Review Reports
by
- Martina Puccinelli 1,*,
- Rita Maggini 1 and
- Luca Incrocci 1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Halil DEMIR Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
LINE 105- Please specify how much seed was in each repetition?
LINE 106- Please specify the seed quality (emergence rate, germination, %) of the seeds, if this was tested.
LINE 116 - Please explain the considerations for selecting a 16-hour photoperiod? Have experiments been done before to study different photoperiods on the productivity and biochemical composition of seedlings and microgreens?
I also suggest you to add to discussion part the reference of Dr. Kuleshova et al., 2021
Kuleshova T.E., Udalova O.R., Balashova I.T., Anikina L.M., Kononchuk P.Yu., Mirskaya G.V., Panova G.G. Influence of different light sources on the production process of tomato in intensive photoculture. Vegetable crops of Russia. 2021;(4):65-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18619/2072-9146-2021-4-65-70
Author Response
LINE 105- Please specify how much seed was in each repetition?
This information has been added at line 127-128.
LINE 106- Please specify the seed quality (emergence rate, germination, %) of the seeds, if this was tested.
This information has been added at line 112-120.
LINE 116 - Please explain the considerations for selecting a 16-hour photoperiod? Have experiments been done before to study different photoperiods on the productivity and biochemical composition of seedlings and microgreens?
Some works have been conducted to study the effect of photoperiod on microgreens, but different results have been obtained according to the tested species (Alrifai et al., 2019). Besides, according to our knowledge there are not works dealing with the effect of photoperiod on sprouts or flax microgreens. Thus, the 16 h photoperiod was chosen since is commonly used for the cultivation of microgreens, and we have previously used this photoperiod in others experiments with microgreens. This information has been added to the text of Materials and Methods.
Alrifai, O.; Hao, X.; Marcone, M.F.; Tsao, R. Current Review of the Modulatory Effects of LED Lights on Photosynthesis of Secondary Metabolites and Future Perspectives of Microgreen Vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 6075–6090, doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00819.
I also suggest you to add to discussion part the reference of Dr. Kuleshova et al., 2021
Kuleshova T.E., Udalova O.R., Balashova I.T., Anikina L.M., Kononchuk P.Yu., Mirskaya G.V., Panova G.G. Influence of different light sources on the production process of tomato in intensive photoculture. Vegetable crops of Russia. 2021;(4):65-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18619/2072-9146-2021-4-65-70
The reference has been added in the Introduction at line 95. [21]
Reviewer 2 Report
Acceptable after a few changes shown on the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The answers are reported here and next to the reviewer's comments in the PDF file attached.
1) We replaced "map level" with "growth substrate".
2) the text has been corrected
3) More information has been added here and at line 108
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents the possibility to grow flaxseed sprouts and microgreens indoor by modulating the light spectrum, under the title “Can light spectrum composition increase growth and nutritional quality of Linum usitatissimum L. sprouts and microgreens?”. The results are innovative and explained in an acceptable form. However, the abstract and conclusions sections need to be rewritten in order to provide more specific the results of this work. Some comments are following below.
L 15: Please revise “characterized”.
L 25: Isn't it self-evident that microgreens produce higher biomass than sprouts?
L 26-28: Be more specific by presenting numbers or percentages. In this form the abstract is rather generic, and it is difficult to “stand alone” as it does not provide results of the study.
L 135: Please define "beginning" of treatments.
L 138: What was the time duration of the drying?
L 313: “…than…”.
L 327-330: Connect this phrase better with the discussion. Is it on favor of microgreens?
L 428-435 The conclusions are also generic. It is suggested to strengthen this part of the part by including quantitative data.
Author Response
L 15: Please revise “characterized”.
Test has been corrected.
L 25: Isn't it self-evident that microgreens produce higher biomass than sprouts?
We deleted “biomass production”.
L 26-28: Be more specific by presenting numbers or percentages. In this form the abstract is rather generic, and it is difficult to “stand alone” as it does not provide results of the study.
The abstract has been improved.
L 135: Please define "beginning" of treatments.
The text has been improved.
L 138: What was the time duration of the drying?
The duration of drying has been added to the text.
L 313: “…than…”.
The text has been corrected
L 327-330: Connect this phrase better with the discussion. Is it on favor of microgreens?
The text has been improved
L 428-435 The conclusions are also generic. It is suggested to strengthen this part of the part by including quantitative data.
The conclusions have been improved