Next Article in Journal
Special Issue: Recent Advances in Energy Efficiency of Buildings
Next Article in Special Issue
Compound Identification from Bromelia karatas Fruit Juice Using Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry and Evaluation of the Bactericidal Activity of the Extract
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics Simulation and Field Test Verification of Multi-Functional Beekeeping Loading Box Based on the Tracked Vehicle
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of the Fermentation Method on the Pigment Content in Pickled Beetroot and Red Bell Pepper Juices and Freeze-Dried Powders
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Variation of Nutritional Quality Depending on Harvested Plant Portion of Broccoli and Black Cabbage

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(13), 6668; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136668
by Bruno Mezzetti 1, Francesca Biondi 2, Francesca Balducci 1, Franco Capocasa 1, Elena Mei 2, Massimo Vagnoni 2, Marino Visciglio 2 and Luca Mazzoni 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(13), 6668; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136668
Submission received: 11 May 2022 / Revised: 27 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2022 / Published: 1 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Potential Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables II)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Present manuscript aimed to investigate the content of phytochemical compounds in different Brassica plant portions at different developmental stages for providing high antioxidant products to consumers. For this reason, broccoli are divided into heads and stems while for black cabbage leaves and seeds are analyzed. A comparison study between different cultivars of broccoli was made too, to investigate the interaction between genotype and plant portion. Developmental stage was also kept in consideration, comparing products from first and second harvest period. In generally, the methods were well shown; the results were useful; the abstract was clearly and accurately describing the content of the article; The problem was significant and concisely stated. However, some problems should be solved before acceptance.

1.     Abstract: I suggest author revise this part. Too many backgrounds and methods were described in this part.

2.     Materials and methods: following all the reagents and equipment, the information of company, city, country should be included.

3.     Part 2.1 Plant material: how to dry the samples?

4.     Part 2.2 Vegetables Sensorial Quality: the methods in detail should be described.

5.     Figure 1-Figure 3: I suggest delete the numbers in image.

6.     In all text and figure captions, p<0.05 should be italic.

7.     In all figures and tables, the means of upper and lower letters should be noted in figure captions.

8.     The writing English should be improved by native English speaker. I strongly suggest to check the manuscript carefully, especially please check the grammar and the completeness of the sentences once again. And please check the tense of the sentences. There should be consistency throughout the manuscript using past tense.

Author Response

Present manuscript aimed to investigate the content of phytochemical compounds in different Brassica plant portions at different developmental stages for providing high antioxidant products to consumers. For this reason, broccoli are divided into heads and stems while for black cabbage leaves and seeds are analyzed. A comparison study between different cultivars of broccoli was made too, to investigate the interaction between genotype and plant portion. Developmental stage was also kept in consideration, comparing products from first and second harvest period. In generally, the methods were well shown; the results were useful; the abstract was clearly and accurately describing the content of the article; The problem was significant and concisely stated. However, some problems should be solved before acceptance.

  1. Abstract: I suggest author revise this part. Too many backgrounds and methods were described in this part.

The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Abstract has been revised and shortened.

  1. Materials and methods: following all the reagents and equipment, the information of company, city, country should be included.

All the missing information were added.

  1. Part 2.1 Plant material: how to dry the samples?

Samples were not dried, but were stored as fresh material at -20°C.

  1. Part 2.2 Vegetables Sensorial Quality: the methods in detail should be described.

The methods for Soluble Solids Content and Titratable Acidity evaluation were deeper described.

  1. Figure 1-Figure 3: I suggest delete the numbers in image.

Numbers in images were deleted. Images were also updated and substituted with better images.

  1. In all text and figure captions, p<0.05 should be italic.

Done.

  1. In all figures and tables, the means of upper and lower letters should be noted in figure captions.

Done.

  1. The writing English should be improved by native English speaker. I strongly suggest to check the manuscript carefully, especially please check the grammar and the completeness of the sentences once again. And please check the tense of the sentences. There should be consistency throughout the manuscript using past tense.

The manuscript has been carefully checked again by the authors, the grammar and completeness was checked, and past tense was uniformed in the whole manuscript, where necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It’s an interesting paper to study variation of nutritional quality of broccoli, including Roya and Santee cultivars, and black cabbage. It evaluated the content of phytochemical compounds, the variation of antioxidants in different sampling portion and developmental stage of the plants. The total antioxidants capacity, total phenolics content and total anthocyanins content were measured. The sensoring quality such as soluble solids, titratable acidity and pH value was also determined and compared to study the genotype and plant portion interaction. A proof reading by a native English speaker is recommended to improve both language and organization quality. This paper is fairly complete and should be published. It can be improved with the following suggestions:

Line 32-33, Should “word” be “world”?

Line 115, what is “FRAP assay”, please provide more detailed description of assay method?

Line 151, Was sensorial quality analyzed based on the whole broccoli or portions of the broccoli?

Line 156, What is “SS”, First mentioned should not use abbreviation?

Line 157, What is “TA”, First mentioned should not use abbreviation?

Q: Have you considered environmental factor into your experimental design? How the environmental factors may impact your experimental results?



Author Response

It’s an interesting paper to study variation of nutritional quality of broccoli, including Roya and Santee cultivars, and black cabbage. It evaluated the content of phytochemical compounds, the variation of antioxidants in different sampling portion and developmental stage of the plants. The total antioxidants capacity, total phenolics content and total anthocyanins content were measured. The sensoring quality such as soluble solids, titratable acidity and pH value was also determined and compared to study the genotype and plant portion interaction. A proof reading by a native English speaker is recommended to improve both language and organization quality. This paper is fairly complete and should be published. It can be improved with the following suggestions:

 

Line 32-33, Should “word” be “world”?

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have corrected the term “world”

 

Line 115, what is “FRAP assay”, please provide more detailed description of assay method?

More details regarding the FRAP assay were provided in the manuscript.

 

Line 151, Was sensorial quality analyzed based on the whole broccoli or portions of the broccoli?

We thank the reviewer for the question. As specified in chapter 3.1, “Sensorial quality was analyzed on fresh material considering the whole samples of broccoli”, and not in the different portions.

 

Line 156, What is “SS”, First mentioned should not use abbreviation?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We substituted “SS” with the more correct “SSC”, which was already mentioned in the chapter 2.2

 

Line 157, What is “TA”, First mentioned should not use abbreviation?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. TA was already mentioned for the first time in the chapter 2.2.

 

Q: Have you considered environmental factor into your experimental design? How the environmental factors may impact your experimental results?

We thank the reviewer for the interesting question. Unfortuntely, we did not consider the environmental factors in study, despite we know well that environmental factors are strongly affecting nutritional ans sensorial composition in Brassicaceae. On this argument, we recently published a review in Applied Sciences entitled: “Environmental Conditions and Agronomical Factors Influencing the Levels of Phytochemicals in Brassica Vegetables Responsible for Nutritional and Sensorial Properties” (Biondi, F.; Balducci, F.; Capocasa, F.; Visciglio, M.; Mei, E.; Vagnoni, M.; Mezzetti, B.; Mazzoni, L. Environmental Conditions and Agronomical Factors Influencing the Levels of Phytochemicals in Brassica Vegetables Responsible for Nutritional and Sensorial Properties. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1927. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041927). In this review, we clearly stated that seasonal variation, light exposure, temperature, water availability, phytosanitary measures, sowing date and harvesting period are all factors linked to environmental conditions that can influence the quality, in particular nutritional content and profile, of Brassica vegetables. Different responses to seasonal variations were reported in several Brassica crops, such as broccoli, kale, and turnip; this effect is determined mainly by temperatures and day length during the period before harvest.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was improved enough, I suggest accept it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your positive feedback!

Back to TopTop