Proximate, Minerals, and Vitamin C Contents of Selected Wild Edible Plants in Lasta District, Northeastern Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have studied the Proximate, Minerals and Vitamin C Contents of 7 Wild Edible Plants. The manuscript is not acceptable in its present form. I suggest minor revision of this article. Minor issues related to this manuscript is mentioned below.
- In abstract, full form of WEPs should be written at its first mention.
- In equations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10), multiplication symbol ×, needs to be inserted where required.
- Whether the moisture contents of the fresh samples were determined or not?
- In Table 4, why Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid) contents were determined on dry weight basis. Why fresh sample was not considered for this?
- Whether the plant species was authenticated? if it was done, mention the details.
- The manuscript contains grammatical and typographical errors. These needs to be carefully checked and corrected.
- The manuscript is lacking citation of the most recent relevant papers, which needs to be incorporated at appropriate places with further discussion.
Author Response
Dear Prof., I have got your comments and questions very interesting, constructive and important to our manuscript (ijpb-2045049). We have tried to address all your comments and highlighted the corrections in the manuscript. Really thak you very much for your contribution on our manuscript specifically and to science in general.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript entitled "Proximate, Minerals and Vitamin C Contents of Selected Wild Edible Plants in Lasta District, Northeastern Ethiopia” performed procedure for evaluation of the nutritional value (proximate, mineral, and vitamin C content) of the most consumed seven wild edible plants collected from Lasta District, Northeastern Ethiopia. It presents scientific relevance for the area of Medicine, Biology, Chemistry and Natural Products area. After consulting www.sciencedirect.com, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and others databases, some authors have publications related to the subject of the manuscript. The language (English) are satisfactory (I suggest the final revision)! However, you need to change some details/information in the abstract, Introduction, Methods, results, discussion and conclusions. I request information on the procedures and interpretation of the results obtained.
Abstract: Adequate, but I suggest rewrite and add information:
- Page 1, lines 13-15: The authors indicate the use of WEP in Ethiopia, but only analyzed plants of the Lasta District. What justifies only analyzing this region? Do you consider the sampling representative?
- Page 1, lines 18-21: The authors wrote: “The nutritional parameters including proximate content, macro and micronutrients and also vitamin C contents of the selected seven wild edible plants were evaluated using standard food analysis techniques”. What are "standard techniques"? What analytical techniques were used? I suggest indicating some in the abstract!
- Page 1, lines 21-22: What are the units of measure for moisture (6.50 – 9.77); 21 ash (6.99 – 26.35); crude protein (13.1 – 33.63); crude fat (1.08 – 9.83); crude fiber? Percentage (%)?
- There is no information about Vitamin C content.
- I suggest highlighting the "innovative" proposal of the study and methods, as well as the advantages / disadvantages, at the end of the abstract.
- The keywords “macronutrient” and “micronutrient” are not included in the title or abstract. I suggest review!
* Introduction section: It is well written, but I suggest:
- I suggest inserting the references below in the introduction and discussion of the results:
* Moura et al. Evaluation of multielement/proximate composition and bioactive phenolics contents of unconventional edible plants from Brazil using multivariate analysis techniques. Food Chemistry. Volume 363, 30 November 2021, 129995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129995
* de Jesus Benevides, C.M., da Silva, H.B.M., Lopes, M.V. et al. Multivariate analysis for the quantitative characterization of bioactive compounds in “Taioba” (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) from Brazil. Food Measure 16, 1901–1910 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-021-01265-2
- I suggest highlighting the "innovative" proposal of the study, as well as the advantages / disadvantages, at the end of the introduction.
* Material and Methods section:
- Page 2, in “2.2. Selection of plant species for nutritional value analysis” section: Revise text font size! How long were the samples stored until the time of analysis? Temperature?
- Page 4, in “2.4.2. Determination of mineral content” section: The methodological proposals are coherent, but it needs to improve, especially in the analytical aspects:
- How were the optimal analysis conditions defined by atomic absorption/emission? Did you follow any method already validated and described in the literature? The authors indicate only ref “13. James, C.S. Analytical Chemistry of Foods, 1st ed. Chapman and Hall, New York. 1995”.
- What are the analytical validation parameters used? Has the proposed method been validated? If so, which protocol / guidelines did you follow? What are the validation parameters studied? Precision, accuracy, LOD, LOQ, robustness, etc. What concentration levels are used to assess accuracy? I suggest detailing the proposed method in more detail...
- Page 4, line 59, in “2.4.3. Determination of vitamin C content” section: To replace “ml” by “mL”. To review throughout the manuscript, if necessary.
* Results and Discussion section:
- Page 4, lines 167-174, in “3.1. Consumption of wild edible plants in the study area and the possible benefits to the community” section: I suggest expanding this section and discussing it with the literature; or use the text elsewhere in the manuscript! As presented, it is loose and without connections!
- Pages 4-6, in “3.2. Proximate composition of WEPs” section: I suggest, at the end of this topic, to write a paragraph summarizing the findings and their impacts on the research proposal.
- Page 7, in “3.3. Mineral composition of WEPs” section and, Tables 2 and 3:
- Generally, macronutrient contents are much higher than micronutrients. The displayed concentration units are the same (mg/100g DW)! I suggest reviewing the values, as some micronutrients are in concentrations very close to macronutrients.
- Were other micronutrients investigated? What are the detection and quantification values? What are the analytical validation parameters used? Has the proposed method been validated? If so, which protocol / guidelines did you follow? What are the validation parameters studied? Precision, accuracy, LOD, LOQ, robustness, etc. What concentration levels are used to assess accuracy? I suggest detailing the proposed method in more detail...
- I suggest expanding the discussions of the values ​​obtained for the mineral content with other studies from the literature.
- I suggest, at the end of the "Tabel 3", to write a paragraph summarizing the findings and their impacts on the research proposal.
- Page 9, in “3.4. Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid) Composition” section: I suggest expanding the discussions of the values ​​obtained for the mineral content with other studies from the literature. I suggest, at the end of the section, to write a paragraph summarizing the findings and their impacts on the research proposal.
* Conclusion section: Adequate, but I suggest to indicate disadvantages/limitations of the method and the study!
* Tables: Adequate.
* Supplementary data: Adequate! In S1 Table. Ethnobotanical information of selected wild edible plants, I suggest opening the sides of the table!
* References: Please, check if the references are in accordance with the journal's rules.
Author Response
Dear Prof., We have got your comments on our manuscript (ijpb-2045049) and it was very important, constructive and scientific. We have addressed all your comments and highlighted the corrections in the manuscript. Really thank you very much for your terrific contributions on our manuscript specifically and to science in general.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors answered most of the questions. The methodological proposals are coherent, but it needs to improve, especially in the analytical aspects:
- In abstract, line 29: To replace “macronutrients” by “ micronutrients”
- Materials and methods - Page 4, in “2.4.2. Determination of mineral content” section: The authors reported that the method was validated by the assistance of Arbaminch University and Ethiopian Public HealthInstitute laboratory experts. I suggest informing which protocol was followed: ICH, IUPAC or another agency!
- Materials and methods - Page 4, in “2.4.2. Determination of mineral content” section: The authors reported in response letter that “used linearity test for validation of the analytical methods and the regression equation for minerals was presented as follows: y = 0.1533x+0.0775 with R2 = 0.9976 for Na; y = 0.1589x+0.0597 with R2 = 0.9977 for Mg; y = 0.0949x-0.0792 with R2 = 0.9985 for K; y = 0.1669x-0.0605 with R2 = 0.9976 for Ca; y = 0.1926x+0.0063 with R2 = 0.9977 for Fe; y = 0.4016x-0.1199 with R2 = 0.9982 for Zn; y = 0.1598x-0.0629 with R2 = 0.997 for Mn and y = 0.0608x-0.0207 with R2 = 0.9969 for Cu. Furthermore, the R2 value of all investigated macro and micronutrients was >0.990, which is in accordance with the acceptance limit”. This information needs to be contained in the manuscript! In addition to linearity, there are other important validation parameters, such as: precision, accuracy, LOD, LOQ, robustness, etc. Have these parameters been studied? If "yes", inform in the manuscript!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you again for your important comments for the improvement of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
