Essential Oil Yield, Composition, Antioxidant and Microbial Activity of Wild Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) from Monte Negro Coast

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Plant material - after obtaining the powder, how was it stored until the analysis?

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gas chromatography/flame ionization 97

detection (GC/FID) analysis - I suggest a more extensive description considering that it is a basic technique in your article

The total phenolic amount increased from leaves to florets, reaching its highest value in early florets, then constantly decreased in fruits - this paragraph can be found in your article, I suggest that you also determine the total phenols, considering that you have determined the antioxidant capacity

4. Discussion - I think that you want to say conclusions

Author Response

Please, open Atach and recognised our Answers 

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

Line 12: replace "different plant parts" with "two plant parts" in the whole manuscript

Line 15: Change "higher than the from …." to "higher than that from ….)

Line 20: close the  parenthesis before 7.8% and remove the comma

Line 24: additives for what? please specify

 

Materials

Lines 85-88:

-        please include the specific growth stage at the collection time. If the plants are cultivated, the number of days after cultivation could be added. If there is a photograph of the plant, please include it.

-        By "autochthonous' Do you mean wild? or just native to the region but cultivated?

-        Please provide the exact location coordinates

-        Initial fresh weight and the resultant dry weight therefrom

Lines 87-88: Include some brief information about the method applied and the quantification method used for the identified components.

Lines    101-106:

-        Oregano? it seems it is copied from another work

-        Think the standard DPPH protocol involves incubation for 30 min before reading the Abs. So, any justification for the immediate reading?

-        Here, the incubation time is 20 min; In the results section, the incubation time is 40 min. How come?

-        If you want to study the kinetics, the same samples should be measured over time. You measured different samples!

-        Please include brief information about the DPPH assay

 

Line 108-132:

-        Line 112 (one fungal strain)

-        Details are needed about: The negative and positive control used, the Concentrations tested of the essential oil and the positive control, whether you estimated the MIC, Is the incubation time of 24 and 48 h was enough for bacteria and fungi?

-        What are the growth media used for bacteria and fungi?

 

Results and Discussion

-        Table 1: include the meaning of p.m. in the table footnote. I think you mean plant material, however, be more precise, Is it Dry or Fresh? Change fennel stems to "stems" and fennel leaves to "leaves"

-        Why didn't you consider using seeds together with stems and leaves in your study? Please specify the reasons as limitations for your study

-        Line 165: you mentioned the effect of several factors, including varied agro-climatic conditions. Could you specify these conditions in the materials sections regarding the location from where you collected the samples? And then compare your results with previous studies in light of these conditions

-        Tables 2 and 3: please include in the table footnote the meaning of all the abbreviations used in the table.

-        Line 233: you mentioned that your results are consistent with other studies . What studies? cite them, please

-        Line 279 , Table 4 and Figure 5: “40 min incubation”! however in the material section, the incubation time is 20 min !

-        Line 307: bold text. Why?

-        Table 5: Please include the meaning of '-'. Does it mean the inhibition zone was zero or what? If so, write 0 instead. Didn't you use a positive control for comparison? Usually we measure the mycelial growth for fungi and inhibition zone for bacteria, from which we calculate the inhibition percentage relative to the negative control. Did you do so? Did you estimate the MIC or not?

 

Section 4: I think you mean Conclusions

-        Include some conclusions about the antimicrobial effect and the principal components of EO

Author Response

Please open Attach and recognised our Answers 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the corrections done by the authors, however, there are some minor corrections to be done

-        Line 86: “plant” not “plants”

-        Line 92: I prefer to rephrase as “Plant samples (leaves and stems) were collected from wild fennel (...)  plants growing in ….”

-        Please add, “samples were authenticated by whom.” and “a voucher was deposited at ....... herbarium (accession number ......).

-        Lone 140: “on” instead of “to”

-        Line 145: you mean fungi or yeast?

-        Line 150: please rephrase “the positive controls were cefalexin and nystatin antibiotics for bacteria and fungi, respectively [24]”

-        Line 176: “were” instead of “are”

-        Tables 2 and 3: there is an Asterisk before “phenolics” and their value, please indicate the meaning of that.  

-        Table 5: please add two more columns for the results of negative and positive controls for comparison of FEO efficiency

 

-        Line 381: change “has” to “had”

Author Response

Please open Attach 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx