Bioactive Compounds, Nutritional Quality and Oxidative Stability of Cold-Pressed Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) Oils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, Ratusz and colleagues aimed to analyze the quality and quantify bioactive compounds in 76 camelina oils, and to explore the impact of analyzed parameters to camelina oils oxidative stability. Despite the overall interest and scientific soundness, some aspects should be addressed by authors:
- l. 93: "according in line" > please revise
- l. 172-173: please revise this sentence, it is confuse and incomplete
- tables 2 and 3 should be included as supplementary material
- l. 283-287: please revise
- l. 289-296: the term "oil" is highly repeated, please revise
- in overall some parts of the manuscript, specially results and discussion sections should be improved in terms of organization and structure/fluency
- in addition, I would like to ask authors to explain the real advances/benefits of this work in terms of applied sciences progression and specifically, to camelina oil, what are the main advantages in relation to the existent literature. As authors stated in results and discussion section most of the findings presented here were already stated in other reports.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the you for yours valuable comments and remarks.
Based on all of the comments we applied changes that helped to improve the manuscript.
The changes are presented in the attached file.
Best regards,
Katarzyna Ratusz
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the authors analyzed bioactive compounds, nutritional quality and oxidative stability the 29 cold pressed camelina (Camelina sativa L.) oils. Fatty acids and phytosterols content by HG-FID and tocopherols by HPLC was determined. The high nutritional value of camelina oils was confirmed owing to high content of tocopherols, phytosterols and carotenoids. A significant impact of primary (PV) and total oxidation (TOTOX) of camelina oil on oxidative stability evaluated 426 by both Rancimat test and PDSC methods was found.
The topic is within the scope of this journal.
1. Authors need to analyze some more biological activities.
<span style=";Times New Roman", serif; ;">2. English of the MS needs to be greatly improved. The English of the whole article has to be checked carefully to eliminate linguistic errors.
3. Discussion needs more clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the you for yours valuable comments and remarks.
Based on all of the comments we applied changes that helped to improve the manuscript.
The changes are presented in the attached file.
Best Regards,
Katarzyna Ratusz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the present study, authors report bioactive compounds, nutritional quality and oxidative stability of cold pressed camelina (Camelina sativa L.) oils. The methods for experiment are classic and sound and the contents are well-organized. The experimental results were interesting for the researchers in the related field, but some revisions should be addressed as following.
1. line 45, n-3 (in italic)
2. Please check again if the equations 1-4 are correctly added.
3. There are some space errors between figure and unit; lines 135, 145, 151, 188, 225 etc.
4. There are some mistakes of interpretation about the min. and max. values in Tables 1-3.
4-1) In Table 1, max. of TOTOX should be 8.10, right?
4-2) In Table 1, max. of K232 should be 2.01?
4-3) The corresponding sentences to the above results should be also corrected.
4-4) In Table 2, max. of C20:4 should be 2.3?
4-5) In Table 2, max. of SFA should be 10.0?
4-6) In Table 2, max. of MUFA should be 36.3?
4-7) In Table 2, max. of PUFA should be 58.4?
4-8) The corresponding sentences to the above results should be also corrected.
4-9) In Table 3, max. of avenasterol should be 23?
4-10) lines 349, 355, the exact values of min. and max. in Table 3 should be corrected.
5. In conclusion, authors are suggested to emphasize the significance of this study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the you for yours valuable comments and remarks.
Based on all of the comments we applied changes that helped to improve the manuscript.
The changes are presented in the attached file.
Best Regards,
Katarzyna Ratusz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors present a research paper entitled "Bioactive compounds, nutritional quality and oxidative stability of cold-pressed camelina oils (Camelina sativa L.) .The manuscript reports an interesting topic, which presents an important source of PUFA from camelina. The topic falls within the scope of the journal and the results presented are innovative and interesting. Nevertheless, in my opinion, to be worthy of being published in The Applied Sciences, this manuscript must be revised. Below are listed some suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript:
Abbreviations should be given as fully in the first places.
In all the body of the text, English must be improved.
Ln 59-60: please, add more literature to underline the central role of fatty acids from nutritional point of view. Some suggestions:
1. Food Anal. Methods (2017) 10: 970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-016-0652-x
2. Nutrition Bulletin (2006) 31:178-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2006.00571.x
Ln 273: please, add more literature regarding the importance of W3/W6 ratio. Suggestion: Experimental Biology and Medicine (2008) 233(6):674-88. DOI: 10.3181/0711-MR-311
Ln 37: please, add more literature regarding the nutritional value of other oils. Suggestions:
1. doi: Foods. 2018 Mar; 7(3): 30.10.3390/foods7030030
2. British Poultry Science (2000) 41(2): 182-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/713654913
Ln 351: Please, add more literature regarding the phytosterols, such as: Food Anal. Methods (2018) 11: 1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-017-1098-5
Overall, the data presented and discussed in the "Results and discussion" section are abundant and I think they should be better organized by inserting the paragraph concerning the PCA well.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the you for yours valuable comments and remarks.
Based on all of the comments we applied changes that helped to improve the manuscript.
The changes are presented in the attached file.
Best Regards,
Katarzyna Ratusz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept!
Reviewer 2 Report
requested corrections has been completed.
