Botanical Origin Assessment of Honey Based on ATR-IR Spectroscopy: A Comparison between the Efficiency of Supervised Statistical Methods and Artificial Intelligence
, Camelia Berghian-Grosan 1 and Bianca Simionescu 2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study performed a comparison between the models' capabilities constructed based on the associ- ation between ATR-IR spectroscopy with Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis and Support Vector Machines, respectively. The presented manuscript is interesting. One minor issues may improve this study. Please add more references (15 is a very small amount).
Author Response
Answer
More relevant references were added to the manuscript. Please, see the revised version of our manuscript. Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
You studied the ''Botanical origin assessment of honey based on ATR-IR spectroscopy. A comparison between the efficiency of supervised statistical methods and artificial intelligence.''
In your research you studied 73 honey samples analyzing them with the FTIR method. In my opinion there are many serious faults and gaps in presenting the methods used and the results obtained, that do not allow your research to be published.
In your abstruct you do not give sufficient information about your work and generally is not inclusive of your work.
In introduction, you provide enough information, but many references are missing.
The main problem is located in your materials and method. You categorized your samples in monofloral honeys, but you did not mentioned the way of doing that. Also, you stored your honey in room temperature, which is incorrect because you can lose many substances in that temperatures. Also, you heated the crystalised samples in 37 oC for one night, not enough time and temperature to liquify your crystals. That may lead in different infrared spectra of the samples.
For the bad planning of the experiment I believe that your research should be reject.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Please mention the sample that you used for the experiment. Is there any significant result ? Please mention it
2. would you kindly provide information about the instrument that you used for heating the honey ?
3. Further information about the specification of the instrument should be mentioned on the manuscript
4. Further information regarding significant results should be described more on tha results and discussion part
5. On the conclusion please make it more briefly
Author Response
- Please mention the sample that you used for the experiment. Is there any significant result? Please mention it
Answer
More details in this regard were added at the experimental part (Please, see the manuscript).
- would you kindly provide information about the instrument that you used for heating the honey ?
Answer
The information was provided in the manuscript.
- Further information about the specification of the instrument should be mentioned on the manuscript
Answer
The manuscript was improved with the specification of the FT-IR spectrometer.
- Further information regarding significant results should be described more on tha results and discussion part
Answer
The manuscript was modified accordingly.
- On the conclusion please make it more briefly
Answer
The conclusion section was improved. Please, see the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your replies on important thing of your manuscript.
First of all I want to thank you that you improved the abstruct and the introduction providing more information, but I still believe that there are serious faults to your methodology and in experimental design.
The first one is that you based on a certification that is provided from beekeepers, while you should have carried out some analyses to ensure the botanical origin of your samples, such as melyssopalynological analysis (to prove the honey category scientifically).
In your 5th answer, thank you for supporting my opinion that there are differences between the crystalised and non crystalised honey (my first review), because you provided a spectogram that clearly shows differences between crystalised and non crystalised honey, even with a naked eye. ( Check peaks 1339 to 1456 at two green spectrograms)
For the above reasons, I insist to my first decision to reject your articles
Author Response
Please find attached our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors already revised basd on our suggestions
Author Response
Thank you!
