Browning of Early and Late-Harvested ‘Empire’ Apples Affected by Cold Storage and 1-MCP
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this new submission, the authors have improved the manuscript “Influence of 1-MCP on Internal Browning of Early and Late Harvested ‘Empire’ Apples after Long-term Storage”, however, I have some concerns:
- I consider that “Ethylene production” and “Respiration rate” (Figures 1 and 2) must be measured after 7-month storage; otherwise it is not possible to compare and analyze the effects of different postharvest treatments and harvest times.
- Some descriptions of the results do not match with statistics, please revise:
Line 133: 1-MCP treatment did not lower respiration rate in the late harvest fruit
Line 161: 1-MCP treatment increased the flesh PPO activity at late harvested fruit after 5 and 7 d at 20 °C
Line 162: Total phenolic concentrations in the flesh were affected by 1-MCP treatment in late harvested fruit after 1 and 5 d at 20 °C
Line 173: The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest and with 1-MCP at a late harvest after 7 and 1 d at 20 °C, respectively
- Line 106: change “The values were obtained from a calibration standard curve with bovine serum albumin at 595 nm” by “Protein concentration was determined by the method of Bradford (1976) using bovine serum albumin as standard”
- Line 121: please revise and include the test performed in this new version of the manuscript
- Line 216: “Interestingly, fruit without 1-MCP treatment showed decreased browning rates for 7 d shelf-life at a late harvest, which might be partially explained by different sites of the fruit sampling as the fruits were hardly observed for browning symptoms in the higher branches”. As the authors mentioned in the “Conclusions” section, including multiple years could confirm or discard this result. Please indicate in “Materials and methods” section the year in which samples were taken
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this new submission, the authors have improved the manuscript “Influence of 1-MCP on Internal Browning of Early and Late Harvested ‘Empire’ Apples after Long-term Storage”, however, I have some concerns: - I consider that “Ethylene production” and “Respiration rate” (Figures 1 and 2) must be measured after 7-month storage; otherwise it is not possible to compare and analyze the effects of different postharvest treatments and harvest times.
-Corrected- It was previously composed of two experiments, 6-month- and 7-month storage study, and the former reviewer asked for the 6-month experiment to be deleted as confusing from the 7-month storage, which had not been promptly corrected. And the experiment of Figure 1 and 2 are 7-month storage, which is corrected.
- Some descriptions of the results do not match with statistics, please revise:
Line 133: 1-MCP treatment did not lower respiration rate in the late harvest fruit -Corrected- “1-MCP treatment showed lower respiration rate in the late harvest fruit”.
Line 161: 1-MCP treatment increased the flesh PPO activity at late harvested fruit after 5 and 7 d at 20 °C- -Corrected-
1-MCP treatment increased the flesh PPO activities at an early harvest (P = 0.001) and increased the flesh PPO activity at harvested fruit
Line 162: Total phenolic concentrations in the flesh were affected by 1-MCP treatment in late harvested fruit after 1 and 5 d at 20 °C -Corrected- Total phenolic concentrations in the flesh were not affected by 1-MCP treatment in early harvest fruit, but affected by 1-MCP treatment in late harvested fruit after 1 and 5 d at 20 ˚C
Line 173: The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest and with 1-MCP at a late harvest after 7 and 1 d at 20 °C, respectively.
-Corrected- The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest and with 1-MCP at a late harvest after 7 and 1 d at 20 °C, respectively. -
Line 106: change “The values were obtained from a calibration standard curve with bovine serum albumin at 595 nm” by “Protein concentration was determined by the method of Bradford (1976) using bovine serum albumin as standard”
-Corrected “Protein concentration was determined by the method of Bradford (1976) using bovine serum albumin as standard”
- Line 121: please revise and include the test performed in this new version of the manuscript
-We did not conduct the additional test performed.
- Line 216: “Interestingly, fruit without 1-MCP treatment showed decreased browning rates for 7 d shelf-life at a late harvest, which might be partially explained by different sites of the fruit sampling as the fruits were hardly observed for browning symptoms in the higher branches”. As the authors mentioned in the “Conclusions” section, including multiple years could confirm or discard this result. Please indicate in “Materials and methods” section the year in which samples were taken
- It was mentioned in the material and method sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Jung and Choi is on the Influence of 1-MCP on internal browning of early and late harvested ‘empire’ apples after long –term storage is interesting work depicting that internal browning of apples can be reduced. Before it is considered for publication in agronomy I have suggestions for authors to incorporate
Major comments
The abstract is poorly written; it does not give clear cut idea about the hypothesis of the study and actual results. Authors should extensively revise the abstract.
Introduction is very short and not much previous literature is not presented please revise your introduction.
Why was shelf life period of 6 and 7 months period selected need to give explanation
Please change the heading of all your results like 3.1 Ethylene production in early and late harvested ‘empire’ apples…………………..
In results line 128 the ethylene production started to decrease from day 5 to 7 days not at 7 days as I can see from your graphs please correct in all your results
Discussion is somehow the repitition of results and not discussed with other studies. Discussion needs extensive revisions.
In conclusion there is no need to give reference but should be entirely your own conclusion. Besides, you have mentioned correlation between of 1-MCP with antioxidants which you have not presented anywhere in your study. I would suggest you can provide a table showing correlation of 1-MCP with all the parameters studied
Conclusion is poorly written not concise. Need to change entirely your conclusion section after your correlation analysis
Minor comments
Please add coma after CO2 line 33 page 33
Please write full form of 1-MCP when written first time line 33
Line 39-42 is not clear please revise the sentence
Line 42 please write full form of PPO and POX as this is written first time.
Line 42 please write full form of CA
Line 49-52 the sentence is not clear and is a very long please revise it to make it understandable
Line 69 please change (0.5 ) to (0.5)-gap is there
Line 83 Please write full form of IEC
Please mention how many replicates were taken in statistical analysis n=5??
Line 146 please mention what does IEC stand for
Line 160 please check it should be only POX activities changed only at early stage
Ethical query
Authors have harvested apples from Cornell University and also funding for the research was provided by US government. Whether this project was collaboratively performed with Cornell University if yes then there must be the name of collaborator from Cornell either as author or in acknowledgement
Author Response
Major comments
The abstract is poorly written; it does not give clear cut idea about the hypothesis of the study and actual results. Authors should extensively revise the abstract.
-Revised
We were trying to revise the abstract as we did”
Introduction is very short and not much previous literature is not presented please revise your introduction.
-Revised
We were trying to revise the introduction as we did”
Why was shelf life period of 6 and 7 months period selected need to give explanation
-Corrected- It was previously composed of two experiments, 6-month- and 7-month storage study, and the former reviewer asked for the 6-month experiment to be deleted as confusing from the 7-month storage, which had not been promptly corrected. And the experiment of Figure 1 and 2 are 7-month storage, which is corrected.
Please change the heading of all your results like 3.1 Ethylene production in early and late harvested ‘empire’ apples…………………..
-Corrected
“It was deleted as you recommended.
In results line 128 the ethylene production started to decrease from day 5 to 7 days not at 7 days as I can see from your graphs please correct in all your results
-Corrected
Discussion is somehow the repitition of results and not discussed with other studies. Discussion needs extensive revisions.
-Revised
We were trying to revise the Disscusion as we did”
In conclusion there is no need to give reference but should be entirely your own conclusion. Besides, you have mentioned correlation between of 1-MCP with antioxidants which you have not presented anywhere in your study. I would suggest you can provide a table showing correlation of 1-MCP with all the parameters studied
-Revised
We added the correlation table.
Conclusion is poorly written not concise. Need to change entirely your conclusion section after your correlation analysis
-Revised
We were trying to revise the Conclusion as we did”
Minor comments
Please add coma after CO2 line 33 page 33
–Corrected
Please write full form of 1-MCP when written first time line 33
-Corrected
(1-methylcyclopropene)
Line 39-42 is not clear please revise the sentence
-Corrected
“However, 1-MCP-treated fruit frequently showed unpredictable symptoms of the fruit browning in the long-term storage”
Line 42 please write full form of PPO and POX as this is written first time.
-Corrected
PPO (peroxidase) or POX (polyphenol oxidase)
Line 42 please write full form of CA
-Corrected
Controlled atmosphere-stored
Line 49-52 the sentence is not clear and is a very long please revise it to make it understandable
-Revised
“Late harvest increased incidences of flesh browning in CA-stored ‘Braeburn’ apples due to increasing of respiration rates, skin resistance to gas transport, and internal CO2 concentrations, [9,14,15], with not consistently observed for air-stored ‘Empire’ apples [3].”
Line 69 please change (0.5 ) to (0.5)-gap is there
-Corrected
Line 83 Please write full form of IEC
-Corrected
IEC (internal ethylene concentration)
Please mention how many replicates were taken in statistical analysis n=5??
-Corrected
Five replications per treatment on each observed time
Line 146 please mention what does IEC stand for
-Corrected
IEC (internal ethylene concentration)
Line 160 please check it should be only POX activities changed only at early stage
-Revised
“POX activities in the flesh were only affected for fruit stored at 0 d at 20 ˚C by 1-MCP treatment at an early harvest (Figure 4A) but fluctuated at a late harvest (Figure 4 B).”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have revised the manuscript according to suggestions, but still, there are many grammatical mistakes, vague sentences. I would like to suggest them to take help from an English native speaker to correct the mS in terms of language.
Also, conclusion is still not revised as I expected. Please revise it again by giving a proper summary and conclusion of your experiments
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have revised the manuscript according to suggestions, but still, there are many grammatical mistakes, vague sentences. I would like to suggest them to take help from an English native speaker to correct the mS in terms of language.
Major comments
- The native speaker extensively reviewed and revised on the manuscript, and the corrections were highlighted with the blue letters.
Also, conclusion is still not revised as I expected. Please revise it again by giving a proper summary and conclusion of your experiments.
- I and my co-author do our best for the revision of it as you recommended based on focusing of my experiment.
In conclusion there is no need to give reference but should be entirely your own conclusion. Besides, you have mentioned correlation between of 1-MCP with antioxidants which you have not presented anywhere in your study.
- This was your last comments in the conclusion. For your request - the correlations between 1-MCP with antioxidant was mentioned in the second sentence in the conclusion part.
I would suggest you can provide a table showing correlation of 1-MCP with all the parameters studied
- I provided the correlations between 1-MCP with antioxidant in the Table 1.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for this interesting paper. I have following comments.
58 How do you define the state of maturity resp. the harvest date early and late. Please describe more exactly.
112 mescocarp
114 bohrer or drill
All fig.: The figures are quite confusing and it is difficult to compare 6 and 7 months storage. For the 6 months trials you show only the values of the 7th day as bars and for the 7 months trials you use line diagrams. Additionally the y axis units are not comparable; i.E.: (Figure 4. POX (panel A and B): 0 – 30 U/mg; Figure 6. POX (panel A and B): 0- 7 U/mg protein).
I would propose either to show all 7 days values for the 6 months measurements or you combine the figures of 6 and 7 months storage.
180/Fig 6 H: Can you please explain the strong decrease of browning rate of NO MCP from day one to 7?
188/Fig.7: “The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest and with 1-MCP at a late harvest”. This statement fits only for the days one and 5.
Author Response
58 How do you define the state of maturity resp. the harvest date early and late. Please describe more exactly.
- The stage of maturity can be divided into two groups (early and late harvest). Early stage of the fruit maturity indicated internal ethylene concentrations less than 30 µL L–1 or greater for late stage of the maturity, which was one-month interval between the both maturities. This was explained in lines 60-62 in the manuscript.
112 mescocarp
- It was revised.
114 bohrer or drill
- It was revised.
All fig.: The figures are quite confusing and it is difficult to compare 6 and 7 months storage. For the 6 months trials you show only the values of the 7th day as bars and for the 7 months trials you use line diagrams. Additionally the y axis units are not comparable; i.E.: (Figure 4. POX (panel A and B): 0 – 30 U/mg; Figure 6. POX (panel A and B): 0- 7 U/mg protein). I would propose either to show all 7 days values for the 6 months measurements or you combine the figures of 6 and 7 months storage.
- As we had two similar experiment results of IEC, firmness, and several antioxidants for 6-month storage and 7-month storage, which may attribute to confuse for readers after seeing the figures as your suggestions. And, I decided to delete the Figure 3 and Figure 4 to minimize the confusion of it.
180/Fig 6 H: Can you please explain the strong decrease of browning rate of NO MCP from day one to 7?
- When we harvested fruits depending on internal ethylene concentration on 3 replicated trees, the incidence of browning may have different responses in terms of the location of the branch. For example, apple attached on the top of branch were unlikely to have browning. The reason for decreasing of browning might be explained by sampling and harvest location when we harvest. For the future experiment, we will consider factors (internal concentration, harvest time and location). This was revised in lines 206 to 209.
188/Fig.7: “The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest and with 1-MCP at a late harvest”. This statement fits only for the days one and 5.
- Percent change in an electrical conductivity of the flesh ranged from 40% to 60% at an early harvest and from 50% to 80% at a late harvest for 7-month air storage. The leakage was slightly higher for fruit without 1-MCP at an early harvest at an early harvest. However, the leakage was higher for fruit with 1-MCP on d 1 and 7 at a late harvest, respectively. Overall, fruit with 1-MCP at a late harvest showed greater membrane leakage in contrast to fruit at an early harvest fruit.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present work, Jung and Choi studied the effects of harvest time, 1-MCP treatment, and air storage time on the susceptibility of flesh browning in ‘Empire’ apples exposed to the room temperature after long-term cold storage. The work is interesting, but I have some concerns:
- In the introduction section, please indicate which are the advantages and disadvantages of using 1-MCP during postharvest of apple fruit.
- In materials and methods section, please indicate why 1-MCP was employed at a concentration of 1 µL L–1. Were other concentrations tested?
- The authors studied two storage times, 6 and 7 months at 0.5 °C plus shelf-life at 20 ° However, they analyzed ethylene and respiration only in apples stored at 0.5 °C for 6 months, and IEC, firmness, POX and PPO activities, phenolics and browning in apples stored at 0.5 °C during 7 months. All the determinations must be done in both storage times (6 and 7 months) if one of the goals of the work is comparing different postharvest treatments.
- Statistics must be included in the graphs; otherwise, it is not possible to analyze and interpret the results.
- In the discussion section, the authors mentioned that fruit without 1-MCP treatment decreased their browning rates for 7 d shelf-life at a late harvest because of the sampling location of the fruits (line 206). However, in materials and methods section, the authors stated that (line 62): ‘Empire’ apples from early and late stage of maturity were harvested from different location within the trees in a season. Please clarify.
- English language must be improved.
Minor remarks:
- In graphs, change ”no” by “control”
- In line 36: please define “CA”
- In line 104: remove “146”
- In line 145: “pathway”
- In references: please change the numbering (1 is twice)
Author Response
In the present work, Jung and Choi studied the effects of harvest time, 1-MCP treatment, and air storage time on the susceptibility of flesh browning in ‘Empire’ apples exposed to the room temperature after long-term cold storage. The work is interesting, but I have some concerns:
In the introduction section, please indicate which are the advantages and disadvantages of using 1-MCP during postharvest of apple fruit.
The following sentences were added on the manuscript. The benefit of 1-MCP for apples is to maintain the shelf life of the fruits, while the disadvantage is unpredictable symptoms of the fruit browning in the long-term storage, which were reduced by the treatment of 1-MCP on apples. (please see the lines 40-42).
In materials and methods section, please indicate why 1-MCP was employed at a concentration of 1 µL L–1. Were other concentrations tested?
Yes, the previous experiments about duration, time (8, 16, and 24), and concentration of 1-MCP (0.5, 1.0, 2.0) were tested. 1-MCP treatment at 1.0 μl l-1 for exposure time of 24 h found the best results in terms of physicochemical quality and shelf life of apple fruit.
The authors studied two storage times, 6 and 7 months at 0.5 °C plus shelf-life at 20 ° However, they analyzed ethylene and respiration only in apples stored at 0.5 °C for 6 months, and IEC, firmness, POX and PPO activities, phenolics and browning in apples stored at 0.5 °C during 7 months. All the determinations must be done in both storage times (6 and 7 months) if one of the goals of the work is comparing different postharvest treatments.
Our goal of this experiment is to understand all factors related to the symptoms of browning. When we submitted this manuscript, there were all factors related to the symptoms of browning (PPO, POX, and the incidence of browning) after 6-7 months. The former reviewer suggested to present PPO, POX, and Browning) only one time (6 or 7 months) that is the reason there was ethylene and respiration data only.
Statistics must be included in the graphs; otherwise, it is not possible to analyze and interpret the results
All data were analyzed using statistic program as you mentioned on all graphs
In the discussion section, the authors mentioned that fruit without 1-MCP treatment decreased their browning rates for 7 d shelf-life at a late harvest because of the sampling location of the fruits (line 206). However, in materials and methods section, the authors stated that (line 62): ‘Empire’ apples from early and late stage of maturity were harvested from different location within the trees in a season.
Please clarify.
Yes, that sentence was not uniform with the section of materials and methods.
I clarified this sentences based on materials and methods section.
“ different sites of the fruit sampling (please see the lines line 206)”.
English language must be improved.
All grammars were rechecked by a language consular in all sections from the beginning to the end, as you suggested.(please see the lines 1-227).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have satisfactorily responded to all my questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript.
