From Chemical Composition to Biological Activity: Phytochemical, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Comparison of Matricaria chamomilla and Tripleurospermum inodorum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments included in the comments in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Kindly find attached our response to your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From Chemical Composition to Biological Activity: Phytochemical, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Comparison of Matricaria chamomilla and Tripleurospermum inodorum

 

 

In some parts of the text, the level of English is inadequate. This can be seen, for example, in line 21, where the verb "were" is missing.

 

The abstract needs to be rewritten. It reads like a telegram. It lacks cohesion. Furthermore, some sections explain what method will be used to analyze it, and others simply state that they are being analyzed.

 

Line 23 mentions diagnostic differences. What are these differences? Morphological differences?

 

Line 23 says "more," but the comparison is not completed. Another clear example of the poor level of writing.

 

Line 30 mentions moderate antioxidant activity. What is it compared to that makes it considered moderate?

 

In the first paragraph of the introduction, the scientific names of the two species involved in the study are expressed in different formats. Unify the format.

 

Line 45. Give an example of the diverse environmental conditions.

 

The introduction continues with a discussion of the morphology and composition of these plants. However, as it discusses each of these topics, it fails to explain the importance of conducting new studies. It seems that this study will simply replicate previously conducted studies.

 

Lines 108-115. Move them to the beginning of section 2.2.

 

Line 117. How were the chapters selected? This information should be added to the manuscript.

 

Line 128. If the same equipment as in the previous paragraph will be used, there is no need to clarify all the commercial information again.

 

Line 131. In the analysis of floral parts, how many replicates were performed?

 

The commercial information for many of the reagents used in the study is missing. It would be interesting to add a section that compiles all this information.

 

In section 2.2, 2.3, 3.4., etc. The authors abuse the use of very short paragraphs, barely 3-4 lines. Such short paragraphs should be avoided.

 

Line 155. Delete "as described in the 10th edition of the Romanian Pharmacopoeia." The same thing happens on line 171.

 

Lines 157-164. This paragraph should be rewritten. The writing level is inadequate.

 

Line 169. Information is missing.

 

Line 172. Were all tests conducted in triplicate and expressed as the mean plus standard deviation? If so, move this information to the beginning of section 2.2 and not repeat it in each subsection. But, in GC-MS no replicas were made?

 

The DPPH method is widely used, but it has notable limitations. It is known for its inconsistent results, often giving higher than actual values. This is because it is a purely chemical method, with little reproducibility once the extracts are consumed. Therefore, assessing the antioxidant activity of extracts using this technique alone is very limited and inconclusive. This should be clarified at some point, and we would like to thank the authors for referring to the section as antioxidant capacity rather than activity. However, this approach is not clearly reflected in the results.

 

Section 2.3. No replicas?

 

Section 2.4. If you are going to write a section on this, it should apply to everything you have done. However, it is not clear whether this statistical study has been carried out for all techniques. This information needs to be improved.

 

Line 261-263. Delete it.

 

Section 3.2. and 3.3 This section has no discussion in the discussion section. Are these plants a relevant source of these compounds or not? Were similar quantities reported in previous studies or not? Could soil and climate conditions play a role? There are many things to discuss, but none are addressed.

 

Consider unifying the results and discussion sections. This would make it much easier to evaluate the results obtained in this study.

 

Table 4. Total?

 

Table 4 and 5. Unify both tables by marking "not detected" in the case where a compound has not been detected in one of the two samples.

 

Figure 2. This figure is very simple and does not provide much information. It could be part of a figure in the introduction.

 

The materials and methods and results sections are not organized into the same sections. There are subsections in materials and methods that are not followed in the results section. The format should be respected.

 

Section 3.6. In the methods section, it was mentioned that four microorganisms would be tested. Only two are mentioned here. What happened to the other two? The manuscript needs correction/clarification.

 

Line 437. Avoid using the first person in scientific articles.

 

Line 450-457. Missing references.

 

Line 461 mentions "notable." This is not a very appropriate adjective.

 

In the discussion of the identified compounds, there is no adequate discussion. It does not mention whether these compounds had been previously identified in these species or families. Nor does it compare the concentrations at which they were detected. Instead, it focuses on identifying applications for these compounds based on bioactivities reported in other studies. However, the concentrations in these studies and the origin of the compound in these other studies are unknown, so the bioactivities cannot be extrapolated without further consideration, without having tested them in this study, let alone the identification of these compounds.

 

It would be interesting to add some numerical value in the conclusion section.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please find attached our response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In section 2, the subsection headings are missing from the first paragraphs.

Delete line 111. It is a blank line. The same error occurs in lines 482, 541, 556, and 557.

There is a typo in line 146.

The paragraph in lines 201-202 is very short.

The paragraph break in line 294 should be removed.

Lines 313-318 should be moved to the beginning of that section.

In section 3.2.3, there are still very short paragraphs. This should be corrected by linking the ideas well in longer paragraphs.

Author Response

Attached please find our responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf