Dear Authors, concerning to the paper IJFST-2014-16080, “Influence of the storage

conditions on the quality parameters of floral honeys” I note it is not a novel

manuscript. At present it is well known the influence of time and temperature on
quality of honeys. However, as expanding knowledge, it is a welcomed study since
specific monofloral honeys have been evaluated and significant differences have been
found between them. I consider next suggestions with the aim to improve the
manuscript:

General consideration

Authors state (in abstract, introduction, results and conclusion) the HMF genotoxic
action. At present it has been demonstrated in lab animals and it would be a
precipitated alarm to emphasize this risk for humans, surely, I suggest pointing out it
as “possible risk” each time in the paper and showing references about the daily ingest
of HFM for humans to produce that risk and how much is obtained from honey. Only
by means of solid references and studies, authors would be supported to state that
honey can be a dangerous food.

The same thing attending to microbiological condition: Characteristics of honey

(exactly pH and water activity) condition greatly the survival of microorganisms except
molds and yeasts and some Clostridium and Bacillus spores. However, in page 14, line
16, authors state that many microorganisms are able to survive in honey. As it was
expected results confirm the absence of pathogens, then it is excessive to alert on
microbiological risk of honey.

Key words

The term food is too general; it would be better the term honey: honey quality, honey
safety. Food Processing Aspects must be substituted by storage conditions

Introduction

Page 4_Lines 38-40: Authors state the study of the influence of storage conditions on
the quality parameters of European monofloral honeys has not been previously
tackled as far as we know. I suggest to read next reference and others from those
authors:

M. Teresa. Sancho , Soledad. Muniategui , Jose F. Huidobro , Jesus. Simal Lozano

J. Agric. Food Chem., 1992, 40 (1), pp 134–138

Page 5_ line 36: Authors distinguishes between sanitary quality (coliforms and S.
aureus) and safety (spores of sulphite-reducing clostridia). I understand the first attend
to hygienic condition and the second to food safety condition, then, S. aureus should
belong to the second one. Please explain this classification. Moreover in page 14_lines
32-34 different classification is proposed: commercial quality, sanitary quality (fecal
coliforms but no S. aureus) and safety quality (now Salmonella is included)

Materials and methods

Page 6_line 47: Please check PFund, must be Pfund

Results and discussion

Page 8_ line 5: Lavandula pollen is the botanic origin attributed to Rosemary honey in
this paper. I am surprised since Rosmarinus officinalis is the common source for this
monofloral honey. Please explain.

Page 8_lines 9 to 12: Prunus pollen is set under double condition: regular presence and
absence! In figure 1 none of both conditions are certain.

Pages 14 and 15: All microbiological results (except the first one) are expressed from
higher to lower. It would be more clear the contrary.

Page 14_ line 49: Please define MERCOSUR

Page 14_line 54: Moulds and yeasts are common microorganisms in honey. It seems to
be excessive to point unsuitable management of apiaries as origin of order counting
103 cfu/g

References:

Page 4_line 36: Costa-Silva et al., 2011 is not in references list

Page 9_line 43: Bath et al. would be Bath and Singh (two authors)