Phenolic Compound Characterization and Biological Activities of Mistletoe (Viscum album L.) Ethanol Macerates Used in Herbal Spirit Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes the characterization of mistletoe ethanol macerates and their biological properties. It is well-written, has a logical flow, and provides valuable information to the audience. However, the authors must clarify some points to improve the manuscript's content.

Materials and methods:

1. Preparation of mistletoe macerates: The characteristics of plants used in this study should be mentioned, such as the variety, age of the plant (if possible), and size after chop**.
2. Page 3, line 112: How long were the samples shaken?
3. Page 4, line 153: "according to the method [28]" should be rewritten as "according to the procedure described by Elez Garofulic et al. [28]"
4. Page 4, line 158: Which version of the MassHunter software was used in this study? Please provide information (if any).

Results and discussion:

1. Figure 1: what happened on the sample after maceration for 28 days, specifically samples A, B, and C with 20 and 40 g/L plant material? Why is there any phenolic content detected after 28 days of maceration? Please elaborate on this matter.  
2. Table 1: Which treatment of maceration, 7, 14, 21, or 28 days, was used to provide data in this Table. Please give information in the Table.
3. Line 492: The scientific name should be italicized.

Conclusion:

1. The significant compounds presented in the maceration products should be highlighted in this part.
2. Suggestions for further investigation should be added to the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. We find them very useful. You will find our responses in the attached file (Response to Rew1).

Greetings,

Karla Hanousek Čiča,

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the work of Hanousek Cica et al. on the characterization of phenolic compounds in Biska herbal spirit is not very original, it follows the established procedures for the characterization of analyzed alcoholic beverages of this type. The paper is written in a standard manner and in understandable English.

From a scientific point of view, I have no objections to the publication of the paper, but perhaps the authors could improve the diagrams in Figures 3 and 4 a little. In these diagrams, it would be useful to put tick marks on the abscissa (next to the numbers under the axis).

However, I just have a curious question for the authors, the answer to which does not necessarily need to be included in the manuscript:

What really surprises me is the information contained in Table 2 that the quality (by phenolic compound content) of commercial Biska samples can be so different. For example, commercial sample B22 has the lowest TPC and DPPH of all samples and the second lowest FRAP, and commercial samples B8 and B9 also have rather low values for TPC, DPPH and FRAP (compared to the other samples). On the other side of this data, commercial samples B20 and B24 are the samples with the highest (or near highest) TPC, DPPH and FRAP values. Does this mean that some commercial manufacturers do not analyzing their products or that they simply do not care about the presence of phenolic compounds in their products?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. We find them very useful. You will find our responses in the attached file (Response to Rew2).

Greetings,

Karla

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. We find them very useful. You will find our responses in the attached file (Response to Rew3).

Greetings,

Karla

corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all

comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate correction of English language is needed. P