Microbial and Sensory Evaluation of Halophytes Cultivated in a Soilless System Under Different Salinities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the influence of salinity on the microbial quality of halophytes Disphyma crassifolium, Inula crithmoides, Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum, and Suaeda maritima cultivated in a soilless cultivation system. Meanwhile, it evaluates the sensory qualities of D. crassifolium and S. maritima. The research topic aligns with the current research hotspots in the field of plant cultivation and quality assessment, and has certain theoretical significance and potential application value. The research design follows scientific norms, and the acquisition and analysis of experimental data have a certain degree of logic and reliability. However, there are some areas in the paper that need improvement in terms of content completeness, expression accuracy, and logical coherence. It is recommended that the author make minor revisions before acceptance. The specific suggestions are as follows.

1. Elaboration of Research Background and Objectives
In the introduction, the exploration of the research background is not in - depth enough, failing to fully demonstrate the important status of the selected halophytes in multiple fields such as ecosystems, agricultural economy, and food science. It is recommended that the author consult and integrate relevant cutting - edge research results, and elaborate in detail on the unique biological characteristics of these halophytes, their roles in the remediation of saline - alkaline soils, and their potential edible and medicinal values, so as to highlight the necessity and practical application prospects of this research. The expression of the research objectives can be more precise and specific. Clearly state what specific theoretical basis and practical guidance are expected to be provided for the optimization of soilless cultivation techniques, food safety assurance, and product development of halophytes by evaluating the influence of salinity on microbial quality and sensory qualities.

2. Description of Research Methods
The description of the microbial counting method lacks key details. For example, regarding the culture medium used, its components, scope of application, and the scientific basis for choosing this medium should be elaborated in detail. The setting of culture time and temperature conditions should be explained in combination with the growth characteristics of microorganisms and relevant standard specifications to enhance the scientific nature and reproducibility of the method. In the sensory evaluation part, the specific evaluation process and standards are not clearly defined. The author should describe in detail the definition of evaluation indicators, quantification methods, and the construction principles of the scoring system. At the same time, explain the selection criteria, professional backgrounds, and training situations of the chef group to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the sensory evaluation results.

3. Discussion and Conclusion Sections
In the discussion section, the exploration of the mechanism by which salinity affects microbial populations and sensory qualities is not in - depth enough. It mostly describes phenomena and lacks an analysis of the internal physiological and biochemical processes. It is recommended that the author combine the cutting - edge theories of plant physiology, microbiology, and food science to deeply analyze how salinity affects the microbial community structure and sensory qualities by influencing factors such as the osmotic pressure regulation of plants, the synthesis of secondary metabolites, and the growth environment of microorganisms, and quote relevant authoritative research results for support and verification. The conclusion section should be more concise and rigorous, accurately summarizing the main findings, innovation points, and practical application value of the research. Avoid statements that are inconsistent with the research results or over - extended, and ensure that the conclusion is closely related to the previous research content and has high credibility and guiding significance.

4. Language Expression and Format Specification
Some sentences are complex in expression and lack clear logic, which affects the reader's understanding of the content. The author should carefully check and optimize the language expression, simplify long and complex sentences, use accurate and concise professional terms, and improve the readability and fluency of the article. The connection between different parts of the content is not natural enough, and the logical transition is not smooth. It is recommended that the author add appropriate transitional sentences at the beginning or end of paragraphs to clarify the logical relationship between different parts of the content, making the article structure more compact and the hierarchy more distinct. The citation of references should be more standardized and comprehensive. Ensure that the cited references are closely related to the content in the article and the format meets the requirements of the journal. At the same time, it is recommended that the author supplement some high - quality research results published recently to reflect the cutting - edge nature and timeliness of the research.

Overall, this research has certain academic value and application potential. After the author carefully revises and improves the paper according to the above suggestions, the quality of the paper is expected to be significantly improved and may meet the publication requirements of this journal. It is recommended to accept the paper after minor revisions. 

Author Response

Comment:

This paper focuses on the influence of salinity on the microbial quality of halophytes Disphyma crassifolium, Inula crithmoides, Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum, and Suaeda maritima cultivated in a soilless cultivation system. Meanwhile, it evaluates the sensory qualities of D. crassifolium and S. maritima. The research topic aligns with the current research hotspots in the field of plant cultivation and quality assessment, and has certain theoretical significance and potential application value. The research design follows scientific norms, and the acquisition and analysis of experimental data have a certain degree of logic and reliability. However, there are some areas in the paper that need improvement in terms of content completeness, expression accuracy, and logical coherence. It is recommended that the author make minor revisions before acceptance. The specific suggestions are as follows.

Reply:

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We’ve done an extensive review of the manuscript following their observations and indications.

 

Comment:

1. Elaboration of Research Background and Objectives

In the introduction, the exploration of the research background is not in - depth enough, failing to fully demonstrate the important status of the selected halophytes in multiple fields such as ecosystems, agricultural economy, and food science. It is recommended that the author consult and integrate relevant cutting - edge research results, and elaborate in detail on the unique biological characteristics of these halophytes, their roles in the remediation of saline - alkaline soils, and their potential edible and medicinal values, so as to highlight the necessity and practical application prospects of this research.

Reply:

Following the reviewer’s comments, the introduction was extensively reviewed and further aspects related with adaptations of halophytes to saline environments were introduced (L40-53), as well as possible ecological roles (L54-60) and medicinal value (L77-86).

 

Comment:

The expression of the research objectives can be more precise and specific. Clearly state what specific theoretical basis and practical guidance are expected to be provided for the optimization of soilless cultivation techniques, food safety assurance, and product development of halophytes by evaluating the influence of salinity on microbial quality and sensory qualities.

Reply:

The research objectives and possible applications of the study were better underlined, as suggested by the reviewer (L109-120).

 

Comment:

2. Description of Research Methods

The description of the microbial counting method lacks key details. For example, regarding the culture medium used, its components, scope of application, and the scientific basis for choosing this medium should be elaborated in detail. The setting of culture time and temperature conditions should be explained in combination with the growth characteristics of microorganisms and relevant standard specifications to enhance the scientific nature and reproducibility of the method.

Reply:

The halophyte plants studied in the present work were intended for human consumption, so food operators must ensure that the plants produced comply with the relevant microbiological criteria set out in the European Regulations [1, 2]. According to these Regulations, the reference analysis methods are those recommended by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Thus, the culture media used were those described in the ISO standards recommended in the European Regulations regarding microbial criteria for food hygiene. The incubation period and temperature (indicated in the manuscript) were also set according to the standards. In this way, we decided not to include the composition of culture media used to avoid overloading the text, as they are standardized and easily found in the citations/references.

[1] European Commission COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs 2005, 338.

[2] European Commission COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1441/2007 of 5 December 2007 Amending Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuff 2007, 322.

 

Comment:

In the sensory evaluation part, the specific evaluation process and standards are not clearly defined. The author should describe in detail the definition of evaluation indicators, quantification methods, and the construction principles of the scoring system. At the same time, explain the selection criteria, professional backgrounds, and training situations of the chef group to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the sensory evaluation results.

Reply:

Following the reviewer’s suggestions, further data pertaining the design of the questionnaires, quantification methods and selection and training of the chefs was added to the manuscript. For this reason, section 2.4 now reads between lines 200 and 255.

 

Comment:

3. Discussion and Conclusion Sections

In the discussion section, the exploration of the mechanism by which salinity affects microbial populations and sensory qualities is not in - depth enough. It mostly describes phenomena and lacks an analysis of the internal physiological and biochemical processes. It is recommended that the author combine the cutting - edge theories of plant physiology, microbiology, and food science to deeply analyze how salinity affects the microbial community structure and sensory qualities by influencing factors such as the osmotic pressure regulation of plants, the synthesis of secondary metabolites, and the growth environment of microorganisms, and quote relevant authoritative research results for support and verification.

Reply:

As suggested by the reviewer, the Discussion section was improved and now provides possible morphological and/or physiological explanations for the effects of salt stress on crop productivity (L338-350), levels of microbial contamination (L388-404), and sensory evaluation (L439-443).

 

Comment:

The conclusion section should be more concise and rigorous, accurately summarizing the main findings, innovation points, and practical application value of the research. Avoid statements that are inconsistent with the research results or over - extended, and ensure that the conclusion is closely related to the previous research content and has high credibility and guiding significance.

Reply:

Following the reviewer’s recommendations, the Conclusion section was re-written and now, more clearly recommends the optimal salinity range for commercial production, highlightin its advantages in balancing microbial safety and sensory acceptance.

 

Comment:

4. Language Expression and Format Specification

Some sentences are complex in expression and lack clear logic, which affects the reader's understanding of the content. The author should carefully check and optimize the language expression, simplify long and complex sentences, use accurate and concise professional terms, and improve the readability and fluency of the article. The connection between different parts of the content is not natural enough, and the logical transition is not smooth. It is recommended that the author add appropriate transitional sentences at the beginning or end of paragraphs to clarify the logical relationship between different parts of the content, making the article structure more compact and the hierarchy more distinct. The citation of references should be more standardized and comprehensive. Ensure that the cited references are closely related to the content in the article and the format meets the requirements of the journal. At the same time, it is recommended that the author supplement some high - quality research results published recently to reflect the cutting - edge nature and timeliness of the research.

Reply:

The manuscript was extensively revised and the whole text was check. We hope it now meets the reviewer’s request for fluency and readability. The references were also checked and it was ensured that they meet the journals’ requirements.

 

Comment:

Overall, this research has certain academic value and application potential. After the author carefully revises and improves the paper according to the above suggestions, the quality of the paper is expected to be significantly improved and may meet the publication requirements of this journal. It is recommended to accept the paper after minor revisions. 

Reply:

We thank the reviewer’s kind words and thank their analysis and time taken in the revision of this manuscript which certainly improved with their revisions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experiments in this manuscript are highly meaningful, and the conclusions are intriguing. Following a thorough evaluation, I have the following key comments for the authors to address in order to meet the journal’s requirements.

1. Abstract: It is recommended to briefly introduce the research background of this manuscript in the first sentence of the abstract.

2. Line 48: The abbreviation "L." is repeated redundantly.

3. Introduction: Further emphasize the gaps in existing literature on microbial safety studies of halophytes to clarify the novelty of this research. It is advised to streamline the morphological descriptions of the plants and instead focus on the link between their edible value and microbial risks.

4. Experimental design: Clarify the number of independent replicates for each salinity treatment (e.g., whether each salinity had three replicates) and verify whether experimental conditions (e.g., greenhouse temperature and humidity) were consistent across treatments.

5. Sensory evaluation: While professional chefs participated, the manuscript does not mention how potential biases from individual preferences were controlled (e.g., blind testing or standardized scoring guidelines). Additional details should be added to enhance methodological rigor.

6. Figure 2: The type of error bars (SD/SEM) is not specified in the figure.

7. Table 1: The footnote should clarify the meaning of "≤2" (e.g., "below the detection limit").

8. Discussion: It is recommended to include limitations of the study (e.g., only short-term microbial changes were assessed, and long-term storage or cooking effects were not addressed).

9. Conclusions: Explicitly recommend the optimal salinity range for commercial production and highlight its advantages in balancing microbial safety and sensory acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please carefully proofread the entire manuscript again to eliminate any remaining grammatical or formatting errors.

Author Response

Comment:

The experiments in this manuscript are highly meaningful, and the conclusions are intriguing. Following a thorough evaluation, I have the following key comments for the authors to address in order to meet the journal’s requirements

Reply:

We thank the reviewer’s kind words. The manuscript was revised addressing their comments and we hope to have met their requirements.

 

Comment:

Abstract: It is recommended to briefly introduce the research background of this manuscript in the first sentence of the abstract.

Reply:

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, an introductory sentence pertaining the interest of halophytes for human consumption and the need to complement the knowledge on their microbial contamination was added to the beginning of the abstract (L15-17).

 

Comment:

Line 48: The abbreviation "L." is repeated redundantly.

Reply:

The Introduction section was revised and the redundancy noted removed.

 

Comment:

Introduction: Further emphasize the gaps in existing literature on microbial safety studies of halophytes to clarify the novelty of this research. It is advised to streamline the morphological descriptions of the plants and instead focus on the link between their edible value and microbial risks.

Reply:

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the description of the morphological traits of the species was shortened (61-68) and their nutritional and functional composition described in further detail (L77-86).

 

Comment:

Experimental design: Clarify the number of independent replicates for each salinity treatment (e.g., whether each salinity had three replicates) and verify whether experimental conditions (e.g., greenhouse temperature and humidity) were consistent across treatments.

Reply:

The information requested by the reviewer was added to the text in L124-125 and L167.

 

Comment:

Sensory evaluation: While professional chefs participated, the manuscript does not mention how potential biases from individual preferences were controlled (e.g., blind testing or standardized scoring guidelines). Additional details should be added to enhance methodological rigor.

Reply:

The sensory analytical methods description was extensively reviewed and the details requested by the reviewer added (L200-255).

 

Comment:

Figure 2: The type of error bars (SD/SEM) is not specified in the figure.

Reply:

The information regarding the type of error bars used was added to the legend of Figure 2.

 

Comment:

Table 1: The footnote should clarify the meaning of "≤2" (e.g., "below the detection limit").

Reply:

Thank you for noticing. The meaning of "≤2" was added to the footnote of Table 1 (331-332).

 

Comment:

Discussion: It is recommended to include limitations of the study (e.g., only short-term microbial changes were assessed, and long-term storage or cooking effects were not addressed).

Reply:

These plants have a relatively short shelf-life (15 days) under refrigeration. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, a sentence with the limitations of the study, that is, lack of assessment of the effect of storage or shelf-life under refrigeration on the microbial contamination, was added (L402-404).

 

Comment:

Conclusions: Explicitly recommend the optimal salinity range for commercial production and highlight its advantages in balancing microbial safety and sensory acceptance.

Reply:

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have revised the Conclusion section accordingly.