Comparative Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Monofloral Honeys from South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Comparative Physicochemical and Functional Characterization of Monofloral Honeys from South Korea” addresses a relevant topic within food chemistry and honey authentication. The study provides a comprehensive dataset combining physicochemical parameters with selected functional properties of monofloral honeys confirmed by melissopalynological analysis. The following comments are provided to support the authors in improving the clarity, scientific rigor, and interpretation of the presented results.

Title:

• The title is clear and informative. However, the term “functional characterization” may imply demonstrated biological or clinical functionality. Since the study relies on in vitro assays and predictive models, the title could be slightly refined to avoid overinterpretation.

Abstract:

• Lines 18–19: The authors correctly state that the glycemic index (GI) values are predicted. However, this clarification should also be consistently reflected in the concluding sentence of the abstract.
• Lines 21–22: The statement “Antioxidant activity exhibited a similar trend to amino acid composition” is vague and should be clarified (e.g., whether this refers to total amino acids, proline content, or specific correlations).

Introduction:

• Lines 36–40: The claim regarding the lack of comprehensive datasets on South Korean monofloral honeys is reasonable but could be strengthened by briefly specifying which honey types or functional parameters are underrepresented in the literature.
• Lines 65–71: The introduction discusses GI as a nutritional parameter but does not clearly emphasize that the present study relies exclusively on a predictive model, not experimental GI determination in human subjects. This limitation should be clearly stated in the introduction.
• Lines 72–78: While the overview of amino acids is informative, references to neurotransmitter precursors should be clearly separated from claims of nutritional or physiological effects of honey consumption, to avoid overstating biological relevance.

Materials and Methods:

• 1 Honey Samples: The number of samples per floral group (n=3-4) is relatively low. While acceptable for exploratory studies, this limitation should be explicitly acknowledged, particularly in the Discussion section.
• 2.1 Sugar Analysis: The method description is clear; however, additional information on analytical validation (e.g., limits of detection/quantification, repeatability, number of replicates) would improve methodological transparency.
• 3.1 Antioxidant Activity: The Folin–Ciocalteu method does not measure phenolics exclusively but rather total reducing capacity. This well-known limitation should be explicitly acknowledged either in the Methods or in the Discussion.
• 3.2 Predicted Glycemic Index: Although the predictive model is adequately described, the manuscript lacks a critical discussion of its limitations. The potential discrepancy between predicted GI values and in vivo glycemic responses should be acknowledged.

Results and Discussion:

• Line 210: Typographical error: “siginificantly” should be corrected to “significantly”.
• Table 2: Maltose was not detected in any sample. The authors should either report the limit of detection or clarify why maltose was included in the methodological description despite its absence in all samples.
• Table 3: The discussion of HMF content would benefit from explicitly stating relevant regulatory limits (e.g., Codex Alimentarius or EU standards) to better contextualize the results.
• Lines 260–266: The limitations of the Folin–Ciocalteu assay are not discussed. As this method reflects total reducing capacity rather than phenolic compounds exclusively, this should be explicitly acknowledged to avoid overinterpretation of TPC values.
• Lines 264–269: The comparison with previous studies is appropriate but remains too general. A more specific quantitative comparison with reported TPC and TAC ranges would strengthen the discussion.
• Lines 269–275: The discussion does not sufficiently integrate antioxidant activity with other measured characteristics such as honey color, amino acid composition, or physicochemical properties. This limits the interpretative depth of this section.
• Lines 272–274: Statements linking antioxidant activity to reduced risk of chronic diseases are too strong for an in vitro chemical analysis. These claims should be moderated and clearly separated from the analytical results.
• Lines 282–285: The predicted GI values are clearly presented and appropriately classified. However, the terminology should consistently emphasize that these are predicted
• Lines 285–288: Any dietary or nutritional implications of GI classification should be interpreted cautiously, given the predictive nature of the approach and the limited sample size.
• Lines 289–292: The reliability of the predictive GI model is overstated. While useful, predicted GI values cannot replace experimentally determined GI in humans, and this limitation should be explicitly discussed.
• Lines 296–312: The manuscript does not address whether the reported amino acid concentrations are nutritionally relevant at typical levels of honey consumption. Clarification of this point would strengthen the discussion.
• Lines 308–312: The discussion linking amino acid composition to neurotransmitter biosynthesis and neurological effects is speculative and not directly supported by the data. These interpretations should be moderated or reframed as general biochemical background.

Conclusion:

• The conclusion adequately summarizes the main findings of the study and is generally consistent with the results presented. The influence of botanical origin on the physicochemical characteristics of the analyzed monofloral honeys is clearly emphasized. However, the conclusion places excessive emphasis on functional implications. Statements related to antioxidant properties, glycemic index, and amino acid composition should be more cautiously phrased, as the study is based on analytical measurements, in vitro assays, and predictive approaches rather than demonstrated biological or health effects. The conclusion would benefit from a clearer distinction between compositional characterization and functional interpretation, as well as from a brief acknowledgment of the main methodological limitations of the study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments 1:

The title is clear and informative. However, the term “functional characterization” may imply demonstrated biological or clinical functionality. Since the study relies on in vitro assays and predictive models, the title could be slightly refined to avoid overinterpretation.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Accordingly, the title was revised to “Comparative Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Monofloral Honeys from South Korea” to better reflect the scope of the study.

Comments 2:

Lines 18–19: The authors correctly state that the glycemic index (GI) values are predicted. However, this clarification should also be consistently reflected in the concluding sentence of the abstract.

Response 2:

The final sentence of the abstract at line 22 has been revised to clarify that the glycemic index values are predicted and based on in vitro analysis.

Comments 3:

Lines 21–22: The statement “Antioxidant activity exhibited a similar trend to amino acid composition” is vague and should be clarified (e.g., whether this refers to total amino acids, proline content, or specific correlations).

Response 3:

As suggested, the sentence has been revised to clarify the sequence and relationships among amino acid content, predicted glycemic index, and antioxidant activity.

Comments 4:

Lines 36–40: The claim regarding the lack of comprehensive datasets on South Korean monofloral honeys is reasonable but could be strengthened by briefly specifying which honey types or functional parameters are underrepresented in the literature.

Response 4:

The sentence has been revised to specify the functional parameters and floral types that are underrepresented in the literature.

Comments 5:

Lines 65–71: The introduction discusses GI as a nutritional parameter but does not clearly emphasize that the present study relies exclusively on a predictive model, not experimental GI determination in human subjects. This limitation should be clearly stated in the introduction.

Response 5:

A sentence was added to clarify that glycemic index values in this study were estimated using a predictive model, not measured in vivo.

Comments 6:

Lines 72–78: While the overview of amino acids is informative, references to neurotransmitter precursors should be clearly separated from claims of nutritional or physiological effects of honey consumption, to avoid overstating biological relevance.

Response 6:

The reference to neurotransmitter precursors in the Introduction has been removed to avoid overinterpretation of the amino acid data.

Comments 7:

1 Honey Samples: The number of samples per floral group (n=3-4) is relatively low. While acceptable for exploratory studies, this limitation should be explicitly acknowledged, particularly in the Discussion section.

Response 7:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We acknowledge that the sample size per floral group is relatively limited. This limitation has now been explicitly addressed in the Discussion section.

Comments 8:

2.1 Sugar Analysis: The method description is clear; however, additional information on analytical validation (e.g., limits of detection/quantification, repeatability, number of replicates) would improve methodological transparency.

Response 8:

We have revised the Methods section to specify that all analyses were conducted in triplicate per sample.

Comments 9:

3.1 Antioxidant Activity: The Folin–Ciocalteu method does not measure phenolics exclusively but rather total reducing capacity. This well-known limitation should be explicitly acknowledged either in the Methods or in the Discussion.

Response 9:

We have added a clarification to the Results and Discussion section under the antioxidant activity paragraph.

Comments 10:

3.2 Predicted Glycemic Index: Although the predictive model is adequately described, the manuscript lacks a critical discussion of its limitations. The potential discrepancy between predicted GI values and in vivo glycemic responses should be acknowledged.

Response 10:

A sentence has been added to the end of the GI discussion in the Results and Discussion section to acknowledge the limitations of the predictive model.

Comments 11:

Line 210: Typographical error: “siginificantly” should be corrected to “significantly”.

Response 11:

The typo has been corrected.

Comments 12:

Table 2: Maltose was not detected in any sample. The authors should either report the limit of detection or clarify why maltose was included in the methodological description despite its absence in all samples.

Response 12:

Maltose was removed from the Materials and Methods, and Results and Discussion sections, as it was not detected in any of the honey samples.

Comments 13:

Table 3: The discussion of HMF content would benefit from explicitly stating relevant regulatory limits (e.g., Codex Alimentarius or EU standards) to better contextualize the results.

Response 13:

Regulatory thresholds for HMF, moisture content, invert sugar, sucrose, and free acidity have been added to the Results and Discussion section to better contextualize the compositional data, as suggested.

Comments 14:

Lines 260–266: The limitations of the Folin–Ciocalteu assay are not discussed. As this method reflects total reducing capacity rather than phenolic compounds exclusively, this should be explicitly acknowledged to avoid overinterpretation of TPC values.

Response 14:

The limitations of the Folin–Ciocalteu assay have already been acknowledged in the Results and Discussion section, as a similar comment was addressed earlier.

Comments 15:

Lines 264–269: The comparison with previous studies is appropriate but remains too general. A more specific quantitative comparison with reported TPC and TAC ranges would strengthen the discussion.

Response 15:

More specific quantitative comparisons with previously reported TPC and TAC values have been added to the Results and Discussion section, as suggested.

Comments 16:

Lines 269–275: The discussion does not sufficiently integrate antioxidant activity with other measured characteristics such as honey color, amino acid composition, or physicochemical properties. This limits the interpretative depth of this section.

Response 16:

As suggested, the discussion was expanded to include literature highlighting the associations between phenolic content, color intensity, amino acid and antioxidant activity.

Comments 17:

Lines 272–274: Statements linking antioxidant activity to reduced risk of chronic diseases are too strong for an in vitro chemical analysis. These claims should be moderated and clearly separated from the analytical results.

Response 17:

The statement linking antioxidant activity to disease prevention has been removed, as suggested, to avoid overinterpretation of the in vitro analytical results.

Comments 18:

Lines 282–285: The predicted GI values are clearly presented and appropriately classified. However, the terminology should consistently emphasize that these are predicted

Response 18:

Relevant sentences were revised to ensure consistent and accurate use of the term “predicted GI”, while avoiding redundancy as suggested.

Comments 19:

Lines 285–288: Any dietary or nutritional implications of GI classification should be interpreted cautiously, given the predictive nature of the approach and the limited sample size.

Response 19:

No nutritional or dietary implications were drawn from the GI classification in the manuscript.

Comments 20:

Lines 289–292: The reliability of the predictive GI model is overstated. While useful, predicted GI values cannot replace experimentally determined GI in humans, and this limitation should be explicitly discussed.

Response 20:

As noted in the previous comment, this limitation has been explicitly acknowledged in the revised text.

Comments 21:

Lines 296–312: The manuscript does not address whether the reported amino acid concentrations are nutritionally relevant at typical levels of honey consumption. Clarification of this point would strengthen the discussion.

Response 21:

The speculative interpretation linking amino acid composition to neurological effects has been removed from the Discussion section. Related content has been reframed as general biochemical background and addressed in the Introduction instead.

Comments 22:

Lines 308–312: The discussion linking amino acid composition to neurotransmitter biosynthesis and neurological effects is speculative and not directly supported by the data. These interpretations should be moderated or reframed as general biochemical background.

Response 22:

The speculative discussion regarding neurotransmitter biosynthesis and neurological effects has been removed to maintain alignment with the scope and data of the study.

Comments 23:

The conclusion adequately summarizes the main findings of the study and is generally consistent with the results presented. The influence of botanical origin on the physicochemical characteristics of the analyzed monofloral honeys is clearly emphasized. However, the conclusion places excessive emphasis on functional implications. Statements related to antioxidant properties, glycemic index, and amino acid composition should be more cautiously phrased, as the study is based on analytical measurements, in vitro assays, and predictive approaches rather than demonstrated biological or health effects. The conclusion would benefit from a clearer distinction between compositional characterization and functional interpretation, as well as from a brief acknowledgment of the main methodological limitations of the study.

Response 23:

The conclusion section has been revised to more cautiously interpret the study’s functional implications, in line with the in vitro and predictive nature of the methods used. A brief acknowledgment of the limited sample size has also been added to clarify the scope and applicability of the findings.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comparative Physicochemical and Functional Characterization of Monofloral Honeys from South Korea

The manuscript deals with an interesting subject, namely the comparative physicochemical and functional characterization of monofloral honeys from South Korea. This topic is relevant to food science, medicine/pharmacy and apiculture research, and the study addresses the relationship between botanical origin, chemical composition, and functional properties such as antioxidant activity and predicted glycemic index.

The study is not very complex. Anyway, the study has interesting results, but the writing of the paper and the presentation of the research require improvement. There are some errors and omissions (in my opinion) in the manuscript, and in its current form, some explanations and/or changes are needed.

The article, although it does not present a fully comprehensive characterization of South Korean honey, presents a topic relevant to academia. The experiments are generally well designed and conducted, and the results support the conclusions, although the latter still need refinement.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the authors for their work.

I have written some suggestions as a way to improve the study. Specific comments are provided below:

Line 12: I consider that the Latin names Castanea, Robinia, Toxicodendron, Hovenia, and Styrax are acceptable for informal reference, but they are not optimal for a scientific article. At their first appearance in the Abstract and main text, it is necessary to provide the full scientific name (genus and species, italicized) of the plant/tree from which the nectar is obtained; subsequently, referring only to the genus is sufficient.

The reason these names were mentioned in this form is that, in melissopalynological analysis, pollen can, in most cases, be identified only at the genus level and not at the species level? This is due to the high morphological similarity of pollen grains between species within the same genus? Please clarify this point. Otherwise, if information regarding the local species of the trees/plants is known, please revise accordingly.

Lines 26–27: Please revise the Keywords. The first keyword should be “honey bees.”

“1. Introduction”: In general, the Introduction lacks the level of synthesis and conceptual depth expected for a Q1 journal.

Lines 31–36: A nice introduction on honey, its composition, and the factors influencing its quality.

Lines 36-39: The statement regarding the limited availability of comprehensive datasets is overly generic. The authors should expand the Introduction to include a critical review of the current literature, explicitly discussing controversial and diverging hypotheses related to antioxidant activity, glycemic index, and amino acid composition of South Korean monofloral honeys, and support these arguments with key references. It is acknowledged that relatively few studies specifically address South Korean monofloral honeys; however, the present manuscript aims precisely to address this gap. This is essential to adequately justify the scientific contribution of the study. Please revise.

Lines 41–45: Please reformulate this paragraph. The current wording is overly didactic, resembling a textbook-style explanation, and for an Introduction section in a journal such as Foods, it indeed appears simplistic and superficial.

Lines 46-58: The paragraph should be stylistically refined and made more compact. At present, it mainly consists of a descriptive listing of physicochemical parameters and their roles. The authors are encouraged to synthesize this information into a more coherent and integrative narrative rather than a parameter-by-parameter enumeration.

Lines 59-60: The statement “Honey is recognized as a nutritionally valuable food source due to its high content of natural antioxidants” is conceptually inaccurate. Honey is not considered a nutritionally valuable food primarily because of its antioxidant content, but rather due to its carbohydrate composition (mainly fructose and glucose), energy contribution, and the presence of minor bioactive compounds. The authors should revise this statement to clearly distinguish between nutritional value and bioactive or functional properties, and avoid overstating the nutritional relevance of antioxidants in honey. Avoid generic statements and focus instead on mechanistic or comparative insights.

Lines 65-71: Condense the general definition of GI and reduce textbook-style explanations. Move beyond stating sugar GI values and explicitly discuss sources of variability in honey GI, including botanical origin, fructose-to-glucose ratio, and compositional complexity.

Line 80: Avoid starting the study objective with “Therefore.” Begin directly with “This study ….”

In 2.Materials and methods, 2.1. Honey samples :

Line 88 – Suggestion: Apis mellifera is the European honey bee. In future studies, I suggest considering Apis cerana – the native Asian honey bee traditionally present in your region. This is not a requirement, but it would be interesting (from a European perspective) to compare the quality and properties of honey produced by the native bee.

Linia 91-96: The problem I am pointing out relates to the experimental design and interpretation of the results:

- Physicochemical parameters in honey: These can vary not only depending on the floral source but also based on geographical area – soil, climate, altitude, pollution, etc.

- Lack of specified sampling area: If the samples are not linked to a specific region, then regional variability cannot be assessed. Consequently, any observed fluctuations can be attributed only to the plant type, not to regional influence.

- Mixing samples from different regions: When you mention that you mixed 4 samples for Castanea, Robinia, and Toxicodendron, and 3 samples for Hovenia and Styrax from different regions, two problems arise: 1. Loss of regional information: You can no longer analyze the effect of region; 2. Less conclusive results: The mean values obtained by mixing may mask the natural variation between regions. The results obtained do not allow statements about regional variation, only about the general characteristics associated with each plant type. If the goal of the study is to analyze the influence of the floral source, then the design is fine, but if you want to draw conclusions about region, the data are insufficient.

Lines 92–96: I could not find the detailed information on the samples that you refer to (“Detailed information on the samples is provided in Table 1”). Please revise Table 1 or create a new Table 2 with exact data for each apiary location, including latitude, longitude, and possibly landforms in the area. A map showing the sampling points would also be of interest. I request this because climate, topography and altitude, soil, floral biodiversity, and microclimate are all important information that help the reader. This would provide a complete picture of the sampling areas.

Lines 97–105: Melissopalynological analysis is a microscopic/biological (botanical) method. You have included these results in Table 1 and the procedure in subsection 2.1. Honey Samples. I consider that this placement is not appropriate. Please introduce a new subsection after 2.1. Honey Samples titled 2.2. Pollen Analysis of Honey, or Melissopalynological Examination of Honey, or Determination of Botanical Origin via Pollen Analysis.

Linia 118-123: The description of moisture content and total soluble solids determination is overly detailed for a well-established and routinely applied method. The authors are encouraged to condense this subsection. A more concise description would improve readability and align the Methods section with Q1 journal standards.

Line 147: Please modify to read: “using the same pH meter.”

Lines 156–161: I consider that TPC is a chemical parameter, as it measures specific compounds (phenolics). Indeed, phenolics contribute directly to honey’s antioxidant activity and serve as an indirect indicator of antioxidant potential. I consider DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, etc., as direct indicators only. This is not a major error, especially since most researchers follow the same approach as you. Therefore, it may remain as is.

Lines 192–329: In its current form, the text combines data presentation (Results) with their interpretation (Discussion). For editorial clarity, Q1 journals recommend presenting the data objectively in the Results section, while explanations and comparisons with the literature should be moved to the Discussion.

Lines 209–256: Some numerical values are mentioned in the text partially redundantly with the table. In practice, their interpretation is always given as the range in which they fall. Avoid repeating the entire table in the text (it is specific to the use of AI), and instead mention only the most relevant differences or patterns.

Question: Why did you not determine total flavonoids as well?

Lines 222–224; 258–259; 314–315: Regarding the statement: “Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Different letters within each row indicate significant differences among floral groups (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p<0.05),” please try to include it as a footnote to the tables.

It is not clear from “Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation” how many samples were analyzed, how many replicates were performed, or whether the samples are independent or analyzed in duplicate? Please revise.

Lines 221–229: Table 2 and Figure 2 largely present the same information. Avoid presenting the same values both in tabular and graphical form. Please revise.

Line 196: Please move Table 1 here to the Results section.

Line 252: Please correct/replace the word “Roanian” with “Romanian.”

Lines 271–273: The sentences regarding the influence of botanical origin are repetitive: “The antioxidant content of honey is strongly influenced by the plant species…” and “The botanical origin of honey has a significant influence on its composition…” These could be combined into a single, concise sentence.

Lines 282-295: I recommend removing Table 4 and reporting the key GI results directly in the text. For example: “No significant differences were observed among monofloral honeys. The predicted GI values ranged from 51.5 ± 0.5 (Robinia) to 55.6 ± 1.4 (Hovenia), with all samples classified as low-GI except Hovenia, which fell within the medium-GI range.” Given that the predicted GI values are simple and the key trends can be clearly described in the text, a separate table does not add significant value and could be omitted.

Line 313: From my point of view, the amino acid analysis is a key component of the study, as it provides valuable information on honey quality, authenticity, and botanical origin. Congratulations on having performed these determinations!

Lines 316–319: Figure 4 repeats information already presented in Table 5. Please remove Figure 4.

After line 329: I recommend including a brief paragraph at the end of the Discussion outlining the limitations of the study, such as sample size, seasonal variability etc…., or potential influences on predicted GI values, to provide context and improve the rigor of the interpretation. his would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying the scope and limitations of the findings, and by suggesting directions for future research.

Lines 330–340: The conclusions almost literally repeat the results, without critical synthesis or emphasis on the main implications. I recommend that the authors highlight what is new in the study; for example, the validation of melissopalynology for South Korean honey or the correlation between amino acid profiles and botanical origin.

Lines 360–535: Please revise the References. The citation numbers are duplicated.

Conclusion: In its current form, the manuscript appears rather weak, particularly regarding the identification of honey types and the analyses performed. The discussion is also rather limited, as are the conclusions.

Recommendation:

-Avoid using words and expressions considered “AI-like” such as Therefore, Overall, Furthermore, Additionally, Consequently at the beginning of sentences. They are not incorrect, but they appear too frequently in AI-generated texts.

-Condensing long sentences and reducing redundancy, particularly for values that are already reported in tables or figures.

-Add brief critical context regarding method limitations or biological variability, particularly for HMF and stable isotope analyses, to strengthen the rigor of interpretation.

-The statistical analysis is rather basic and does not include more advanced correlation or multivariate analyses that could provide additional insights.

- For future research, I suggest including an assessment of the antimicrobial activity of South Korean honey.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Long sentences should be broken into shorter, clearer statements for better readability.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments 1:

Line 12: I consider that the Latin names Castanea, Robinia, Toxicodendron, Hovenia, and Styrax are acceptable for informal reference, but they are not optimal for a scientific article. At their first appearance in the Abstract and main text, it is necessary to provide the full scientific name (genus and species, italicized) of the plant/tree from which the nectar is obtained; subsequently, referring only to the genus is sufficient. The reason these names were mentioned in this form is that, in melissopalynological analysis, pollen can, in most cases, be identified only at the genus level and not at the species level? This is due to the high morphological similarity of pollen grains between species within the same genus? Please clarify this point. Otherwise, if information regarding the local species of the trees/plants is known, please revise accordingly.

Response 1:

Thank you for the comment. The full scientific names (genus and species, italicized) have now been provided at their first appearance in the Abstract and main text.

Comments 2:

Lines 26–27: Please revise the Keywords. The first keyword should be “honey bees.”

Response 2:

The Keywords have been revised accordingly, and “honey bees” has been added as the first keyword.

Comments 3:

Lines 31–36: A nice introduction on honey, its composition, and the factors influencing its quality.

Response 3:

Thank you for your positive evaluation of this section.

Comments 4:

Lines 36-39: The statement regarding the limited availability of comprehensive datasets is overly generic. The authors should expand the Introduction to include a critical review of the current literature, explicitly discussing controversial and diverging hypotheses related to antioxidant activity, glycemic index, and amino acid composition of South Korean monofloral honeys, and support these arguments with key references. It is acknowledged that relatively few studies specifically address South Korean monofloral honeys; however, the present manuscript aims precisely to address this gap. This is essential to adequately justify the scientific contribution of the study. Please revise.

Response 4:

The Introduction has been revised to clarify the limited availability of integrated studies, particularly for less-studied floral types.

Comments 5:

Lines 41–45: Please reformulate this paragraph. The current wording is overly didactic, resembling a textbook-style explanation, and for an Introduction section in a journal such as Foods, it indeed appears simplistic and superficial.

Response 5:

The paragraph has been reorganized and rewritten to reduce textbook-style explanations and improve the scientific tone.

Comments 6:

Lines 46-58: The paragraph should be stylistically refined and made more compact. At present, it mainly consists of a descriptive listing of physicochemical parameters and their roles. The authors are encouraged to synthesize this information into a more coherent and integrative narrative rather than a parameter-by-parameter enumeration.

Response 6:

The paragraph has been condensed and rewritten to provide a more coherent and integrative description.

Comments 7:

Lines 59-60: The statement “Honey is recognized as a nutritionally valuable food source due to its high content of natural antioxidants” is conceptually inaccurate. Honey is not considered a nutritionally valuable food primarily because of its antioxidant content, but rather due to its carbohydrate composition (mainly fructose and glucose), energy contribution, and the presence of minor bioactive compounds. The authors should revise this statement to clearly distinguish between nutritional value and bioactive or functional properties, and avoid overstating the nutritional relevance of antioxidants in honey. Avoid generic statements and focus instead on mechanistic or comparative insights.

Response 7:

The sentence has been revised to avoid overstating the nutritional relevance of antioxidants.

Comments 8:

Lines 65-71: Condense the general definition of GI and reduce textbook-style explanations. Move beyond stating sugar GI values and explicitly discuss sources of variability in honey GI, including botanical origin, fructose-to-glucose ratio, and compositional complexity.

Response 8:

The GI section has been revised to be more concise and to focus on sources of variability, including sugar composition and botanical origin.

Comments 9:

Line 80: Avoid starting the study objective with “Therefore.” Begin directly with “This study ….”

Response 9:

The sentence has been revised accordingly.

Comments 10:

Line 88 – Suggestion: Apis mellifera is the European honey bee. In future studies, I suggest considering Apis cerana – the native Asian honey bee traditionally present in your region. This is not a requirement, but it would be interesting (from a European perspective) to compare the quality and properties of honey produced by the native bee.

Response 10:

We appreciate this insightful suggestion. The inclusion of Apis cerana will be considered in future studies

Comments 11:

Linia 91-96: The problem I am pointing out relates to the experimental design and interpretation of the results:

- Physicochemical parameters in honey: These can vary not only depending on the floral source but also based on geographical area – soil, climate, altitude, pollution, etc.

- Lack of specified sampling area: If the samples are not linked to a specific region, then regional variability cannot be assessed. Consequently, any observed fluctuations can be attributed only to the plant type, not to regional influence.

- Mixing samples from different regions: When you mention that you mixed 4 samples for Castanea, Robinia, and Toxicodendron, and 3 samples for Hovenia and Styrax from different regions, two problems arise: 1. Loss of regional information: You can no longer analyze the effect of region; 2. Less conclusive results: The mean values obtained by mixing may mask the natural variation between regions. The results obtained do not allow statements about regional variation, only about the general characteristics associated with each plant type. If the goal of the study is to analyze the influence of the floral source, then the design is fine, but if you want to draw conclusions about region, the data are insufficient.

Response 11:

We acknowledge that honey composition may also be influenced by geographical factors. As samples from different regions were combined within each floral group, regional variability could not be assessed. The focus of this study was floral origin, and this limitation has been clarified in the revised manuscript.

Comments 12:

Lines 92–96: I could not find the detailed information on the samples that you refer to (“Detailed information on the samples is provided in Table 1”). Please revise Table 1 or create a new Table 2 with exact data for each apiary location, including latitude, longitude, and possibly landforms in the area. A map showing the sampling points would also be of interest. I request this because climate, topography and altitude, soil, floral biodiversity, and microclimate are all important information that help the reader. This would provide a complete picture of the sampling areas.

Response 12:

Detailed sampling information, including region, latitude, and longitude for each sample, has been incorporated into Table 1 as requested.

Comments 13:

Lines 97–105: Melissopalynological analysis is a microscopic/biological (botanical) method. You have included these results in Table 1 and the procedure in subsection 2.1. Honey Samples. I consider that this placement is not appropriate. Please introduce a new subsection after 2.1. Honey Samples titled 2.2. Pollen Analysis of Honey, or Melissopalynological Examination of Honey, or Determination of Botanical Origin via Pollen Analysis.

Response 13:

The melissopalynological analysis has been moved to a separate subsection (2.2. Pollen Analysis of Honey) as suggested.

Comments 14:

Linia 118-123: The description of moisture content and total soluble solids determination is overly detailed for a well-established and routinely applied method. The authors are encouraged to condense this subsection. A more concise description would improve readability and align the Methods section with Q1 journal standards.

Response 14:

The description of moisture content and total soluble solids determination has been condensed to improve clarity while retaining essential methodological details.

Comments 15:

Line 147: Please modify to read: “using the same pH meter.”

Response 15:

The sentence has been revised to read “using the same pH meter” as suggested.

Comments 16:

Lines 156–161: I consider that TPC is a chemical parameter, as it measures specific compounds (phenolics). Indeed, phenolics contribute directly to honey’s antioxidant activity and serve as an indirect indicator of antioxidant potential. I consider DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, etc., as direct indicators only. This is not a major error, especially since most researchers follow the same approach as you. Therefore, it may remain as is.

Response 16:

Thank you for the comment. The current description has been retained.

Comments 17:

Lines 192–329: In its current form, the text combines data presentation (Results) with their interpretation (Discussion). For editorial clarity, Q1 journals recommend presenting the data objectively in the Results section, while explanations and comparisons with the literature should be moved to the Discussion.

Response 17:

The Results and Discussion sections have been reorganized to clearly separate data presentation from interpretation and literature comparison, in accordance with the journal’s standards.

Comments 18:

Lines 209–256: Some numerical values are mentioned in the text partially redundantly with the table. In practice, their interpretation is always given as the range in which they fall. Avoid repeating the entire table in the text (it is specific to the use of AI), and instead mention only the most relevant differences or patterns.

Response 18:

The tables present mean ± standard deviation values. To provide additional context and facilitate comparison with previous studies, range values (minimum–maximum) were selectively included in the text. As these ranges complement rather than duplicate the tabulated data, the current presentation has been retained.

Comments 19:

Question: Why did you not determine total flavonoids as well?

Response 19:

Flavonoids are a subclass of phenolic compounds and are therefore included within the total phenolic content (TPC) measurement. As the objective of this study was to assess overall phenolic-related antioxidant potential rather than individual subclasses, TPC was selected as the representative parameter. We acknowledge that specific flavonoid analysis could provide additional compositional detail and may be considered in future studies.

Comments 20:

Lines 222–224; 258–259; 314–315: Regarding the statement: “Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Different letters within each row indicate significant differences among floral groups (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD test, p<0.05),” please try to include it as a footnote to the tables.

It is not clear from “Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation” how many samples were analyzed, how many replicates were performed, or whether the samples are independent or analyzed in duplicate? Please revise.

Response 20:

The statistical description has been moved to the table footnotes as suggested. In addition, the number of samples analyzed per floral group (n = 3–4) has been clearly specified.

Comments 21:

Lines 221–229: Table 2 and Figure 2 largely present the same information. Avoid presenting the same values both in tabular and graphical form. Please revise.

Response 21:

To avoid redundancy, Figure 2 has been removed, and the information is now presented only in Table 2.

Comments 22:

Line 196: Please move Table 1 here to the Results section.

Response 22:

Table 1 has been moved to the Results section as suggested.

Comments 23:

Line 252: Please correct/replace the word “Roanian” with “Romanian.”

Response 23:

The typographical error has been corrected.

Comments 24:

Lines 271–273: The sentences regarding the influence of botanical origin are repetitive: “The antioxidant content of honey is strongly influenced by the plant species…” and “The botanical origin of honey has a significant influence on its composition…” These could be combined into a single, concise sentence.

Response 24:

The repetitive sentences have been combined into a single concise statement to improve clarity and avoid redundancy.

Comments 25:

Lines 282-295: I recommend removing Table 4 and reporting the key GI results directly in the text. For example: “No significant differences were observed among monofloral honeys. The predicted GI values ranged from 51.5 ± 0.5 (Robinia) to 55.6 ± 1.4 (Hovenia), with all samples classified as low-GI except Hovenia, which fell within the medium-GI range.” Given that the predicted GI values are simple and the key trends can be clearly described in the text, a separate table does not add significant value and could be omitted.

Response 25:

Table 4 has been removed as suggested, and the key predicted GI results are now presented directly in the text.

Comments 26:

Line 313: From my point of view, the amino acid analysis is a key component of the study, as it provides valuable information on honey quality, authenticity, and botanical origin. Congratulations on having performed these determinations!

Response 26:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the amino acid analysis and its relevance to honey quality and botanical origin.

Comments 27:

Lines 316–319: Figure 4 repeats information already presented in Table 5. Please remove Figure 4.

Response 27:

Figure 4 has been removed to avoid redundancy.

Comments 28:

After line 329: I recommend including a brief paragraph at the end of the Discussion outlining the limitations of the study, such as sample size, seasonal variability etc…., or potential influences on predicted GI values, to provide context and improve the rigor of the interpretation. his would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying the scope and limitations of the findings, and by suggesting directions for future research.

Response 28:

A paragraph outlining the limitations of the study and future research directions has been added at the end of the Discussion section as suggested.

Comments 29:

Lines 330–340: The conclusions almost literally repeat the results, without critical synthesis or emphasis on the main implications. I recommend that the authors highlight what is new in the study; for example, the validation of melissopalynology for South Korean honey or the correlation between amino acid profiles and botanical origin.

Response 29:

The conclusion has been revised to reduce repetition and to emphasize the main contributions and implications of the study.

Comments 30:

Lines 360–535: Please revise the References. The citation numbers are duplicated.

Response 30:

Duplicated citation numbers have been corrected.

Comments 31:

Conclusion: In its current form, the manuscript appears rather weak, particularly regarding the identification of honey types and the analyses performed. The discussion is also rather limited, as are the conclusions.

Response 31:

We thank the reviewer for this overall assessment. The manuscript has been carefully revised to strengthen the identification of honey types, expand the analytical discussion, and improve the clarity and critical synthesis in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Comments 32:

-Avoid using words and expressions considered “AI-like” such as Therefore, Overall, Furthermore, Additionally, Consequently at the beginning of sentences. They are not incorrect, but they appear too frequently in AI-generated texts.

Response 32:

The manuscript has been revised to reduce AI-like transitional expressions at the beginning of sentences.

Comments 33:

-Condensing long sentences and reducing redundancy, particularly for values that are already reported in tables or figures.

Response 33:

The manuscript has been revised to condense long sentences and reduce redundancy.

Comments 34:

-Add brief critical context regarding method limitations or biological variability, particularly for HMF and stable isotope analyses, to strengthen the rigor of interpretation.

Response 34:

The manuscript already addresses methodological limitations and biological variability for HMF and stable isotope analyses; these sections have been reviewed for clarity.

Comments 35:

-The statistical analysis is rather basic and does not include more advanced correlation or multivariate analyses that could provide additional insights.

Response 35:

Multivariate analysis (principal component analysis, PCA) has been included as supplementary material to provide additional insight into the relationships among compositional parameters.

Comments 36:

- For future research, I suggest including an assessment of the antimicrobial activity of South Korean honey.

Response 36:

We appreciate the suggestion and will consider assessing antimicrobial activity in future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for the revised version of the manuscript. The authors have addressed many of the previously raised concerns, particularly with respect to moderating speculative interpretations and acknowledging methodological limitations. The manuscript has improved in clarity and overall structure.

However, several issues remain that require further refinement before the manuscript can be considered.

While the terminology “predicted GI” is now used more consistently, the Discussion still contains wording that may overstate the reliability of the predictive model. The statement indicating that predicted GI values “can closely reflect in vivo values” is not sufficiently supported by direct validation studies specifically addressing honey. Given the limited experimental comparisons between predicted and measured GI values in this matrix, the phrasing should be moderated to avoid overinterpretation. A more cautious formulation is warranted.

In addition, although the Conclusion has been revised, it still tends to blur the distinction between compositional characterization and functional implications. Amino acid profiles and antioxidant capacity assessed by in vitro assays should not be framed as demonstrated functional attributes beyond the analytical scope of the study. The final paragraph should more clearly emphasize that the findings relate to compositional differences and selected in vitro parameters rather than demonstrated biological functionality.

A typographical error remains in Table 5 (Total amino acid content), where the value is incorrectly formatted (26.45.4±268.3). This must be corrected.

Furthermore, there is a redundant sentence in the Discussion section concerning the higher proportion of fructose relative to glucose, which appears twice in close proximity. This should be streamlined for clarity and conciseness.

Although these issues are not fundamental flaws, they reflect insufficient precision in scientific framing and require correction to ensure methodological rigor and accurate interpretation.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

While the terminology “predicted GI” is now used more consistently, the Discussion still contains wording that may overstate the reliability of the predictive model. The statement indicating that predicted GI values “can closely reflect in vivo values” is not sufficiently supported by direct validation studies specifically addressing honey. Given the limited experimental comparisons between predicted and measured GI values in this matrix, the phrasing should be moderated to avoid overinterpretation. A more cautious formulation is warranted.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the relevant sentence to moderate the interpretation of predicted GI values. The discussion now clarifies that the model provides a compositional estimation and that direct in vivo validation in honey remains limited.

Comment 2:

In addition, although the Conclusion has been revised, it still tends to blur the distinction between compositional characterization and functional implications. Amino acid profiles and antioxidant capacity assessed by in vitro assays should not be framed as demonstrated functional attributes beyond the analytical scope of the study. The final paragraph should more clearly emphasize that the findings relate to compositional differences and selected in vitro parameters rather than demonstrated biological functionality.

Response 2:

The Conclusion has been revised to clearly distinguish compositional findings from demonstrated functional effects. Key physicochemical results are now explicitly summarized, and the text has been adjusted to avoid overinterpretation of in vitro data.

Comment 3:

A typographical error remains in Table 5 (Total amino acid content), where the value is incorrectly formatted (26.45.4±268.3). This must be corrected.

Response 3:

The typographical error in Table 5 has been corrected.

Comment 4:

Furthermore, there is a redundant sentence in the Discussion section concerning the higher proportion of fructose relative to glucose, which appears twice in close proximity. This should be streamlined for clarity and conciseness.

Response 4:

The redundant sentence has been removed, and the paragraph has been revised for improved clarity and conciseness.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comparative Physicochemical and Functional Characterization of Monofloral Honeys from South Korea

The manuscript has been significantly improved, and I would like to congratulate the authors for the substantial effort invested in revising the work. The current version demonstrates a much clearer structure, improved logical flow, and a more coherent organization of the scientific content. The arguments are presented in a more systematic and consistent manner, making the study easier to follow and better aligned with its stated objectives. The methodological descriptions, data presentation, and discussion have been notably strengthened.

Despite these substantial improvements, several important issues of considerable relevance remain and require careful attention. Specific comments are provided below:

Lines 19-24: Please indicate explicitly which amino acids were present in the highest concentrations (e.g., the top two or three) in Castanea honey, in order to enhance the technical clarity of the abstract.

Line 112: Please revise the section numbering: Section 2.2 should be renumbered as 2.3 (Physicochemical analysis), and all subsequent sections should be adjusted accordingly throughout the manuscript.

Line 159-166 or 250-253: Please define all amino acid abbreviations (e.g., Asp, Thr, Glu, Pro, etc.) either in the table footnote or at their first appearance in the manuscript. While standard in biochemistry, abbreviations should be clearly explained to ensure accessibility and clarity for a broader scientific readership.

Line 266-267: The PCA figures are presented in the supplementary figures/material; however, no scientific interpretation is provided in text. The authors are requested to report the percentage of variance explained by each principal component (PC1, PC2, etc.) and the cumulative variance of the first components after line 267 (but after the figures with PCA analysis). Without proper interpretation, the PCA analysis does not provide sufficient analytical value to the manuscript.

I would like to emphasize that the PCA analysis should be representative and meaningfully integrated into the manuscript only if the cumulative variance explained by the principal components (PC1, PC2 …. and, if necessary, PC3) is sufficiently high to justify interpretation. Generally, the sum of the first two components — or the first three, when required — should explain a substantial proportion of the total variance (e.g. at least 60–70%) to ensure that the graphical representation reliably reflects the structure of the dataset.

In your article, from the figures provided (in the supplementary figures/material), in case a) PC1 (21.8%) and PC2 (47.6%) together explain 69.4% of the total variance, which allows a reasonably reliable interpretation of the two-dimensional PCA representation. In case b), PC1 (84.5%) and PC2 (8.5%) cumulatively explain 93.0% of the variance, indicating a very strong and representative PCA model. The PCA analysis can be considered relevant in both cases; however, the authors must clearly interpret what each principal component represents and explain the scientific significance of the observed sample distribution.

I would also suggest including the PCA analysis (interpretation and figures) in the main text of the article, rather than in the figures/supplementary materials.

As PCA analysis examples, I can recommend the following papers:

Sakač, M.; Jovanov, P.; Marić, A.; Četojević-Simin, D.; Novaković, A.; Plavšić, D.; Škrobot, D.; Kovač, R. Antioxidative, Antibacterial and Antiproliferative Properties of Honey Types from the Western Balkans. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11061120

Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Popa, M.; Popa, D.M.; Radulov, I.; Vică, M.L. Applications of Romanian Propolis in Phyto-Inhibitory Activity and Antimicrobial Protection: A Comparative Study. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12121682

Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Popa, M.; Glevitzky, I.; Obiștioiu, D.; Cocan, I.; Vică, M.L. Inhibitory Effects and Composition Analysis of Romanian Propolis: Applications in Organic and Sustainable Agriculture. Plants 2024, 13, 3355. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13233355

Vică, M.L.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Popa, M.; Faur, D.M.; Bâlici, Ș.; Teodoru, C.A. Phyto-Inhibitory and Antimicrobial Activity of Brown Propolis from Romania. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12061015

Lines 232-236: In table 3, for Fructose (%) and Invert sugar (%), ANOVA results indicate significant differences (p < 0.05), yet post-hoc grouping letters are not presented. Please clarify whether Tukey’s HSD test was performed for these variables and, if so, include the corresponding multiple comparison results for consistency.

Lines 268-272: Figure 2 should be placed immediately after it is mentioned in the text, before the PCA statistical interpretation (lines 266–267).

Recommendation:

• The format of all tables does not comply with MDPI format requirements; please revise them.
• The figures (PCA analysis-now in supplementary materials/figures) are difficult to read; please try to separate them or improve their quality/resolution.
• Ensure that no section or subsection ends with a table or figure, but rather with their interpretation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1:

Lines 19-24: Please indicate explicitly which amino acids were present in the highest concentrations (e.g., the top two or three) in Castanea honey, in order to enhance the technical clarity of the abstract.

Response 1:

The Abstract has been revised to explicitly specify the predominant amino acids in Castanea honey (proline, phenylalanine, and leucine) to improve technical clarity.

Comment 2:

Line 112: Please revise the section numbering: Section 2.2 should be renumbered as 2.3 (Physicochemical analysis), and all subsequent sections should be adjusted accordingly throughout the manuscript.

Response 2:

The section numbering has been corrected, and all subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3:

Line 159-166 or 250-253: Please define all amino acid abbreviations (e.g., Asp, Thr, Glu, Pro, etc.) either in the table footnote or at their first appearance in the manuscript. While standard in biochemistry, abbreviations should be clearly explained to ensure accessibility and clarity for a broader scientific readership.

Response 3:

All amino acid abbreviations have been defined in the footnote of Table 5 in the order presented in the table.

Comment 4:

Line 266-267: The PCA figures are presented in the supplementary figures/material; however, no scientific interpretation is provided in text. The authors are requested to report the percentage of variance explained by each principal component (PC1, PC2, etc.) and the cumulative variance of the first components after line 267 (but after the figures with PCA analysis). Without proper interpretation, the PCA analysis does not provide sufficient analytical value to the manuscript.

I would like to emphasize that the PCA analysis should be representative and meaningfully integrated into the manuscript only if the cumulative variance explained by the principal components (PC1, PC2 …. and, if necessary, PC3) is sufficiently high to justify interpretation. Generally, the sum of the first two components — or the first three, when required — should explain a substantial proportion of the total variance (e.g. at least 60–70%) to ensure that the graphical representation reliably reflects the structure of the dataset.

In your article, from the figures provided (in the supplementary figures/material), in case a) PC1 (21.8%) and PC2 (47.6%) together explain 69.4% of the total variance, which allows a reasonably reliable interpretation of the two-dimensional PCA representation. In case b), PC1 (84.5%) and PC2 (8.5%) cumulatively explain 93.0% of the variance, indicating a very strong and representative PCA model. The PCA analysis can be considered relevant in both cases; however, the authors must clearly interpret what each principal component represents and explain the scientific significance of the observed sample distribution.

I would also suggest including the PCA analysis (interpretation and figures) in the main text of the article, rather than in the figures/supplementary materials.

As PCA analysis examples, I can recommend the following papers:

Sakač, M.; Jovanov, P.; Marić, A.; Četojević-Simin, D.; Novaković, A.; Plavšić, D.; Škrobot, D.; Kovač, R. Antioxidative, Antibacterial and Antiproliferative Properties of Honey Types from the Western Balkans. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11061120

Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Popa, M.; Popa, D.M.; Radulov, I.; Vică, M.L. Applications of Romanian Propolis in Phyto-Inhibitory Activity and Antimicrobial Protection: A Comparative Study. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12121682

Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Popa, M.; Glevitzky, I.; Obiștioiu, D.; Cocan, I.; Vică, M.L. Inhibitory Effects and Composition Analysis of Romanian Propolis: Applications in Organic and Sustainable Agriculture. Plants 2024, 13, 3355. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13233355

Vică, M.L.; Glevitzky, M.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, R.C.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Heghedűş-Mîndru, G.; Popa, M.; Faur, D.M.; Bâlici, Ș.; Teodoru, C.A. Phyto-Inhibitory and Antimicrobial Activity of Brown Propolis from Romania. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12061015

Response 4:

The interpretation of each component has been clarified, and the PCA figures have been moved to the main text.

Comment 5:

Lines 232-236: In table 3, for Fructose (%) and Invert sugar (%), ANOVA results indicate significant differences (p < 0.05), yet post-hoc grouping letters are not presented. Please clarify whether Tukey’s HSD test was performed for these variables and, if so, include the corresponding multiple comparison results for consistency.

Response 5:

Tukey’s HSD test was performed for fructose and invert sugar. Although the overall ANOVA indicated significance, the post-hoc comparisons did not reveal significant pairwise differences. For consistency, the corresponding grouping letters (identical letters) have now been added to Table 3.

Comment 6:

Lines 268-272: Figure 2 should be placed immediately after it is mentioned in the text, before the PCA statistical interpretation (lines 266–267).

Response 6:

Figure 2 has been repositioned to appear immediately after its first mention in the text and before the PCA interpretation.

Comment 7:

The format of all tables does not comply with MDPI format requirements; please revise them.

Response 7:

All tables have been revised to comply with MDPI formatting requirements. The presentation of mean ± standard deviation has been standardized, and table borders have been corrected accordingly.

Comment 8:

The figures (PCA analysis-now in supplementary materials/figures) are difficult to read; please try to separate them or improve their quality/resolution.

Response 8:

The PCA figures have been revised to improve clarity and resolution. The layout has been adjusted to enhance readability.

Comment 9:

Ensure that no section or subsection ends with a table or figure, but rather with their interpretation.

Response 9:

The manuscript has been revised to improve the structural organization of the Results section.