Weather Conditions Influence on Hyssop Essential Oil Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a well written research paper. The use of Artificial neural network (ANN) is indeed a novelty for this kind of research. 

Author Response

It is a well written research paper. The use of Artificial neural network (ANN) is indeed a novelty for this kind of research.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer on professional and helpful comments, and also for the very positive attitude for our investigations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Report on Manuscript

processes-1259135

Title

Weather conditions influence on hyssop essential oil quality

submitted for publication on

Processes

ADVICE

In my opinion the article is suitable for publication on Processes, after revision.

COMMENTS, REMARKS

• Reported data seem reliable.
• English should be improved in some points.
• The caption of each table must clearly explain its content and must reports, in the same order, name and symbol of every quantity reported. In the head row or column just the symbol and its unit can be used.

QUERIES AND SUGGESTIONS

Explanations and clarifications that derived from queries and suggestions listed below should be incorporated in the paper.

1. Three years instead than three seasons better indicate the duration of the study.
2. Fig 1. The colour of line and histogram for a given year are different.

• The line representing the temperature in the 1° year reports temperatures values around -5 °C in June and August. It is correct? Please, check.

2. What does it mean Al/AL reported in Table 1?
3. Concerning the pH determinations, please, specify that the measures where carried out in water or in aqueous solution of KCl at a given concentration.
4. Please, specify in the caption of the Table 2 that the reported data are taken from the literature.

• The caption for Table 3 is not detailed. Please, specify which quantities are reported.
• The predicted RI values are reported with a very high number of figures.

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS

Check accurately the whole paper, including tables, figures, figure captions and references, to introduce some modifications listed below.

• Following the IUPAC recommendations, units should be always written on the right side of the number, otherwise the use of parentheses is recommended. E.g. from (35.3 to 51.2) %; (293.15, 298.15, 303.15 and 313.15) K; (16.0 ±3) mm; from (0 to 3) cm.
• Insert always a space between number and symbol representing a unit, and between units. E.g. 100 g NOT 100g. 10 kg m s-2.
• The use of commas to separate thousands is not recommended. Please, use a small space to separate groups of three digits.
• Estimed uncertainties (standard deviations) should be reported by using no more than 2 figures Usually, just 1 for u values > 3). Then, the value it refers to should be round accordingly. E.g. 41.2±2.5 NOT 41.2±2.50; 0.1Y±0.06 (write the correct value of y) not 0.1±0.06.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS

Affiliations

• Please, report the name of the relevant department or Institute.

Abstract

• row 22: Versatile?

Introduction

• Row 61. Please insert where appropriate “reports the results of“ a study of the..

Author Response

processes-1259135

Title:  Weather conditions influence on hyssop essential oil quality

ADVICE

In my opinion the article is suitable for publication on Processes, after revision.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer on professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that the Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to better quality of the paper that was submitted. All remarks are accepted and paper is changed according to these comments.

COMMENTS, REMARKS

Reported data seem reliable.

English should be improved in some points.

AUTHORS: Text of the Manuscript was thoroughly checked and corrected, by the English speaking person, according to the Reviewer's comments.

The caption of each table must clearly explain its content and must reports, in the same order, name and symbol of every quantity reported. In the head row or column just the symbol and its unit can be used.

AUTHORS: The caption of the tables checked and corrected, according to the Reviewer's comments.

QUERIES AND SUGGESTIONS

Explanations and clarifications that derived from queries and suggestions listed below should be incorporated in the paper.

Three years instead than three seasons better indicate the duration of the study.

AUTHORS: Thank you very much for this observation. The term "season" was changed to "year" throughout the Manuscript, according to the reviewer's comment.

Fig 1. The colour of line and histogram for a given year are different.

AUTHORS:Line colours were explained in the legend of the Figure, as suggested by the Reviewer.  The darker lines (blue, red and green) present precipitations (in the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd year, respectively), while pale colours present the average temperatures per months.

The line representing the temperature in the 1° year reports temperatures values around -5 °C in June and August. It is correct? Please, check.

AUTHORS:Thank you very much for this observation.Line colours were explained in the legend of the Figure, as suggested by the Reviewer.  The darker lines (blue, red and green) present precipitations (in the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd year, respectively), while pale colours present the average temperatures per months.

What does it mean Al/AL reported in Table 1?

AUTHORS: AL is a short for Ammonium Lactate which is used for extraction of phosphorus and potassium from soil in accordance to the method used in this research. There are several different methods of P and K extractions from soil regarding the type of extraction solution and AL is used to mark which extraction solution was applied. We added the information on type of extraction solution and the method used in the paragraph before Table 1.

 “Available phosphorous and potassium in soil were determined by extraction with ammonium lactate solution (AL) in accordance to the method established by Egner, Riehm and Domingo”

Concerning the pH determinations, please, specify that the measures were carried out in water or in aqueous solution of KCl at a given concentration.

AUTHORS: soil pH value was determined in suspension with H2O and 1M KCl both. The information on KCl solution concentration is added in the text and in Table 1.

Please, specify in the caption of the Table 2 that the reported data are taken from the literature.

AUTHORS: According to the Reviewer's comment, it was mentioned in the caption of the Table 2 that compound content for 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd year were taken from the literature: [34], [35] and [2], respectively.

The caption for Table 3 is not detailed. Please, specify which quantities are reported.

AUTHORS: According to the Reviewer's comment, it was mentioned in the caption of the Table 2 that compound content for 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd year were taken from the literature: [34], [35] and [2], respectively.

The predicted RI values are reported with a very high number of figures.

AUTHORS: The number of decimals for predicted RIs were set to two, according to the Reviewer's comment.

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS

Check accurately the whole paper, including tables, figures, figure captions and references, to introduce some modifications listed below.

Following the IUPAC recommendations, units should be always written on the right side of the number, otherwise the use of parentheses is recommended. E.g. from (35.3 to 51.2) %; (293.15, 298.15, 303.15 and 313.15) K; (16.0 ±3) mm; from (0 to 3) cm.

AUTHORS: The text was rearranged according to the Reviewer's comments.

Insert always a space between number and symbol representing a unit, and between units. E.g. 100 g NOT 100g. 10 kg m s-2.

AUTHORS: The text was rearranged according to the Reviewer's comments.

The use of commas to separate thousands is not recommended. Please, use a small space to separate groups of three digits.

AUTHORS:The text was rearranged according to the Reviewer's comments.

Estimed uncertainties (standard deviations) should be reported by using no more than 2 figures Usually, just 1 for u values > 3). Then, the value it refers to should be round accordingly. E.g. 41.2±2.5 NOT 41.2±2.50; 0.1Y±0.06 (write the correct value of y) not 0.1±0.06.

AUTHORS: The number of decimals for predicted SDs were set to one, according to the Reviewer's comment.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS

Affiliations

Please, report the name of the relevant department or Institute.

AUTHORS:The department name was added to the affiliation of the institute, according to the Reviewer's comment

Abstract

row 22: Versatile?

AUTHORS: The term "versatile" was changed to "different", according to the Reviewer's comment.

Introduction

Row 61. Please insert where appropriate “reports the results of“ a study of the..

AUTHORS: The text was changed according to the Reviewer's comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Field experiments are very difficult because a lot of random factors can disturb growth process and I appreciate the effort put in performing this long term study. However, I have some suggestions for Authors.

Line 42: „linalool as the main compound (from 35.3-42 51.2%)” – should be: as a main compound of the oil

Line 43: „This subspecies does not satisfy the requirements of ISO 9841 standard” – because of the high content of linalool? what is the requirements of ISO for linalool? Add the information.

Some information on application of H. officinalis essential oil should be added to Introduction

Line 61: Be more precise. Add: „the chemical composition of Hyssopus officinalis ssp. Officinalis essential oil (…);”Furthermore, comparisons with ISO standards (…)” – what was compared?

Why are there references given in the first line in the Table 1. Are these data previously published? If yes, it should be clearly indicated in Introduction and the novelty of the study should be highlighted

Table 1. Do not use the superscript for shortcuts MT, OMT …

Line 220-221: too obvious and unnecessary statement.

Discussion: this part of manuscript is hard to follow. Parts using literature data to conduct Authors own analyzes could be excluded from this section and included into the Results (e.g. unrooted cluster tree, correlation analysis … ). Combining the results and discussions into one chapter and the relevant subsections could also help to clearly show what was the authors achievement.

Conclusion: “The vegetation year significantly affected essential oil yield, although not the essential oil composition” – these statement is based on ref. [40] and is not a result of the present study

Author Response

Field experiments are very difficult because a lot of random factors can disturb growth process and I appreciate the effort put in performing this long term study. However, I have some suggestions for Authors.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer on professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that the Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to better quality of the paper that was submitted. All remarks are accepted and paper is changed according to these comments.

Line 42: „linalool as the main compound (from 35.3-42 51.2%)” – should be: as a main compound of the oil

AUTHORS: The text was changed according to the Reviewer's comment.

Line 43: „This subspecies does not satisfy the requirements of ISO 9841 standard” – because of the high content of linalool? what is the requirements of ISO for linalool? Add the information.

AUTHORS: ISO 9841 standard does not recognise linalool as the main component of hyssop essential oil (main components are all compounds with the content ranging from 0,1 to 45% ) and does not have it listed or defined required concentration range. The information was added in the text.

Some information on application of H. officinalis essential oil should be added to Introduction

AUTHORS: Information on H. officinalis essential oil usage is added in thre first paragraph of Intoduction.

Line 61: Be more precise. Add: „the chemical composition of Hyssopus officinalis ssp.

Officinalis essential oil (…);”Furthermore, comparisons with ISO standards (…)” – what was compared?

AUTHORS: the word “essential oil” is added.

The sentence was rewritten to be more clear: “Furthermore, the hyssop essential oil characteristic components content were compared with ISO standard requirements which defines hyssop essential oil quality”

Why are there references given in the first line in the Table 1. Are these data previously published? If yes, it should be clearly indicated in Introduction and the novelty of the study should be highlighted

According to the Reviewer's comment, it was mentioned in the caption of the Table 2 that compound content for 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd year were taken from the literature: [34], [35] and [2], respectively.

Table 1. Do not use the superscript for shortcuts MT, OMT …

AUTHORS: The superscripts are removed from Table 2 and shortcuts are presented in the brackets.

Line 220-221: too obvious and unnecessary statement.

AUTHORS: The sentence was deleted according to the Reviewer's comment.

Discussion: this part of manuscript is hard to follow. Parts using literature data to conduct Authors own analyzes could be excluded from this section and included into the Results (e.g. unrooted cluster tree, correlation analysis … ). Combining the results and discussions into one chapter and the relevant subsections could also help to clearly show what was the authors achievement.

AUTHORS: The text of the Results and the Discussion sections were merged into a Result and Discussion section, according the Reviewer's comments, and this combined section was divided into 5 subsections.

Conclusion: “The vegetation year significantly affected essential oil yield, although not the essential oil composition” – these statement is based on ref. [40] and is not a result of the present study

AUTHORS: The sentence was deleted according to the Reviewer's comment.