apiaceae and Umbelliferae “Apiaceae (Umbelliferae)“. The correction according to your comment was highlighted by blue colour in the manuscript.

Following this, we also changed the note under the table 3.