Wild Fruits of Crataegus monogyna Jacq. and Sorbus aria (L.) Crantz: From Traditional Foods to Innovative Sources of Pigments and Antioxidant Ingredients for Food Products
, MarÃa Cortes Sánchez-Mata 1, Rosa M. Cámara-Hurtado 1, MarÃa Luisa Pérez-RodrÃguez 1, Laura Aceituno 2, Manuel Pardo-de-Santayana 2,3, MarÃa Inês DÃas 4,5, Lillian Barros 4,5 and Patricia Morales 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Wild fruits of Crataegus monogyna Jacq. and Sorbus aria (L.) Crantz: from traditional foods to innovative sources of pigments and antioxidant ingredients for food products
The manuscript is easy to read. Although the work done is interesting, it is unoriginal. All or most of the spectrophotometric tests have been carried out, which are very basic.
There are some points where corrections are needed. For example line 201.
I advise the authors to re-read the manuscript to correct any errors.
Figure 1 should be improved in sharpness.
Do the two collection sites show important differences? is there an explanation for this? Are there different climatic conditions? Is the growing medium different?
Were the 2.5 g of sample just dried and used directly as such? Was the sample not sieved?
Did the samples solubilise completely or did some suspension have to be removed? I would like a better explanation of the sample preparation.
All analyses specify the use of 1 mg of sample. was it then used directly as a powder? or was a stock solution prepared from which the 1mg/mL aliquot was taken for example? please specify.
Why was the Folin-Ciocalteu test included in the section on antioxidant tests? I am not aware that it calculates antioxidant activity but rather that it serves to quantify phenols.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the manuscript shows new and original information and is within the journal topic. However, I think that some aspects can be improved:
Abstract
In vitro in italics
Results and discussion
Line 308-311. Explain and discuss the observed differences.
Line 332. Explain and discuss the observed differences.
3.2 Colour. You can explain the differences between the color parameters of both plants.
Line 384-392. Explain in detail the observed differences between both treatments. You can use a comparison with other studies.
3.4. In vitro antioxidant capacity. Put some studies that demonstrate the association between the content of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity. For example:
Romero, J. C. L., Torres-Moreno, H., Vidal-Gutiérrez, M., Cabrera-Cabrera, G., Robles-Zepeda, R. E., Rodríguez-Martínez, K. L., ... & González-Aguilar, G. (2022). Caesalpinia palmeri: first report on the phenolic compounds profile, antioxidant, and cytotoxicity effect. Chemistry & Biodiversity.
Line 397-407. Explain more clearly the comparison with the study by Moldovan et al., 2021, because it is lower in activity by DPPH and higher in activity by the FRAP method. Explain the possible causes in detail.
The 3.5 and 3.6 sections need to be moved before the 3.3. section. Put the 3.4 section at the end of the results and discussion. With this movement, you can relate the antioxidant activity with specific compounds and establish the antioxidant mechanism of action.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
