Analysis of Key Chemical Components in Aqueous Extract Sediments of Panax Ginseng at Different Ages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting study, which investigates the changes in physicochemical properties of ginseng aqueous extracts, produced from different ages ginsengs during 40 days of storage. The subject is interesting and worth investigation, because due to its prominent health benefits, ginseng is suitable raw material for the production of functional foods/beverages and nutraceuticals. However, there are some serious comments and remarks that should be addressed.

1. The title of the manuscript is ambiguous and need revision. The text “ginseng aqueous extracts of different ages” points that aqueous extracts, instead of ginseng are of different age. This should be corrected also on many place in the text (i.e. the abstract “we analysed 12 the physicochemical properties of ginseng aqueous extracts aged 3-6 years,”. Please, check and correct throughout the whole manuscript.
2. The Latin name of ginseng should be included in the title, abstract and keywords.
3. Revise the list of keywords, because these do not represent well the essence of the study. Furthermore, there is a repetition of ginseng in the first two keywords
4. In the abstract revise “of their unique efficacy 10 advantages”, because it is not clear.
5. Explain what is ΔE in the abstract. Avoid using abbreviations in the abstract.
6. Instead of finishing abstract with “This study can provide a basic basis for selecting the optimum ginseng age for ginseng beverage processing and accurately predicting the sediment amount.” Authors should write the main finding of the study and to recommend which age is the most optimal.
7. Revise “Korea, South Korea” in the Introduction. Maybe North Korea, South Korea, or Korean peninsula?
8. Revise the sentence “Ginseng beverages are unique and popular among functional beverages for their unique efficacy”
9. Introduction does not explain well what is the novelty of the study. Authors should provided better review of the literature on sediment formation of ginseng beverages.
10. Formulate clear and well-defined aim of the study.
11. The procedure describing obtaining of extracts is poorly described and lack important details, i.e. what was the amount of ginseng, how was the pasteurization applied, etc.
12. Point 2.7.5. Explain the abbreviations of individual ginsenoides.
13. In fact, Table 1 is not a table, it is a figure. Furthermore, it is not informative. Authors should remove it from the main text of the manuscript and to present it as a supplementary material.
14. Remove the introduction texts “Routine chemical composition analysis:” and “Analysis of ginsenosides:”, because there are not informative. Instead, start directly with the discussion as it is.
15. Table 3. First line. What is “Clarified”? Instead, use extract.
16. The English of “different ginseng ages” is not correct. Revise throughout the whole manuscript.
17. In general, the English of the manuscript is not good and undermines the significance of its findings. English language should be thoroughly checked and revised.
18. Table 3 contains too much data, which is confusing for the reader. Mineral content could be presented in separate table. Moreover, the number of digits after the decimal point should be reduced to 2, instead of 3.
19. When using small letters indicating significant differences, “a” letter should be used for the lowest value, “b” for the second, “c” for the third and so on. Therefore, small letters in tables 2 and 3 should be rearranged to fulfill this rule.
20. The conclusion should be shorter and more convincing. Comment just the most important findings of the study. This is especially valid for the text Based on the above findings, the selection of raw materials for ginseng beverage processing will be based on the evidence, and the use of deionized or distilled water in the process will have a positive effect on reducing the turbidity and sediment of beverages. The selection of suitable complexing agents can improve the clarity of beverages. Adding the right amount of stabilizer can effectively improve the stability of the beverage system.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors should consider some minor changes of your manuscript. In my opinion pictures from table 1 should be removed, or the the reference picture of vial with water should be added since in the current form I'm not able to tell if these picture are prove for sedimentations or turbidity. Data from table 3 should be selected and only the most important should be presented as numbers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The authors compare the extractability and quality of ginseng samples of unknown field origin and different ages. The main problem is that the samples were not obtained from the same field probably and environmental culture conditions. If the author recognizes the limitations of this work, the study can be useful for future and controlled studies about ginseng. In general, the implications of composition analysis required more discussion. Other considerations are mentioned below.

 

Material and methods

The number of replicates used is missing here (n=3) and in some figures (n=3, line 182). Please review it throughout the manuscript, particularly when you use SD or SE (also you should specify it).

Line 72. The source of the ginseng material should be mentioned. If you can not ensure the same origin, then the comparison among aging times is not valid because the source of material can be interfering in your conclusions.

Lines 77, 85-86, 92. Speed of centrifugation in g instead of rpm, (not rmp such as in line 92) please (otherwise, specify details of the rotor type, etc.).

Line 100. Illuminant, view and color reference for Lab is missing. I suggest LCh (lightness, chroma, hue angle) instead of Lab because it will be easier for interpretation (lightness would be the same).

Line 116 and 131. The source of the provider of ginsenoside Re and the rest of individual ginsenoside standards should be included.

Line 107. Do you mean BSA (bovine serum albumin) instead of BCA?

Line 153. You used one-way ANOVA using a unique factor, and apparently this was fine for Table 3 (extracts and sediment composition). Because the time is a quantitative effect, you should calculate the linear, quadratic, and cubic trends of time instead of a, b, c. etc. For example, in Fig. 1 a quadratic effect of sediment is evident, while a linear and quadratic effect could be found in Fig.1B.

            In statistical analysis, you should indicate the variables when this methodology is used and the purpose of it.

 

 

 

Results and discussion

Line 158-161. Suppression. This is table caption. Please cite Table 1 here: “With the extension… increased (Table 1).”

Line 174. The same consideration than before. Fig. 1b should be cited after the next sentence.

Fig. 1A. Please convert it into X-Y lines (instead of bars) for solid concentration or sediment, because the X axes is quantitative (ginseng age). Please specify X axe name in Fig. 1B at least. Please indicate the number of replicates (n=x) here.

Line 184-188. These details are methodology and should be in line 100 instead of R&D.

Line 245. Significant differences obtained by LSD test?

Line 247-251. This is the explanation of PCA which is lacking in the methodology and it should be removed from here.

Line 262-264. Repetition of data in text and table. Please suppress the text and let only (Table 5) after line 261.

The discussion in the paper is in general poor, probably because some is in the conclusions. Pleases try to include some consideration for the industry in terms of recommendation of the best condition to store ginseng and the recommended age (in years) for extraction during beverage processing based in the composition reported in your study. Some comment of the recommended conditions for extraction from a point of view of the value beverage is also missing (i.e., what are the desired ginseng composition for the industry or the consumers?). Are some of the components a problem for the beverage industry (i.e. browning potential?).

Conclusions

Conclusions are excessively long and appears to be most of it some implications of the results (i.e. discussion, for example line 274-277). Please rewrite the conclusions and outline in a single paragraph the findings according with your goals. The conclusions should be a summary of lines 277-292.

Line 293-298. This is discussion and some considerations that are not part of the main goal of the paper.

 

References.

Scientific names in cursive (i.e. Panax ginseng, lines 303, 310, 318, 400, etc.).

Line 342. Names are in capital (mistake).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf