A Study on the Effect Mechanism of Pectin Modification on the Carrot Cell Wall’s Texture Formation under Ultrasonic and Infrared Drying

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presented in this manuscript concerns the comparative analysis of changes in carrot cell wall texture during infrared drying (IR) and combined ultrasonic-assisted infrared drying (US-IR). The focus was on changes in the structures and properties of pectins.

The topic and research plan of the study are interesting, but in the reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript needs slight improvement as noted below.

1.     General comment on the purpose and scope of the study:

-      Throughout the manuscript, the authors use the phrase 'improvement of textural properties', but nowhere do they specify exactly what improvement they are talking about. What specific texture features will be improved ?

The scope of the study concerns very detailed aspects of the internal structure of the cell walls of dried carrots, all the changes that occur are described, but there is no direct translation of these aspects into the usage properties of the obtained dried carrots. How do these changes affect the final quality of dried carrots ? Lack of direct emphasis on the utilization validity of the obtained results. It is a pity that the authors did not include in the scope of the study the determination of any quality parameters of IR and US_IR dried carrots (e.g. sensory evaluation, rehydration rate, etc.). This would allow the reader to have a complete overview of the topic and show the practical meaning and value of the study.

I ask the authors to consider the above and possibly try to slightly improve the manuscript in this respect.

2.     ‘Abstract’ section

-      The abbreviations WSP, CSP and NSP should be explained upon first use.

3.     ‘Introduction’ section

-      The text provides a good overview of the background and introduces the issue, ultimately precisely defining the purpose of the study, but if the authors decide to take actions related to point 1, it will be advisable to extend it.

-      Lines 28-31 - There should be appropriate references to the given data.

4.     ‘Materials and Methods’ section

-      All methods used are described in an understandable way.

-      Specifications for many of the research equipment used are missing. Please provide the type, manufacturer and country of origin for all equipment (as done e.g. for the thermal analyzer on line 171).

-      What was the diameter of the carrot slices ?

-      How many carrot slices were dried in one cycle? Was it a single layer of carrot slices on a tray or was it a specific layer height ? Please describe it in more detail.

5.     ‘Results’ section

-      All results were presented clearly and understandably.

-      The section also contains a lot of discussion of the results, so please consider changing the name of the section to 'Results and Discussion'.

-      Line 351 - according to the journal's requirements, the number of the cited reference should appear immediately after the authors' names, not at the end of the sentence.

-      Line 504 - 'blanching' should probably be changed to 'drying'.

6.     ‘Discussion’ section

-      I also suggest authors consider changing the name of the section to 'Conclusions'.

-      It would also be worth expanding this section to include all important conclusions from the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study the effect of ultrasonic synergistic infrared drying on pectin modifications and carrot texture was investigated. This paper included a good idea of adequate analysis and results but there are certain shortcomings:

The abstract should contain step-by-step information about the written work, rather than the main part being the results. Missing a section that describes the methods and analyzes that are used, what was investigated and how. Also, different pectin fraction WSP, CSP and NSP are mentioned in the abstract for the first time, write their full names and not just in the section 3.6.

Line 28-33 Provide references for this paragraph.

Line 60-63 Emphasize what is new and different about the presented work compared to the previous works of your project team.

Line 85-95 This part would be much more useful in the discussion section, for comparison with the results obtained.

In general, given that the discussion in this paper is very scarce, while the introduction is extensive and gives an overview of the works that dealt with similar issues, include the mentioned works during the discussion of the results, and shorten the introduction.

Line 124 Characteristics and parameters of US drying?

Line 166 Device and manufacturer information?

Line 435 What is RG type pectin?

Line 447 Comment on content of isolated and identified monosaccharides from WSP, CSP and NSP in dependence of drying conditions.

Section 3 reformulate in Results and discussion section and supplemented to a significant extent by discussion

 Also section 4 reformulate in Conclusions and this section should be revised and rewritten: briefly highlighting the main results, but indicating the authors' conclusions arising from their work and future research plans.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved and I support its publication.