Quality, Sensory Analysis and Shelf Life of Ready-To-Use Fresh-Cut Zucchini Flowers Stored in Different Film Packaging
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear author
The revised manuscript was reviewed. I still have some concerns.
1. Referring to Q 4.3, The given reference https://cmg.extension.colostate.edu/Gardennotes/135.pdf reveals a perfect flower model. But zucchini is a monoecious plant that separates male and female flowers on the same plant (mentioned in Line 34-35). In Line 73-74, the male flowers were only used in the experiment (or Am I misunderstood?). From squash flower structures, the male flower does not have a pistil (style, stigma, and ovary) (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-of-squash-flowers-illustrating-floral-parts-The-staminate-or-male-flowers-are_fig2_336083477), but what was the pistil mentioned in Line 77?
2. Referring to Q 4.5, the authors should mention how much flower weight was loaded in a package (Line 79). Because each MA created in a package depends on package size, type of film, loaded size, the respiration rate, headspace, ect. This is important for the repetition of the study.
3. Referring to Q 4.9 and 5.4, There is no respiration result and it is not appealed in Figure 3 as answered. There are only O2 and CO2 concentrations (in %) in Figure 2. Or I have received a different version of the manuscript?
In the materials and methods, only the respiration measurement (in mL CO2 kg‐1 h‐1) was mentioned, but the detection of inside package gases was not mentioned. But in the results, inside package gases in % were shown in Figure 2. It is not the respiration rate shown in Figure 3.
4. Referring to Q 5.1, previously in Table 1, it seemed there were 2-way comparisons of colour changes; treatments (types of packaging, using Upper Case: AB), and Days of storage (using Lower case: ab). There were no significant differences in colour changes if compared between packagings on the same day, but if compared during storage duration, there were some significances, a and b.
However in the revised version, In Table 1, it seems no statistical analysis as mentioned in the Materials and Methos, section 2.4?
Author Response
The authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments is highlighted in yellow as well as with yellow evidence all other corrections were done.
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
There are some concerns that need to be addressed to enhance the quality of the manuscript especially in results and discussion. My specific comments are as follows:
Introduction:
Add information/literatures on application of different film packaging on flowers
“Other studies [25,28] present in literature considered the influence of different packaging systems on fresh-cut zucchini squash.” Elaborate the studies
Based on your objectives, please compare how your study is different from those that have already been published
Methods:
How many samples were used?
Is there any replication conducted for quality measurement?
Results and discussion:
“The maintained h value indicated zucchini flowers stored in both film packaging preserved their color as they aged and so prolonged their shelf life.” The results clearly doesn’t show constant h value. In fact, the h value fluctuated along storage day. Justify
Elaborate more about mean comparison of pH value
Elaborate more on the sensory analysis justification
The findings lack in terms of justification and major findings.
General comments:
Please check the reference styles and grammar of the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments is highlighted in yellow as well as with yellow evidence all other corrections were done.
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Dear author
Your manuscript addresses an interesting topic. However, it is important to improve some aspects of its structure.
best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments is highlighted in yellow as well as with yellow evidence all other corrections were done.
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Dear Author
For your response to the questions, all I could accept but not the respiration rate analysis (reported in xxx mL CO2/kg/h) which is addressed in the method. The Figure 2 shows the changes in O2 and CO2 concentrations in packages (which were also not mentioned in the method). I am not sure whether or not the authors are confused about the respiration rates of produce and gas concentrations in packages. Respiration rate relies on the fresh produce at a certain temperature, but changes in O2/CO2 in the package rely on the respiration rate of produce, the gas permeability of the film, surface area, and the interaction.
I would suggest revising either the method or the results and making a correction and relevant results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have tried to best explain our results as you asked us. The authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments is highlighted in yellow as well as with yellow evidence all other corrections were done. We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors have addressed most of the comments. There are still some aspect that need to be added.
Methods:
1. Provide total samples used in this study.
2. Is there any replication conducted for quality measurement? for example, three replications for each quality measurement
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we have tried to best explain your asked us. We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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
The manuscript ID: 1940635 titled “Quality, sensory analysis and shelf life of ready-to-use fresh-cut zucchini flowers stored in different film packaging” was thoroughly reviewed. It was original research among some MAP studies of Cucurbit flowers. Numerous points must be clarified, including the following:
1. Academic writing:
1.1 Grammatical errors must be corrected throughout.
1.2 The style of writing, including italic fonts for scientific names. For example at Line 32, 43, 288, 290, 293295, 300 etc.
And the formats of CO2 and O2 subscribed numbers as well as the reference writing..
2. The abstract: Sincerely, it appears to be a descriptive abstract. The valuable results require addition and comparison.
3. Introduction:
3 3.1 Does Figure 1 belong to the authors or is its usage permitted (if so, please cite)?
The identical image can be viewed at https://blog.mountain-plover.com/2009/08/03/hand-pollinating-zucchini/
3.2 Line 70-71, why was a washing procedure introduced to the postharvest handling? Any concerns?
4. Materials and Methods:
4.1 Line 75-76, At what stage were the male flowers harvested?
4.2 Line 78, What does ‘the part of glass’ mean?
4.3 Line 79, Doesn't each meal flower contain a pistil?
4.4 Line 79, What was the concentration of chlorinated water? How to clean? Soaked? How long for?
4.5 Line 81-82, What was the average weight of flowers per tray?
4.6 Line 82-84, How did you create packaging with the films? Wrapped up or heat-sealed?
4.7 Line 82-83, I have never found the permeability criteria like these. Compared to what did oxygen permeability decrease by 65 or 24%?
4.8 Line 89, from the sentence, “Three replicates of six flowers each” were analyzed for treatment/time. Were 6 flowers (3 replicates) taken from 2 trays?
4.9 Line 99-106, for the respiratory parameter, there is no respiration evidence shown in the results.
4.10 Line 213, What was the overall taste? Did the panelists taste the flowers?
5. Results and Discussion:
5.1 Line 133-136 and 141-142, Based on statistical analysis, there was no significant difference between the treatments (A vs AB) of L on day 2 and Chroma values on day 8. It is strange data in Table 1, as A was not substantially different from AB. As there were only two treatments in this experiment (Polyester and LDPE), an AB comparison cannot be made.
5.2 Line 133-136, Please elaborate on why the L values of flowers drastically rose after storage. What aspect did it (the growth of L) represent?
5.3 Line 157-161, the loss of weight could be related to the appearance of flowers. In many fruits, if the fresh weight loss reaches 10-12%, the skin shrinks visibly. What about the floral petals? If so, what % was? And surprisingly in Line 167-167, the MAP storage at 5C could lose the weight to 26.4%
5.4 Even though it is stated on lines 170-180 that the respiration rates were analysed, the only result was the concentrations in % of CO2 and O2. In addition, there was no mention of an in-package gas parameter in the Materials and Methods section.
5.5 Line 186, revise ‘After 5 days the flowers…’ to ‘On day 5, the flowers…’
5.6 Line 187-189, Extend the explanation discussion on the varying tensile strengths generated by various MAPs.
5.7 Edit the Figure 2, 3, and 4 descriptions
6. Conclusions:
6.1 Line 245-246, the sentence should be eliminated because there was neither a washing phase treatment nor any mention thereof in the results and discussion.
6.2 The conclusion should be revised to include unique outcomes in considerable detail.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has been focused on evaluating the shelf life of washed fresh-cut zucchini flowers using different packaging films. Thus, the authors carried out the measurement of respiration rate, color, firmness, pH, and sensory quality. However, current manuscript was not well designed and well explained the change of postharvest quality. Therefore, the current manuscript would not be relevant for the final publication.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed to enhance the quality of the manuscript especially in results and discussion. My specific comments are as follows:
Introduction:
Add information/literatures on application of different film packaging on flowers
Based on your objectives, please compare how your study is different from those that have already been published
Methods:
How many samples were used?
Is there any replication conducted for quality measurement?
Results and discussion:
“different lowercase letters indicate significant differences of the same treatment over time, while different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between the treatments.” Confusing. Author should justify which indicator is more important between those two
“A like value was confirmed in the pumpkin flowers from India [34].” Specify the value
“The maintained h value indicated zucchini flowers stored in both film packaging preserved their color as they aged and so prolonged their shelf life.” The results clearly doesn’t show constant h value. In fact, the h value fluctuated along storage day. Justify
“This result is very interesting since it could improve a shelf life of fresh-cut zucchini flowers using Polyester film.” Revise the word ‘interesting’
“…CO2 percentage that was high by 10 percentage points..” what percentage point?
“However, this study dates back several years and it is currently difficult to find zucchini flowers..” revise sentence. Not a good justification
Elaborate more about mean comparison of pH value
“As known, flowers continue to respire and transpire after harvesting and these processes also cause tissue degradation.” Add citation
Elaborate more on the sensory analysis justification
The findings lack in terms of justification and major findings.
Conclusions:
Add recommendation for future studies
General comments:
Please check the reference styles and grammar of the manuscript.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author
Your manuscript addresses a very interesting topic. However, it is necessary to consider some corrections to improve.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for providing valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
