Drying and Storage Influence the Formation of Key Aromatic Constituents in Blue Fenugreek (Trigonella caerulea)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the impact of post-harvest storage on the flavor profile of blue fenugreek. The findings of this study possess certain application value. The following revision suggestions are proposed for this study.

--The title of the manuscript is too general and should be refined to encapsulate the main content of the article, resulting in a clear and informative title.

--The comparative results of the different experimental groups in the abstract are not sufficiently highlighted. The outcomes of the control and experimental groups should be clearly distinguished.

--”For the cultivation of sterile plants, seeds were soaked for 20 min in 70% (vol/vol) ethanol and for 10 min in 35% (vol/vol) hydrogen peroxide”What was the seed survival rate following sterilization using this method? 

--The experimental material used in this study was seed-grown seedlings. How was the genetic background of the material controlled?

--The legend of Figure 1 should be supplemented, and a significance analysis between the control and experimental groups should be conducted. The font size in Figure 2 is too small and has compromised readability, necessitating revision. The differential analysis and legend in Figure 4 are not clearly presented. It is recommended to use a different type of chart for better visualization.

--The Results section should enhance the coherence and logical progression between each subsection to improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

--The number of keywords is excessive.

--Units should be used consistently throughout the manuscript. Whether to use abbreviations or full spellings should follow academic conventions.

Author Response

This study investigated the impact of post-harvest storage on the flavor profile of blue fenugreek. The findings of this study possess certain application value. The following revision suggestions are proposed for this study.

A) Dear Reviewer, many thanks for your constructive and helpful feedback. Please find our answers below.

--The title of the manuscript is too general and should be refined to encapsulate the main content of the article, resulting in a clear and informative title.

A) The title of the manuscript was changed to “Drying and Storage Influence the Formation of Key Aromatic Constituents in Blue Fenugreek (Trigonella caerulea)” now more precisely reflecting the content of the study.

--The comparative results of the different experimental groups in the abstract are not sufficiently highlighted. The outcomes of the control and experimental groups should be clearly distinguished.

A) The abstract was completely rewritten and the outcomes of both the drying and the storage studies, were expressed compared to the control/other experimental group.

--”For the cultivation of sterile plants, seeds were soaked for 20 min in 70% (vol/vol) ethanol and for 10 min in 35% (vol/vol) hydrogen peroxide”What was the seed survival rate following sterilization using this method? 

A) The seed survival rate was approximately 30%. We added this fact to the manuscript.

--The experimental material used in this study was seed-grown seedlings. How was the genetic background of the material controlled?

A) Information on the cultivation of the plant material was added to the manuscript (lines 73 to 76 and 85 to 86, respectively).

--The legend of Figure 1 should be supplemented, and a significance analysis between the control and experimental groups should be conducted. The font size in Figure 2 is too small and has compromised readability, necessitating revision. The differential analysis and legend in Figure 4 are not clearly presented. It is recommended to use a different type of chart for better visualization.

A) Significance analysis between control and experimental groups presented in figure 1 was conducted and significance indicated by asterisks and the legend was changed as requested. Also the font size of Figure 2 (now 3) was increased and the Figures 4 to 6 were changed to bar diagrams.

--The Results section should enhance the coherence and logical progression between each subsection to improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

A) The results section was reorganized by moving the first part of section 3.2 to section 3.3 now reflecting the logical progression of the study. We hope that you will find the results section more coherent now.

--The number of keywords is excessive.

A) The number of keywords was ten, which is within the convention of the journal (three to ten). However, we deleted the last two keywords.

--Units should be used consistently throughout the manuscript. Whether to use abbreviations or full spellings should follow academic conventions.

A) We changed inconsistencies of units and spellings, e.g., hours à h, alpha à α.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper clarifies that the aroma components of Blue Fenugreek are affected by storage conditions, and that camphor and p-cymene significantly increase under non-sterile conditions. We believe that the results are novel and worthy of publication in the horticulturae. However, minor issues remain, as described below, and require further addressing.

 

The Abstract is composed of Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. However, in the case of horticulturae, this structure is not required. It should be revised to the normal structure.

 

In Figure 1, are the error bars standard deviations or standard errors? It should be stated what the error bars represent.

 

Figure 2 has small text that is difficult to read. It should be enlarged to make it legible.

 

In Figure 3, it should be stated what the error bars represent.

 

The graphs shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6 are unusual. Consideration should be given to changing them to graphs showing mean and standard deviation (or standard error). Although significance is indicated, the comparison is unclear. Furthermore, the letters indicating significant differences should be enlarged. Additionally, the legend for Figure 4 states "b=p<0.01" and "c=p<0.001," the legend for Figure 5 states "a=p<0.05," "c=p<0.001," and "d=p<0.0001," and the legend for Figure 6 states "a=p<0.05," "c p<0.001," and "d=p<0.0001," but these are not clearly stated in the graphs. Therefore, these should be deleted.

 

Specific comments

Line 95. "One thousand mg" is appropriate for "1000 mg."

Line 113. "One hundred mg" is appropriate for "100 mg."

Line 124. "One hundred mg" is appropriate for "100 mg."

Line 125. Is "100 ng" correct? It is usually not possible to weigh it, so if so, how was it added?

Line 130. “Temperature” should be changed to “temperature”.

Line 144. “α-keto” should be changed to “α-Keto”.

Table 2. “sterile, after storage”, “conventional, before storage”, and “conventional, after storage” should be changed to “Sterile, after storage”, “Conventional, before storage”, and “Conventional, after storage”, respectively.

 

Overall, this manuscript offers valuable findings, but it does have some minor issues. In my conclusion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in horticulturae if the above issues are adequately addressed.

Author Response

This paper clarifies that the aroma components of Blue Fenugreek are affected by storage conditions, and that camphor and p-cymene significantly increase under non-sterile conditions. We believe that the results are novel and worthy of publication in the horticulturae. However, minor issues remain, as described below, and require further addressing.

• Dear Reviewer, Many thanks for your nice words and your helpful comments. Please find our answers below.

 

The Abstract is composed of Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. However, in the case of horticulturae, this structure is not required. It should be revised to the normal structure.

• The structure of the abstract was revised

In Figure 1, are the error bars standard deviations or standard errors? It should be stated what the error bars represent.

• An explanation for the error bars was added to the legend of Figure 1.

Figure 2 has small text that is difficult to read. It should be enlarged to make it legible.

• Font size of Figure 2 (now 3) was changed.

In Figure 3, it should be stated what the error bars represent.

• Also here, an explanation for the error bars was added to the figure legend.

The graphs shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6 are unusual. Consideration should be given to changing them to graphs showing mean and standard deviation (or standard error). Although significance is indicated, the comparison is unclear. Furthermore, the letters indicating significant differences should be enlarged. Additionally, the legend for Figure 4 states "b=p<0.01" and "c=p<0.001," the legend for Figure 5 states "a=p<0.05," "c=p<0.001," and "d=p<0.0001," and the legend for Figure 6 states "a=p<0.05," "c p<0.001," and "d=p<0.0001," but these are not clearly stated in the graphs. Therefore, these should be deleted.

• Figures 4 to 6 were changed to bar diagrams. Also, significance analysis were simplified for better understanding now showing asterisks for p<0.05 and p<0.01.

Specific comments

Line 95. "One thousand mg" is appropriate for "1000 mg."

• “1000” was changed to “One thousand”

Line 113. "One hundred mg" is appropriate for "100 mg."

• “100” was changed to “One hundred”

Line 124. "One hundred mg" is appropriate for "100 mg."

• “100” was changed to “One hundred”

Line 125. Is "100 ng" correct? It is usually not possible to weigh it, so if so, how was it added?

• 100 ng were added by adding 10 µL of a 10 mg/L solution of toluene-d5 in methanol. We added this information to the manuscript.

Line 130. “Temperature” should be changed to “temperature”.

• “Temperature” was changed to “temperature”

Line 144. “α-keto” should be changed to “α-Keto”.

• “α-keto“ was changed to “α-Keto”

Table 2. “sterile, after storage”, “conventional, before storage”, and “conventional, after storage” should be changed to “Sterile, after storage”, “Conventional, before storage”, and “Conventional, after storage”, respectively.

• Changes were made as requested.

 

Overall, this manuscript offers valuable findings, but it does have some minor issues. In my conclusion, this manuscript is suitable for publication in horticulturae if the above issues are adequately addressed.

• Many thanks again for your positive and constructive review.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is scientifically sound and is recommended for acceptance in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions.

 

Kind regards