Biophysical Characterization of Autochthonous and New Apple Cultivar Surfaces
, Roman Štukelj 1, Anže Abram 2, Ivan Jerman 3, Nigel Van de Velde 3 and Rajko Vidrih 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors I read the manuscript "Biophysical properties of apple surfaces" you submitted for publication.
Below you can find some remarks
Title
At first, in title must be clear that the comparison is between traditional and modern commercial varieties.
Introduction
Line 26 Please write correctly the citation for example (Bondonno et al., 2017)
Line 33 word uncontrolled.... please change it
Line 66-92 you can omit these lines - unnecessary information.
Please improve the content of the introduction. Mention something about the role of the parameters you measured....
Line 128-149 you can omit these lines since it is not necessary to mention the principles of the methods you use.
Materials and Methods section
The apples you used were wax coated?
Line 123-124 Where did you use the wax?
Line 128-149 You can omit it.. there is no need to mention the principles of the method
The statistics are missing...
Results
Add letters of a posteriori comparisons to the tables...
Line 225-227 more suitable for discussion section
Figure 3 define the lines...
Discussion
Which is the significance of the research? Relate the results with the practice, physiology, postharvest storage or biochemistry of the fruits....
General notes
Generally, avoid "we" and "our"... you can use passive voice
Author Response
----1----
We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments.
Dear authors I read the manuscript "Biophysical properties of apple surfaces" you submitted for publication.
Below you can find some remarks
Our reply: We thank the Reviewer for the supportive comments, and we have tried to satisfactorily address the modifications requested, as detailed below.
Title
At first, in title must be clear that the comparison is between traditional and modern commercial varieties.
Our reply: We thank reviewer for this suggestion, the original title ‘Biophysical properties of apple surfaces was changed to ‘Biophysical characterisation of autochthonous and new apple cultivars surfaces’
Introduction
Line 26 Please write correctly the citation for example (Bondonno et al., 2017)
Our reply: the references were correctly written
Line 33 word uncontrolled.... please change it
Our reply:
Line 66-92 you can omit these lines - unnecessary information.
Our reply: the lines were omitted.
Please improve the content of the introduction. Mention something about the role of the parameters you measured....
Our reply: The role apple surface biophysical properties is now described from the point of view of apple storability and shelf life as also required by Reviewer #2. We consider our study as preliminary study what is now mentioned in aim of the study (Lines -
Line 128-149 you can omit these lines since it is not necessary to mention the principles of the methods you use.
Our reply: the lines were omitted
Materials and Methods section
The apples you used were wax coated?
Our reply: The apples were not artificially coated with wax, apples only contained ‘natural’wax.- But additional measurements were made on pure wax surfaces.
Line 123-124 Where did you use the wax?
Our reply: We made measurements on pure wax.
Line 128-149 You can omit it.. there is no need to mention the principles of the method
Our reply: Principles of the methods were removed as requested.
The statistics are missing...
Our reply: Thanks for this suggestion, we did statistic to evaluate differences between cultivars studied.
Results
Add letters of a posteriori comparisons to the tables...
Our reply: was added
Line 225-227 more suitable for discussion section
Our reply: was done
Figure 3 define the lines...
Our reply:
Discussion
Which is the significance of the research? Relate the results with the practice, physiology, postharvest storage or biochemistry of the fruits....
Our reply: We appreciate that suggestion (also suggested by R#2), the results of biophysical properties of apple surfaces are now elaborated with regard to postharvest storage and shelf life. Apple surface characteristics affect transpiration and adhesion of microorganisms – what is now mentioned in discussion. We have to mention that only limited research of biophysical properties of fruit surface is available in literature.
General notes
Generally, avoid "we" and "our"... you can use passive voice
Our reply: We changed "we" and "our" throughout the text with passive voice as requested.
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all the study idea is attractive and very important for the postharvest sector, but the author didn't appear that in his manuscript by making a combination or clear relationship between biophysical properties he measured and its effect on apple shelf life and I hope he can do that in the revised manuscript.
also, there are a few comments:
1. line 84 the year of reference (M.Yang .... etal ) is missing
2. the introduction is too long and contains a few parts i think it should be found in the discussion part such as; lines 85 to 89
3. the introduction contains only references until 2020, where are 2021 and 2022?
4. there is no statistical analysis which is very important to show the difference between varieties, especially at parts steaming potential and color
5. paragraph No. 2 in the discussion indicates that you determined biochemical properties such as total phenolic and antioxidant activity, meanwhile you didn't and that is clear in the methods and results !!!!
6. the discussion was so poor and needs to improve by containing more explanations as i said before to show the relationship between biophysical and shelf life
7. review the reference well and be sure to write it as the journal style
Author Response
---2------
We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments.
First of all the study idea is attractive and very important for the postharvest sector, but the author didn't appear that in his manuscript by making a combination or clear relationship between biophysical properties he measured and its effect on apple shelf life and I hope he can do that in the revised manuscript.
also, there are a few comments:
Our reply: We thank the Reviewer for the recognition of the value of our study, and for the time and effort that was obviously put in here. At this level, we believe we have integrated all of the comments of Reviewer #2 listed below into this revision. We included Reviewer worry regarding relationship biophysical properties – shelf life in Introduction as well as in Discussion Lines- .
- line 84 the year of reference (M.Yang .... etal ) is missing
Our reply:ther references were corrected
- the introduction is too long and contains a few parts i think it should be found in the discussion part such as; lines 85 to 89
Our reply: Yes indeed, we moved proposed part to discussion section for the continuation of surface charge discussion.
- the introduction contains only references until 2020, where are 2021 and 2022?
Our reply: newer references were added
- there is no statistical analysis which is very important to show the difference between varieties, especially at parts steaming potential and color
Our reply: Thanks for this suggestion, we did statistic to evaluate differences between cultivars studied.
- paragraph No. 2 in the discussion indicates that you determined biochemical properties such as total phenolic and antioxidant activity, meanwhile you didn't and that is clear in the methods and results !!!!
Our reply: We thank reviewer for this comment. Total phenolic and antioxidant activity refers to literature data which is now clearly stated in 5. paragraph No. 2 in the discussion.
- the discussion was so poor and needs to improve by containing more explanations as I said before to show the relationship between biophysical and shelf life
Our reply: Thanks for suggestion, we tried to respond to your comments by adding more explanation regarding relationship biophysical characteristics – shelf life Lines:
- review the reference well and be sure to write it as the journal style
Our reply: the references were corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
I red with great interest this article that bring to light your research regarding apples. Indeed, it has a sound quality and everything is explained clearly and comprehensively. In our days, types of fruits are fundamentaly changed from those cultivated a few decades before, with consequences on safety and nutritional values. You explores these aspects in connection with apples surfaces and open the door for future explorations in this domain.
Author Response
-----3-------
I red with great interest this article that bring to light your research regarding apples. Indeed, it has a sound quality and everything is explained clearly and comprehensively. In our days, types of fruits are fundamentaly changed from those cultivated a few decades before, with consequences on safety and nutritional values. You explores these aspects in connection with apples surfaces and open the door for future explorations in this domain.
Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the enthusiasm regarding future explorations.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 55 correct the citation...
You have not study phenolic compounds, but you mention them extensively in introduction... Please delete the unnecessary information...
Line 60 delete the word co-workers... Citate correctly
Lime 70-88 write in a different way.... It is a scientific manuscript
Line 98 -103 put this paragraph in its correct place in the text...
Line 123-125... Please read again the introduction and improve the structure of the introduction
Table 1
add the letters which indicate the differences
In MM section statistics are missing.. Please add
In Crown Prince Rudolph you use "," instead of "."
Elstar... you metion 1.48+- 2.12....... negative roughness????????
Line 243 You say nothing in MM as far as Orange data mining is concerned and how you took the measurements.... No it is not clear among the cultivars ...The differences are obvious (?) between the two photos you presented taken from Crown and Elstar cultivars. Where are the other cultivars?
Line 254 -257 this goes to MM section... Analyze the data using two-way ANOVA.
Table 2
Add letters
Line 289: Where are the results of ANOVA????
Table 3: letters, use "." not ","
Line 305: Avoid "we"
Line 305-309 Better writting or delete
Line 310-324 Delete this part since it is not examined in the presengt study
Line 337 our
Line 340: Table?
Line 343, 345, 346 parenthesis....
Line 346 and......
Line 351 Reference
Line 355 The general conclusion of what???
Different writing... you had not studied microbes.......
Line 391 reference
Line 400 Reference for the whole paragraph...
Please rewrite the discussion and read again the introduction sections.. There are basic structural issues!
Also make the corrections at Results and MM sections.
Author Response
Reviewer #1
Our reply: We thank the Reviewer for the supportive comments, and we have tried to satisfactorily address the modifications requested, as detailed below. Also, this has also involved specific efforts from ourselves (with linguistic help) towards a more general smoothing of the text of the revised manuscript.
Line 55 correct the citation...
You have not study phenolic compounds, but you mention them extensively in introduction... Please delete the unnecessary information...
Our reply: Thanks for that remark, we excluded phenols and substituted with antioxidant and in one case with anti-inflammatory activity to let readers know that old and new cultivars differ not only in peel surface characteristics but also in chemical composition.
Line 60 delete the word co-workers... Citate correctly
Our reply: That was done as requested.
Lime 70-88 write in a different way.... It is a scientific manuscript
Our reply: We tried to describe surface parameters in a more scientific way, we also excluded scanning electron microscopy (SEM) part since that analyse was not done here.
Line 98 -103 put this paragraph in its correct place in the text
Our reply: This part is a continuation of fruit surface characteristic parameters that all influence fruit storability, quality and shelf life. That part was moved to discussion to emphasize the importance of surface characteristics for maintaining apple quality during storage and shelf life.
Line 123-125... Please read again the introduction and improve the structure of the introduction
Our reply: We have tried to do our best by improving things by modifications (deletions, additions, smoothing, further discussions) of the structure and flow. Part of that text was moved to discussion.
Table 1
add the letters which indicate the differences
Our reply: We described differences in lines: 184-187
In MM section statistics are missing.. Please add
Our reply: Statistics is now described.
In Crown Prince Rudolph you use "," instead of "."
Our reply: It was changed. The Table 1 is now completely new.
Elstar... you mention 1.48+- 2.12....... negative roughness????????
Our reply: Thank you for this remark. Indeed, it seems strange due to very high standard deviation in case of Elstar cultivar.
Line 243 You say nothing in MM as far as Orange data mining is concerned and how you took the measurements.... No it is not clear among the cultivars ...The differences are obvious (?) between the two photos you presented taken from Crown and Elstar cultivars. Where are the other cultivars?
Our reply: This is now described in MM.
Line 254 -257 this goes to MM section... Analyse the data using two-way ANOVA.
Our reply: Statistical methods are added in MM section 2.6 and the statistical analysis we used is described. In supplemental information, the evidence is given that the statistical analysis was performed.
Table 2
Add letters
Our reply: It is now described under 3.3, our purpose was to see the differences between autochthonous and new cultivars.
Line 289: Where are the results of ANOVA????
Our reply: It is added to Table 1. The Student's t-test shows that there is a statistically significant difference in the surface roughness in the equatorial area between new and autochtonous cultivars (0.05 level).
Table 3: letters, use "." not ","
Our reply: It is done s requested.
Line 305: Avoid "we"
Our reply: We excluded we from text.
Line 305-309 Better writing or delete
Our reply: Some sentences were deleted the other part was rewritten.
Line 310-324 Delete this part since it is not examined in the present study
Our reply: This part was deleted.
Line 337 our
Our reply: This was done as requested.
Line 340: Table?
Our reply: This was an additional analyse to show the contact angle of wax or paraffin.
Line 343, 345, 346 parenthesis....
Our reply: That was done as requested.
Line 346 and......
Our reply: We do not understand what to do,
Line 351 Reference
Our reply: We added reference Leide et al.,
Line 355 The general conclusion of what???
Different writing... you had not studied microbes.......
Our reply: Indeed, reviewer is right, we did not study microbes but we speculate that fruit roughness affects microbial adhesion similarly like on non fruit surfaces, references (14, 19).
Line 391 reference
Our reply: We reconstructed the sentence, we hypothesize that it is so.
Line 400 Reference for the whole paragraph...
Our reply: It is done as requested.
Please rewrite the discussion and read again the introduction sections.. There are basic structural issues!
Our reply: The introduction and discussion were rewritten. The structural issues were taken into account.
Also make the corrections at Results and MM sections.
Our reply: That was done as requested.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your efforts in developing the manuscript but I still have a few comments
1. all color parameters should write italic L, a and b.
2. you said that you added statistical analysis, but I found that all you added the SD only, and you didn't show what is the program you used to make statistical analysis in the materials part. ........ only you mentioned it as a hint at line 288 "At higher pH, the most autochtonous apple cultivars have less negative zeta potential compared to new cultivars. Two-way ANOVA test shows statistically significant difference in zeta potential of Wax apple, Elstar and Idared compared to other cultivars (0.05 level)" and I still can't find any evidence that you performed the statistical analysis.
Author Response
Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the time and effort that was obviously put in here.
- all color parameters should write italic L, a and b.
Our reply: That was done as requested.
- you said that you added statistical analysis, but I found that all you added the SD only, and you didn't show what is the program you used to make statistical analysis in the materials part. ........ only you mentioned it as a hint at line 288 "At higher pH, the most autochtonous apple cultivars have less negative zeta potential compared to new cultivars. Two-way ANOVA test shows statistically significant difference in zeta potential of Wax apple, Elstar and Idared compared to other cultivars (0.05 level)" and I still can't find any evidence that you performed the statistical analysis.
Our reply: Statistical methods are added in MM section 2.6 and the statistical analysis we used is described. In supplemental information, the evidence is given that the statistical analysis was performed.
