Phenolic Composition in Native and Defatted Nuts and Seeds from the Serbian Market: Analytical Insights and Functional Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is titled, 'Phenolic Composition in Native and Defatted Nuts and Seeds from the Serbian Market: Analytical Insights and Functional Potential' in the Foods. I have reviewed the manuscript. This study analyzed and compared the polyphenol profile of 25 different commercially available edible nuts and seeds from Serbian market and their by-products. There are some issues that should be answered or corrected before this manuscript is considered for publication. My major comments are-

-Lines 38-51, at the beginning of the introduction, there are many descriptions of the nutritional value of nuts and seeds. It is recommended to introduce "polyphenols" and "by-products" as early as possible.

-Lines 52-55, suggest expanding the specific details of related research.

-Lines 71-75, suggest clearly pointing out the shortcomings of existing research.

-Lines 91-94, suggest supplementing the polyphenol extraction method completely.

-No p-values or significance letter labels were provided for any statistical tests.

-Line 258, the beginning of the discussion section is too broad and repeats the introduction content. When citing references, it was not possible to quantitatively or qualitatively compare the specific data of this study with the literature values. For the innovation of defatting by-products, the discussion mainly cited other literature, without fully presenting and discussing the specific data of defatting by-products in this study.

-The discussion section should be an in-depth interpretation of the results, and it is recommended to focus on making modifications.

-The conclusion section should focus more on the core contribution of this study, avoiding simple repetition with the abstract.

-The conclusion regarding the defatting by-products remains that they are also a source of polyphenols, failing to highlight their core value in circular economy and sustainability.

Author Response

Dear rewiever, thank you for your time and all constructive comments and insights for improving our manuscript. We hope that you’ll find all the changes made within the manuscript (marked in yellow) satisfying and that we managed to improve our text according to your suggestions in order to meet criteria for publishing in Foods.

The manuscript is titled, 'Phenolic Composition in Native and Defatted Nuts and Seeds from the Serbian Market: Analytical Insights and Functional Potential' in the Foods. I have reviewed the manuscript. This study analyzed and compared the polyphenol profile of 25 different commercially available edible nuts and seeds from Serbian market and their by-products. There are some issues that should be answered or corrected before this manuscript is considered for publication. My major comments are-

-Lines 38-51, at the beginning of the introduction, there are many descriptions of the nutritional value of nuts and seeds. It is recommended to introduce "polyphenols" and "by-products" as early as possible.

Answer: This section was rearranged to address this point.

-Lines 52-55, suggest expanding the specific details of related research.

Answer: This was done in the Introduction section (lines 58-61) and throughout the manuscript

-Lines 71-75, suggest clearly pointing out the shortcomings of existing research.

Answer: Highlighted text within the Introduction (lines 77-89) refers to this point.

-Lines 91-94, suggest supplementing the polyphenol extraction method completely.

Answer: Highlighted text explains in detail extraction methods used (lines 113-122).

-No p-values or significance letter labels were provided for any statistical tests.

Answer: these data were ommited by mistake in the main text. Now are added.

-Line 258, the beginning of the discussion section is too broad and repeats the introduction content. When citing references, it was not possible to quantitatively or qualitatively compare the specific data of this study with the literature values. For the innovation of defatting by-products, the discussion mainly cited other literature, without fully presenting and discussing the specific data of defatting by-products in this study.

Answer: the repeating content in this section content was omitted and the Introduction was restructurized according to this change

-The discussion section should be an in-depth interpretation of the results, and it is recommended to focus on making modifications.

-The conclusion section should focus more on the core contribution of this study, avoiding simple repetition with the abstract.

-The conclusion regarding the defatting by-products remains that they are also a source of polyphenols, failing to highlight their core value in circular economy and sustainability.

Answer: changes addressing these points are highlighted in the Discussion and Conclusion sections

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Extensive literature has already been published in this area, and this work only confirms the previous knowledge rather than extending the scientific literature.
2. To add on, the functional potential of the ingredients quantified in the manuscript remains unexplored, as no bioactivity assays related to DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and others are reported to support the biological relevance.
3. The author must clarify the uniqueness of this manuscript and distinguish it from the previously published international literature. The work seems to be a regional validation (Serbian market context).
4. The authors are encouraged to clarify whether the findings are intended to have global relevance, and if so, to justify this through broader contextualization, comparison with international data, or discussion of how these results may apply across different regions
5. The abstract is too general and lacks the main critical findings of the study. The authors are advised to include specific quantitative results and key conclusions that highlight the novelty and significance of the work, rather than providing a broad summary
6. It is not clear whether the authors have evaluated the precision and recovery rates of the analytical methods used for the extraction and quantification of polyphenols and their derived compounds from nuts and seeds. The authors should clarify whether method validation was performed, including assessments of recovery, repeatability, and reproducibility, to ensure the reliability of the reported results.
7. The tables of the manuscript are excessively dense; the author should consider moving the details and only presenting the main highlights of this manuscript
8. Most of the discussion in this research article lacks the critical contrast
9. The manuscript lacks integration with eventual bioavailability, relevance to the in-vitro and in-vivo effects, and potential health outcomes of the polyphenols being quantified in nuts and seeds
10. The discussion lacks the quantifiable comparison; rather, overuse of generic statements is seen, i.e., rich in polyphenols, sustainable, and affordable, etc. Compare this data with international data sets as well.
11. The researcher can enhance the manuscript by adding a section guiding the scientific community regarding the formulation and applications of this study in nutraceutical and functional foods

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Check the grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript, i.e., Line 73 “polyhenols to polyphenols”
2. The reference list should be carefully checked and revised according to the Foods (MDPI) journal guidelines. Please ensure consistency in citation style, punctuation, author initials, journal names, and DOI inclusion. All references should follow the MDPI format.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for all constructive comments and suggestions which has helped us strengthen the manuscript. We appreciate your insight and hope that you’ll find all the changes made (within the manuscript marked in yellow) satisfying in order to improve our manuscript and meet the criteria for its’ publishing in Foods.

Rev 2 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Extensive literature has already been published in this area, and this work only confirms the previous knowledge rather than extending the scientific literature.

Answer: We agree that results of our research confirm some of previously published results to some extent. Nevertheless, having in mind huge fluctuations and differences between previously investigated samples (origin, treatment etc. also emphasized in our text in the Introduction section), our results highlight some, in our opinion, important and relatively constant characteristics on phenolics composition and content in certain nuts and seeds, ie. walnuts, pecan nuts and sunflower seeds as rich sources of phenolic compounds. We think that these characteristics, besides their importance for health improvement and preservation, could be potentially used as quality parameters for respective samples, thus referring further investigations in that direction. 

1. To add on, the functional potential of the ingredients quantified in the manuscript remains unexplored, as no bioactivity assays related to DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and others are reported to support the biological relevance.

Answer: Our work was mainly focused on chemical characterization of nuts and seed samples and their by-products. From our own experience, TPC assay is highly corelated with DPPH and especially FRAP test and considering its reaction mechanism, it could quite well serve (and is used in our laboratory) as a test for preliminary assessment of bioactive plant isolates. Results of the present study provided information that confirmed main findings of many previous researches and allowed us to focus on few samples with the highest TPC (suggesting high biological potential). Knowing their chemical profile in terms of phenolic compounds will address future investigations towards developing products with uniform and standardized composition with somewhat expected and constant bioactivity. Literature data considering bioactivity related to antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and other activities of the main ingredients quantified in this work were added in the Discussion section.       

1. The author must clarify the uniqueness of this manuscript and distinguish it from the previously published international literature. The work seems to be a regional validation (Serbian market context).

Answer: Our work is the first of its kind in the Serbian market and is a continuation of our earlier research [1] that was focused on nutritional characteristics of these commercially available nuts and seeds. It also comprises results on 25 different nuts and seeds. Previous reported studies usually confer to much smaller number of samples. Our study also considers concurrent analysis and comparison between native and samples defatted using two different techniques, while majority of the previous research deals with only one type of samples – native or defatted ones. All of these is incorporated in the Introduction section. 

1. The authors are encouraged to clarify whether the findings are intended to have global relevance, and if so, to justify this through broader contextualization, comparison with international data, or discussion of how these results may apply across different regions

Answer: though samples are from Serbian market, our study could not be of local character, considering general exchange of goods worldwide. Also, literature data on this matter are huge and confer to different regions, so our results are adding just one more piece in the puzzle trying to comprehend composition and subsequent functional potential of edible nuts and seeds.

1. The abstract is too general and lacks the main critical findings of the study. The authors are advised to include specific quantitative results and key conclusions that highlight the novelty and significance of the work, rather than providing a broad summary

Answer: main findings are added in the Abstract, including specific quantitative results and key conclusions

1. It is not clear whether the authors have evaluated the precision and recovery rates of the analytical methods used for the extraction and quantification of polyphenols and their derived compounds from nuts and seeds. The authors should clarify whether method validation was performed, including assessments of recovery, repeatability, and reproducibility, to ensure the reliability of the reported results.

Answer: The aim of this work was to analyze polyphenols in the commercially available nut and seed samples (previously fully analyzed on their nutritional composition) and compare them. Thus, extraction procedures applied were conducted based on our previous experience and as previously reported in literature [2-4]. In that way comparison of our results with literature data would be more realistic. A comprehensive validation of the methodology employed in our work was conducted in a previous study [5]. Linearity and linear ranges of the analytes, along with the limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) values for the standard substances, were determined according to International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) [6]. The linear range determined for the tested standards was from 10 to 500 µg/mL, a detail now included in the revised version of the manuscript (subsection HPLC-DAD analysis). The analytical validation parameters in current manuscript were presented within Table S6 (Supplementary material) in the same way as it in some of the latest studies published in Foods [7,8].

1. The tables of the manuscript are excessively dense; the author should consider moving the details and only presenting the main highlights of this manuscript

Answer: Tables are redesigned and adjusted to the Foods table template. Also, numbers are presented with one decimal place, instead of two.

1. Most of the discussion in this research article lacks the critical contrast

Answer: highlighted text in the Discussion section should address this point

1. The manuscript lacks integration with eventual bioavailability, relevance to the in-vitro and in-vivo effects, and potential health outcomes of the polyphenols being quantified in nuts and seeds

Answer: the data considering bioavailability and other relevant in-vitro and in-vivo effects, and potential health outcomes of the polyphenols being quantified were added in the Discussion section

1. The discussion lacks the quantifiable comparison; rather, overuse of generic statements is seen, i.e., rich in polyphenols, sustainable, and affordable, etc. Compare this data with international data sets as well.

Answer: the data considering quantification suggested were added in the Discussion section

1. The researcher can enhance the manuscript by adding a section guiding the scientific community regarding the formulation and applications of this study in nutraceutical and functional foods

Answer: In response to your comment, we have added a concise section to the Discussion that provides clearer guidance on the potential applications of the analyzed nut- and seed-derived materials in nutraceutical and functional food formulations. This addition includes a brief critical overview of realistic by-product candidates, supported by relevant published literature.

Check the grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript, i.e., Line 73 “polyhenols to polyphenols”

Answer: Thank you for observing this. Grammatical and spelling mistakes corrected, and the text rechecked using InstaText software

The reference list should be carefully checked and revised according to the Foods (MDPI) journal guidelines. Please ensure consistency in citation style, punctuation, author initials, journal names, and DOI inclusion. All references should follow the MDPI format.

Answer: List of references revised according to the Foods (MDPI) journal guidelines. New references added and marked

Supporting references:

1) Dodevska, M.; Kukic Markovic, J.; Sofrenic, I.; Tesevic, V.; Jankovic, M.; Djordjevic, B.; Ivanovic, N. Dj. Similarities and Differences in the Nutritional Composition of Nuts and Seeds in Serbia. Frontiers in Nutrition 2022, Volume 9-2022.

2) Sarkis, J. R.; Côrrea, A. P. F.; Michel, I.; Brandeli, A.; Tessaro, I. C.; Marczak, L. D. F. Evaluation of the Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Different Seed and Nut Cakes from the Edible Oil Industry. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 2014, 91 (10), 1773–1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-014-2514-2.

3) Stevens-Barrón, J. C.; de la Rosa, L. A.; Wall-Medrano, A.; Álvarez-Parrilla, E.; Rodríguez-Ramirez, R.; Robles-Zepeda, R. E.; Astiazaran-García, H. Chemical Composition and In Vitro Bioaccessibility of Antioxidant Phytochemicals from Selected Edible Nuts. Nutrients 2019, 11 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102303.

4) Woźniak, M.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Ratajczak, I. The Content of Phenolic Compounds and Mineral Elements in Edible Nuts. Molecules 2022, 27 (14). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144326.

5) Pisinov, B.; Rakić, R.; Rakić, S.; Sekulić, Z.Ž.; Milićević, T.; Kulić, G.; Đurović, S. Sustainable Utilization of Novosadska variety Buckwheat as Cultivated Biodiversity-Friendly Crop. Processes 2024, 12, 1827. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12091827

6) Guideline, I. H. T. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology. Q2 (R1) 2005, 1 (20), 05.

7) López-Salas, L.; Expósito-Almellón, X.; Valencia-Isaza, A.; Fernández-Arteaga, A.; Quirantes-Piné, R.; Borrás-Linares, I.; Lozano-Sánchez, J. Eco-Friendly Extraction of Olive Leaf Phenolics and Terpenes: A Comparative Performance Analysis Against Conventional Methods. Foods 2025, 14, 3030. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14173030

8) Masala, V.; Serreli, G.; Laus, A.; Deiana, M.; Kowalczyk, A.; Tuberoso, C.I.G. Salvia desoleana Atzei et Picci Steam-Distillation Water By-Products as a Source of Bioactive Compounds with Antioxidant Activities. Foods 2025, 14, 2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14132365 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript «Phenolic composition in native and defatted nuts and seeds from the Serbian market: Analytical insights and functional potential» is devoted to characterization and comparison the polyphenol profiles of commercially available nuts and seeds and their defatted by-products.

The work is devoted to relevant plant objects – nuts and seeds. I have the following questions for the authors of the manuscript:

• I don't understand the novelty of this study. The authors analyzed nuts and seeds from Serbian market. Is this the first study on Serbian nuts and seeds? This is not stated in the article. How do nuts and seeds from Serbian market differ from others? 
• The introduction does not address the shortcomings of existing research on this topic. The relevance of this work is unclear.
• Line 64. «Phenolic acids as phenolic compounds in food are easily accessible…». Please rewrite this sentence.
• Please specify the purity of standard compounds.
• The origin of the samples is unclear. Were they grown in Serbia or imported into the market from other countries? There is no information about the company, manufacturer, or date of the samples.
• Please describe in detail how the extracts (macerate, Soxhlet, native) were obtained.
• Line 108-109. What is the HCHOOH compound? Formic acid? It has a different structure.
• Table 2. The authors do not discuss the data on coumarins.
• Why are some seeds and nuts analyzed in both roasted and raw forms, while others are analyzed only in one form? It would be logical to bring the data to some standard.
• The list of references is not compiled according to the rules of the Foods
• Table S1. In which part of the column is total flavonoid content located?
• Please indicate the linear range for Table S6.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for constructive comments and suggestions. We think that our answers and changes made in the manuscript fulfilled your demands and that we managed to improve our manuscript to meet criteria for publishing in Foods.

Best regards

Rev 3 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript «Phenolic composition in native and defatted nuts and seeds from the Serbian market: Analytical insights and functional potential» is devoted to characterization and comparison the polyphenol profiles of commercially available nuts and seeds and their defatted by-products.

The work is devoted to relevant plant objects – nuts and seeds. I have the following questions for the authors of the manuscript:

• I don't understand the novelty of this study. The authors analyzed nuts and seeds from Serbian market. Is this the first study on Serbian nuts and seeds? This is not stated in the article. How do nuts and seeds from Serbian market differ from others? 

Answer: our work is the first of its kind in the Serbian market and is a continuation of earlier research [1] that was focused on nutritional characteristics of these commercially available nuts and seeds. It also comprises results on 25 different nuts and seeds and their defatted products. Previous reported studies usually confer to much smaller number of samples. Our study also considers analysis and comparison between native and samples defatted using two different techniques, while majority of the previous research deals with only one type of samples – native or defatted ones. All of these is now incorporated in the Introduction section

Despite different origin and other factors (also commented in the Introduction) our main results confirm some of previously obtained data. Our results also emphasize some, in our opinion, important and relatively constant characteristics of certain nuts and seeds, ie. walnuts, pecan and sunflower seeds. We think that these characteristics have potential to be used as quality parameters for respective samples, thus referring to further investigations in that direction. 

• The introduction does not address the shortcomings of existing research on this topic. The relevance of this work is unclear.

Answer: Highlighted text within the Introduction (lines 77-89) refers to this point.

• Line 64. «Phenolic acids as phenolic compounds in food are easily accessible…». Please rewrite this sentence.

Answer: sentence rewritten (line 71).

• Please specify the purity of standard compounds.

Answer: purity of standard compounds specified (line 100).

• The origin of the samples is unclear. Were they grown in Serbia or imported into the market from other countries? There is no information about the company, manufacturer, or date of the samples.

Answer: The aim of this work was to analyze polyphenols in the commercially available nut and seed samples (previously fully analyzed on their nutritional composition) and compare them. Extraction procedures applied were conducted based on our previous experience and as previously reported in literature [2-4]. In that way comparison of our results with literature data would be more realistic.

• Please describe in detail how the extracts (macerate, Soxhlet, native) were obtained.

Answer: Highlighted text (lines 113-122) explains in detail extraction methods used.

• Line 108-109. What is the HCHOOH compound? Formic acid? It has a different structure.

Answer: omission in typing was corrected and now is: A: 0.1% HCOOH in water and B: methanol was used (line 137)

• Table 2. The authors do not discuss the data on coumarins.

Answer: Presence of coumarins in samples is now discussed (lines 207-209).

• Why are some seeds and nuts analyzed in both roasted and raw forms, while others are analyzed only in one form? It would be logical to bring the data to some standard.

Answer: Samples were obtained as such raw, boiled or roasted, that is as commercially available in the market. We think that such approach gives more realistic assessment and comparison of the samples.

• The list of references is not compiled according to the rules of the Foods

Answer: list of references is now compiled according to the rules of the Foods

• Table S1. In which part of the column is total flavonoid content located?

Answer: error was corrected

• Please indicate the linear range for Table S6.

Answer: the linear range was added in the main text in the subsection HPLC-DAD analysis (lines 154-155)

Supporting references:

1) Dodevska, M.; Kukic Markovic, J.; Sofrenic, I.; Tesevic, V.; Jankovic, M.; Djordjevic, B.; Ivanovic, N. Dj. Similarities and Differences in the Nutritional Composition of Nuts and Seeds in Serbia. Frontiers in Nutrition 2022, Volume 9-2022.

2) Sarkis, J. R.; Côrrea, A. P. F.; Michel, I.; Brandeli, A.; Tessaro, I. C.; Marczak, L. D. F. Evaluation of the Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Different Seed and Nut Cakes from the Edible Oil Industry. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society 2014, 91 (10), 1773–1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-014-2514-2.

3) Stevens-Barrón, J. C.; de la Rosa, L. A.; Wall-Medrano, A.; Álvarez-Parrilla, E.; Rodríguez-Ramirez, R.; Robles-Zepeda, R. E.; Astiazaran-García, H. Chemical Composition and In Vitro Bioaccessibility of Antioxidant Phytochemicals from Selected Edible Nuts. Nutrients 2019, 11 (10). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102303.

4) Woźniak, M.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Ratajczak, I. The Content of Phenolic Compounds and Mineral Elements in Edible Nuts. Molecules 2022, 27 (14). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27144326.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The author has revised the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments. Major scientific concerns have been adequately addressed, and the corresponding modifications in the manuscript are accurate and appropriate. I consider the manuscript now suitable for publication.  

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we thank the Reviewer for his valuable comments and considerations that significantly strengthened the Manuscript and his recommendation for publishing

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the suggested changes have been made. The manuscript has gained significant improvement and it is recommended for further processing and publication.

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, we thank the Reviewer for his valuable comments and considerations that significantly strengthened the Manuscript and his recommendation for publishing

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the first round of review, I still haven't received answers to the main questions. The Introduction does not address the shortcomings of existing research on this topic. The relevance of this work remains unclear. The authors noted that «some of the reasons for such huge variations are differences in variety, maturity, pre- and post-harvest handling, storage conditions, and processing of raw nuts and seeds to achieve desired characteristics». However, when asked to provide information about the samples studied, the authors replied that they were of commercial origin from supermarkets in Serbia. This means that the authors do not have access to information about varieties, maturity, pre- and post-harvest processing, storage and processing conditions, etc. Therefore, it is illogical to mention this in the actuality. The authors also clarified that «a huge number of investigations refers to the optimization of the extraction process in order to obtain products with the highest usability in terms of maximizing the content of polyphenols or some other ingredients and thus pronounced bioactivity»… and they only provided one reference. Also, literature is not indicated for lines 86-89.

I also haven't received a response regarding the origin of the samples for analysis. There's no information about the company, manufacturer, or production date of the samples.

Also I didn't see any discussion of coumarins in lines 207-209.

Author Response

Comment:

“The Introduction does not address the shortcomings of existing research on this topic. The relevance of this work remains unclear.”

Response: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Introduction (lines 77-82 and 87-97) to articulate more explicitly the shortcomings of existing research and to clarify the relevance of analysing nuts, seeds, and their defatted by-products specifically within the context of the Serbian market. As now stated in the revised text, most published studies on phenolic compounds in nuts and seeds examine either native kernels or defatted cakes under highly controlled conditions (defined cultivars, known agronomic background, laboratory-prepared materials), with only very limited work addressing commercially available products. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive study has characterised both native and defatted fractions of nuts and seeds available on the Serbian market. We have therefore clarified that our objective was to provide real-market analytical data reflecting products actually consumed by the Serbian population. These data are relevant not only for improving understanding of dietary exposure to phenolic compounds, but also for guiding functional food development and valorisation of by-products within the framework of sustainable and circular food systems. We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the contextualisation and relevance of our work.

Comment:

“The authors noted… differences in variety, maturity, pre- and post-harvest handling… However, they do not have this information. Therefore, it is illogical to mention this in the actuality.”

Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s comment. In accordance with this suggestion, the sentence referring to variability factors such as cultivar, maturity and handling has been revised to clarify that these refer to variability sources reported in the literature, and not to characteristics of our own commercially purchased samples. The revised text now accurately reflects the scope of our dataset (lines 77-82)

Reviewer comment (sample origin):

“The authors did not provide information about the company, manufacturer, production date or origin of the samples.”

Рesponse: We thank the Reviewer for raising this important point. We have now clarified the nature of the sampled materials and expanded Section 2.2 accordingly (lines 117-122). As explained in the revised text, the majority of products were purchased as bulk, non-prepacked nuts and seeds from retail shops that sell open-scoop products (“bulk bin” outlets). Such products are widely consumed in Serbia due to their affordability and availability, but they typically do not carry information on cultivar, producer, or country of origin, as they are supplied through aggregated commodity distribution channels. This characteristic is inherent to this retail segment and is well documented in the context of market-basket and consumer-exposure studies on foods sold in bulk.

Accordingly, our objective was not to characterize specific cultivars or traceable production lots but to provide representative analytical data for nuts and seeds as they are commonly available to consumers in the Serbian market. We have now revised the manuscript to clearly state the real-market nature of these products and the rationale for including them as an important consumer-relevant category. We hope that this clarification resolves the Reviewer’s concern.

Comment:

“…a huge number of investigations refers to optimisation of extraction… and only one reference was provided.”

Response: We thank the Reviewer for noting this. The text has now been revised and additional relevant references have been added to support the statement regarding extraction-focused studies (line 86, references 16-21).

Comment:

“The authors did not discuss coumarins.”

Response: A statement discussing the distribution of coumarins observed in our dataset has now been added to the Discussion section (lines 510-519, references 57-60).

We thank You again for time and effort in order to improve our manuscript and hope that our response will clarify all the ambiguities that existed.