Phytochemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oil from the Leaves of Artemisia vulgaris L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

I completed my review of your submission. This contains important data. However, I see that major revisions must be incorporated to improve the manuscript. Please find my comments and suggestions in the enclosed file. 

English review is highly recommended. 

The manuscript has to be revised to correct typo mistakes. 

With kind regards. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVISION OF THE MANUSCRIPT:  RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS

 

 

Manuscript ID: molecules-2229512

Manuscript title: Phytochemical profiling and antimicrobial activities of essential
oil from the leaves of Artemisia vulgaris L.

Journal: Molecule

Biomolecules from Essential Oil Bearing Plants: Biological and Industrial
Applications 

(Authors: Nameirakpam Bunindro Singh et al.,)

 

We thank the editor and the reviewer for their comments in the review of our paper which enabled us to improve the manuscript substantially. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript taking into consideration all the points raised by the reviewer. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

Reviewer # 1 comments

We thank the reviewer # 1 for their comments in the review of our paper which enabled us to improve the manuscript substantially. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript taking into consideration all the points raised by the reviewer comments and suggestions in the enclosed file.

1. Title has been corrected in the revised manuscript
2. Abbreviations is incorporated in the revised manuscript
3. In abstract: the conclusion is reframed.
4. Table 1 and 2 merged in table 1 in the revised
5. We appreciate your comments in the Table 5. MIC and MBC of the essential oil of vulgaris. In this experiment, we used double dilution method and performed in triplictates producing the same results for the MIC as well as MBC. There is no standard error
6. New and latest references are cited in the revised manuscript

We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and required information have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to answer the queries raised by the reviewer. All the corrections have been made and showing the modification in blue in the revised manuscript.

 

Overall, we thank the editor and the reviewer for their excellent review and the revision has benefitted by their thorough comments.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Phyotochemical compositions and antimicrobial activities of essential oil from the leaves of Artemisia vulgaris L.” by
Nameirakpam Bunindro Singh et al. reports analysis of essential oil of A. vulgaris grown in Manipur. The essential oil exhibited activity against fungal and bacterial cultures.
Considering the novelty and utility of this manuscript, it should be accepted in Molecules after addressing following comments:
1. line 227: "A Clevenger" change to "A Clevenger apparatus"
2. Table 1. There is a problem with symbols alpha, beta, gamma in the text of Table 1
3. What weight of essential oil was obtained?

Author Response

REVISION OF THE MANUSCRIPT:  RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS

Manuscript ID: molecules-2229512

Manuscript title: Phytochemical profiling and antimicrobial activities of essential
oil from the leaves of Artemisia vulgaris L.

Journal: Molecule

Biomolecules from Essential Oil Bearing Plants: Biological and Industrial
Applications 

(Authors: Nameirakpam Bunindro Singh et al.,)

We thank the editor and the reviewer for their comments in the review of our paper which enabled us to improve the manuscript substantially. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript taking into consideration all the points raised by the reviewer. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point:

Reviewer # 2 comments

1. Line 227  What weight of essential oil was obtained?

Author’s response: The correction is made in the revised manuscript.

2. Table 1. There is a problem with symbols alpha, beta, gamma in the text of Table 1

Author’s response: We modified according to the reviewer comment.

3. What weight of essential oil was obtained?

Author’s response: 0.75% (weight/volume).

We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and required information have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. We have tried our best to answer the queries raised by the reviewer. All the corrections have been made and showing the modification in blue in the revised manuscript.

Overall, we thank the editor and the reviewer for their excellent review and the revision has benefitted by their thorough comments.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Some points were addressed. However, several other comments were not taken into account nor answered. Please find my comments and suggestions in the enclosed file. 

Regards.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf