Edible Oil-Based Coatings Preserve Quality of Organic Apple cv. ‘Golden Delicious’ during Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am so sorry to tell you that this paper can not be accepted in this journal.

The reasons as follows:

1. This study used various coatings on apple fruit to maintain the quality during storage, however, the same research was too many, they were  homogeneity and not very innovative.

2. Even though the coating materials were novelty, the depth of this study was lacking. Especially for the experiment design which was too easy and lack of sufficient evidence.

3. The most important problem was the samples were not enough for the experiment’s execute. For example, the authors used 20 samples to evaluate the fruit quality. It's very hard to support the results.

4. The evaluated indicates were too simple to support these results. The colour only used the a* values, where others? Where is the description details of the indicators of sensory evaluation? .....

Author Response

1. This study used various coatings on apple fruit to maintain the quality during storage, however, the same research was too many, they were  homogeneity and not very innovative.

 

We appreciate the feedback and would like to address the concerns regarding the novelty of our research.

Our study focuses on the effect of oil-based coatings on the postharvest quality and overall acceptance of organically grown apple - an area not thoroughly investigated previously. This research is particularly relevant given the growing consumer preference for organic foods free from synthetic chemicals. Our study aligns with this demand by exploring natural methods to enhance fruit properties.

We have demonstrated the significant efficacy of combining an approved postharvest treatment in organic farming with essential oil-based coatings. This innovative approach has shown a substantial reduction in fruit spoilage during storage while maintaining high overall acceptance of the fruit. Specifically, these treatments have been crucial in slowing down fruit colour changes, mitigating storage disorders, decreasing rot incidence, while maintaining high overall acceptance.

Beyond improving postharvest longevity and consumer acceptance, our research offers a promising shift towards reducing synthetic pesticide use in apple orchards, paving the way for zero-residue fruit production-an imperative in organic farming.

We believe these innovative findings contribute significant advancements to the field of organic apple cultivation and underscore the relevance and importance of our research.

 

2. Even though the coating materials were novelty, the depth of this study was lacking. Especially for the experiment design which was too easy and lack of sufficient evidence.

Thank you for your feedback. While it is true that the experimental design may not appear overly complex, its simplicity does not diminish its validity. The use of one-factor experiments conducted in randomized complete block designs allows us to effectively determine if the six postharvest treatments influence apple fruit quality. We believe that this method provides sufficient evidence to support our findings and allows for clear and concise analysis of the effects of the novel coating materials.

 

3. The most important problem was the samples were not enough for the experiment’s execute. For example, the authors used 20 samples to evaluate the fruit quality. It's very hard to support the results.

The chosen sample size was based on our research group's extensive experience and supported by findings from previous studies. These prior studies have demonstrated that the selected sample size is effective in detecting significant differences across the analysed quality properties. Therefore, we are confident that the number of fruits used in this study is sufficient to robustly support our results and conclusions.

While it is true that we used 20 fruits per experimental unit, it is important to highlight that this study involved a total of 2880 fruits. Specifically, 2160 fruits were utilized for quality analysis, distributed across two years, three storage time stages, six treatments, and three replicates. Additionally, 720 fruits were allocated for overall acceptance evaluations, again across two years, six treatments, and three replicates. This comprehensive sample size enables us to observe and validate consistent trends over time (considering two years and three storage time stages).

We believe that this detailed approach, incorporating a large number of samples across multiple variables and time points, provides a thorough and reliable analysis of the effects of oil-based coatings on the postharvest quality and overall acceptance of organically grown 'Golden Delicious' apples.

 

 

4. The evaluated indicates were too simple to support these results. The colour only used the a* values, where others? Where is the description details of the indicators of sensory evaluation? .....

 

In addition to the a* values, we measured other colour parameters. The results of the skin ground colour were expressed in the CIE L*, a*, b* system, and we also converted these values to the hue angle (hº), calculated as (hº = tan-1 b*/a*).

Our analysis revealed that the hue colour parameter showed a similar trend in behaviour to the a* colour parameter. Consequently, as we have done in previous studies, we opted to focus on a single colour parameter as the target (in this case, the a* colour parameter) to avoid redundancy and streamline our results presentation.

We have added to the Materials and Methods section that we measured these other colour parameters.

 

We have incorporated detailed descriptions of the indicators for russeting and overall acceptance into the manuscript (L226-L232).

 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback. We believe that your contribution has significantly improved the article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Control  lots remaind untreated, considering that the other treatments were dipped  and coating for 120s, was the clean water dipped treatment set as a control? If not, please explain the relevant reasons.

(2) Why do you choose 120S as the coating processing time? If there were relevant preliminary tests, it is suggested to provide supplementary description and explanation; At the meanwhile, please explain the specific time for drain off at the room temperature.

(3) Rot is not a kind of  physiology disorder, separate descriptions are recommended.

(4) The superficial scald occurrence investigation suggested caculated  by superficial scald index forlum.

(5) It is recommended that photographs of fruit in different treatment and storage period should  be supplemented.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required, the full text needs to be checked for spelling.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Control  lots remaind untreated, considering that the other treatments were dipped  and coating for 120s, was the clean water dipped treatment set as a control? If not, please explain the relevant reasons.

Yes, apple lots dipped in running water but without coatings served as control. This information has been added to the paper.

(2) Why do you choose 120S as the coating processing time? If there were relevant preliminary tests, it is suggested to provide supplementary description and explanation; At the meanwhile, please explain the specific time for drain off at the room temperature.

We chose 120 seconds as the coating processing time based on the manufacturers' instructions for the products. After application, the fruits were left on the plastic boxes to drain off at room temperature for 24 hours.

This information has been added to the paper (L152-153 and L175).

(3) Rot is not a kind of  physiology disorder, separate descriptions are recommended.

Definitely, you are right. We have revised the manuscript to provide separate descriptions for rot and physiological disorders

(4) The superficial scald occurrence investigation suggested caculated  by superficial scald index forlum.

We have presented the results of superficial scald as the Scald Index according to the formula by Feng et al. (2018):

The proportion of peel browning to the total peel area was divided into four grades, following Feng et al. (2018): grade 0, no browning; grade 1, 0% < browning area ≤ 25%; grade 2, 25% < browning area ≤ 50%; and grade 3, browning area > 50%. The calculation formula is as follows: Superficial scald Index =Ʃ(scald level × number of fruit at the level)/(3 × total number of fruit).

Feng, Y.-X.; Cheng, Y.-D.; He, J.-G.; Li, L.-M.; Guan, J.-F. Effects of 1-methylcyclopropene and modified atmosphere packaging on fruit quality and superficial scald in Yali pears during storage. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 1667–1675.

(5) It is recommended that photographs of fruit in different treatment and storage period should  be supplemented.

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, we do not have photographs of the fruit comparing the different treatments at this time. However, we have provided detailed descriptions and comprehensive data in the manuscript to illustrate the effects of the different treatments and storage periods on the fruit quality.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required, the full text needs to be checked for spelling.

English language and spelling have been revised throughout the full text.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback. We believe that your contribution has significantly improved the article.

 

Submission Date

03 June 2024

Date of this review

13 Jun 2024 07:25:56

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to authors

 

The article “Edible oil-based coatings preserve quality of organic apple cv. ‘Golden delicious’ during storage” has been revised.

 

The introduction provides a good foundation and contains references relevant to the issue raised. The methods were presented correctly and chronologically appropriate to the research carried out and are adequately described. The conclusions support the experimental results. In general, the article is well written and contains information that may be of interest to readers of the journal Agronomy.

 

Here are some small improvements needed:

 

Abstrac

The summary would benefit from a brief conclusion making it clear what the progress of your work is.

Line 106: Correct the superscript in “Nutropit®’ and throughout the manuscript.

Line 126: “1.5ºC” should be 1.5 °C. Ditto for the rest of the manuscript (Lines 127, 135, 148...).

Please review the entire manuscript. With the exception of the percentage symbol, separate the unit of measurement from the numerical value.

Lines 172-175: Regarding “[…]Shrivelling became apparent in all treatments after 18 weeks and at the end of storage in Year 1, whereas during Year 2, shrivelling symptoms were barely noticeable.[…]” Which explains this difference between year 1 and 2? Maybe the different stages of maturation?

It would be interesting to present, if possible, figures showing the appearance of the product before and after storage.

In Figure 1, located between lines 192-191, add the error bar for each treatment.

In Table 1, located between lines 197-198, add the standard deviation for each value.

Line 240: “[...] (Fisk et al., 2008) [...]” should be [40].

Author Response

The article “Edible oil-based coatings preserve quality of organic apple cv. ‘Golden delicious’ during storage” has been revised.

 

The introduction provides a good foundation and contains references relevant to the issue raised. The methods were presented correctly and chronologically appropriate to the research carried out and are adequately described. The conclusions support the experimental results. In general, the article is well written and contains information that may be of interest to readers of the journal Agronomy.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind words regarding the manuscript. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated and serves as an encouragement for us to continue our research in this field.

Here are some small improvements needed:

 

Abstract

The summary would benefit from a brief conclusion making it clear what the progress of your work is.

The abstract has been reconstructed so that the conclusion is now shorter and clearly highlights the progress of our work.

Line 106: Correct the superscript in “Nutropit®’ and throughout the manuscript.

The superscript in “Nutropit®’ has been corrected throughout the manuscript.

Line 126: “1.5ºC” should be 1.5 °C. Ditto for the rest of the manuscript (Lines 127, 135, 148...).

Please review the entire manuscript. With the exception of the percentage symbol, separate the unit of measurement from the numerical value.

The entire manuscript has been revised to ensure a separation between the unit of measurement and the numerical value.

Lines 172-175: Regarding “[…]Shrivelling became apparent in all treatments after 18 weeks and at the end of storage in Year 1, whereas during Year 2, shrivelling symptoms were barely noticeable.[…]” Which explains this difference between year 1 and 2? Maybe the different stages of maturation?

We discussed that fact in the discussion section in L577-L591. Basically, a high skin russet coverage and an advanced stage of maturity contributed to elevate weight loss and shrivelling in apple fruit in Year 1.

The text has been rewritten to improve understanding.

It would be interesting to present, if possible, figures showing the appearance of the product before and after storage.

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, we do not have photographs of the fruit comparing the product before and after storage at this time. However, we have provided detailed descriptions and comprehensive data in the manuscript to illustrate the effects of the different treatments and storage periods on the fruit quality.

In Figure 1, located between lines 192-191, add the error bar for each treatment.

The error bar for each treatment has been added.

In Table 1, located between lines 197-198, add the standard deviation for each value.

The standard deviation for each value has been added.

Line 240: “[...] (Fisk et al., 2008) [...]” should be [40].

Thank you for noticing the formatting error.

 

Submission Date

03 June 2024

Date of this review

19 Jun 2024 19:40:53

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors raise an important issue regarding the storage of apples, which results in the products spoiling. There is asweight loss, color degradation, softening, watercore and scald disorder.

Without a doubt, consumers are focused on organic food without preservatives and chemical fertilizers, which is why the topic discussed is even more important and relevant, especially when research shows natural methods that improve the properties of fruit.

 

Line 126 - At what temperature were the apples stored in the cold store?

Line 202 and 207 - please remove the space before C

 

Line 277 - Latin names please write italics - check full text

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors raise an important issue regarding the storage of apples, which results in the products spoiling. There is as weight loss, color degradation, softening, watercore and scald disorder.

Without a doubt, consumers are focused on organic food without preservatives and chemical fertilizers, which is why the topic discussed is even more important and relevant, especially when research shows natural methods that improve the properties of fruit.

 

Line 126 - At what temperature were the apples stored in the cold store?

As mentioned in the manuscript (L177), the apples were stored at 1.5°C in the cold store.

Line 202 and 207 - please remove the space before C

According to another referee and other published papers in this journal, there should be a separation between the unit of measurement and the numerical value, with the exception of the percentage symbol.

Line 277 - Latin names please write italics - check full text

Thank you for your advice. All the Latin names have been written in italics.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback. We believe that your contribution has significantly improved the article.

 

 

Submission Date

03 June 2024

Date of this review

18 Jun 2024 10:57:52

Final del formulario

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has modified the paper according to the request.

Please decline the self-citation or word duplication rate in the Ms (the the percent match to 23%).

Author Response

Dear Referee,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reviewed our manuscript and made the necessary adjustments to reduce the self-citation and word duplication rate. We have removed unnecessary self-citations and revised sections to ensure originality and clarity. We hope these changes meet your expectations.

Best regards,