Profile of Carotenoids and Tocopherols for the Characterization of Lipophilic Antioxidants in “Ragusano” Cheese
, Giovanna Loredana La Torre 1,*, Giovanni Bartolomeo 1, Rossana Rando 1, Rossella Vadalà 1, Venusia Zimbaro 1 and Andrea Salvo 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This manuscript reports about the original research topic: Profile of carotenoids and tocopherols for the characterization of lipophilic antioxidants in “Ragusano” cheese.
The introduction provides a good, generalized background of the topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation of the scientific relevance and timeliness of the research theme. The advantage of this manuscript is the highly carefully described research material and a rich set of applied experimental methods.
I think that the findings of this study properly described in the context of the published literature. The conclusions were supported by an appropriate evidence.
I have some objections:
- Make changes in the abstract. The reader must clearly see the objective, scope and main results of the studies carried out.
The aim of this study was….
The scope included….
Main results …
- Please, complete information about PCA ( how many components were identified in the analysis and how many % of total variance of variables were explained by the total of the first two components?, regarding Figure 1, Figure 2). Complete references relating to used methods of statistical analysis.
- Lines 408-410: delete sentence: “To our knowledge, no previous study investigated fat-soluble antioxidants such …”.
- line 269: Please move this commentary: mean value ± standard deviation to the explanatory notes below the Table 1.
- Line 314: part of the text below Figure 1 should be moved to Explanatory notes. Please clarify the title of Figure 1.
- Line 418: change term “nutritive quality” to “nutritive value” ( as part of food quality).
In my opinion, this manuscript is appropriate for publication in Journal Applied Sciences after minor revision, given the above aspects.
Author Response
Point 1: Make changes in the abstract. The reader must clearly see the objective, scope and main results of the studies carried out.
The aim of this study was….
The scope included….
Main results …
Response 1: Abstract was modified according to your indications.
Point 2: Please, complete information about PCA (how many components were identified in the analysis and how many % of total variance of variables were explained by the total of the first two components? regarding Figure 1, Figure 2). Complete references relating to used methods of statistical analysis.
Response 2: We are grateful to the reviewer for reminding to stress details about the intra-season and inter-season PCA. Specifically, we have totally modified paragraph 2.6 adding two suitable references and, as well, figure captions are refined. As a consequence, the following reference numbers are shifted plus two. Hopefully, it is improving the quality of the paper as prompted by the reviewer. The Figure 1 caption was changed also according to the request at Point 5.
Point 3: Lines 408-410: delete sentence: “To our knowledge, no previous study investigated fat-soluble antioxidants such …”.
Response 3: The sentence was deleted.
Point 4: Line 269: Please move this commentary: mean value ± standard deviation to the explanatory notes below the Table 1.
Response 4: The comment was moved to the explanatory notes below Table 1.
Point 5: Line 314: part of the text below Figure 1 should be moved to Explanatory notes. Please clarify the title of Figure 1.
Response 5: Please, see Point 2.
Point 6: Line 418: change term “nutritive quality” to “nutritive value” (as part of food quality).
Response 6: The correction has been done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a study about the fat-soluble antioxidants such as carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene, and lutein), and tocopherols (α-tocopherol, δ-tocopherol, and γ-tocopherol) of “Ragusano” cheese, during two different production seasons. The tocopherols’ composition was evaluated by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to a fluorescence detector (HPLC-FD); whereas the contents of three main carotenoids were determined by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to a diode array detector with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization and mass spectrometry (HPLC-DAD-APCI-MS).
This research is interesting. In my opinion, the whole text is flowing and clear. The organization of the manuscript is satisfactory.
Below my comments to the authors:
- Page 1, line 31: what the abbreviation means: PDO?
- Please correct the labeling of the Tables. In the text there is e.g. Table A1 and in the caption of the table there is: Table 1A.
- What was the difference between samples e.g. CW1 to CW7, and between samples TW8 to TW14?
- What characterized sample CW5-0 as % α-TOC was very low (Table 1A), compared to other samples?
Author Response
Point 1: Page 1, line 31: what the abbreviation means: PDO?
Response 1: The abbreviation PDO is explained at Line 33: “The protected designation of origin….”
Point 2: Please correct the labelling of the Tables. In the text there is e.g. Table A1 and in the caption of the table there is: Table 1A.
Response 2: Thanks for this remark; now we correct the Table labelling.
Point 3: What was the difference between samples e.g. CW1 to CW7, and between samples TW8 to TW14?
Response 3: To highlight the differences, the legend was added, as explanatory notes, below Table A1 and Table A2.
Point 4: What characterized sample CW5-0 as % α-TOC was very low (Table 1A), compared to other samples?
Response 4: Thanks for noticing this typing mistake, the consequent corrections determined an improvement of the quality of this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
