Effects of Pullulan-Based Coatings Incorporating ɛ-Polylysine and Glutathione on the Preservation of Cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata L.) Postharvest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has evaluated the influence of pullulan-based edible coatings on the post-harvest quality of the cowpea. The manuscript has several problems and is not acceptable in its present form.
The language should be edited by a professional English editor.
Line 17: delete “post-harvest”
Line 18: delete “treatment”
Write about the properties, structure, and applications of pullulan in the introduction. You can use the following manuscript: 10.14715/cmb/2018.64.8.4
Please add more details about É›-polylysine and Glutathione.
Line 59: why these concentrations of pullulan, É›-polylysine and Glutathione were used in the coating solution? Why you have not optimized the coating? You have only one treatment!!
Line 93: The reported data in the results and discussion are not statistically analyzed. Why you have written the method of statistical analysis?!
The results are poorly discussed and need revision.
The conclusion should be improved. Add the major findings, and their importance.
The charts do not have a horizontal and vertical axis
Author Response
The manuscript has evaluated the influence of pullulan-based edible coatings on the post-harvest quality of the cowpea. The manuscript has several problems and is not acceptable in its present form.
Response:
Thank you very much for your positive comments. We revised our manuscript according to your instructions. We hope this revision fulfilled the requirement for publication in the coatings.
The language should be edited by a professional English editor.
Response: The language has been edited by an English editing service.
Line 17: delete “post-harvest”
Response:
Line 17: “post-harvest” has been deleted from the text.
Line 18: delete “treatment”
Response:
Line 18: “treatment” has been deleted from the text.
Write about the properties, structure, and applications of pullulan in the introduction. You can use the following manuscript: https://doi.org/10.14715/cmb/2018.64.8.4
Response:
We think that additional properties not related to coatings are out of the scope of this paper.
Please add more details about É›-polylysine and Glutathione.
Response:
(1) We think that additional details of É›-polylysine not related to antibacterial activity are out of the scope of this paper.
(2) We think that additional details of glutathione not related to antioxidant activity are out of the scope of this paper.
Line 59: why these concentrations of pullulan, É›-polylysine and Glutathione were used in the coating solution? Why you have not optimized the coating? You have only one treatment!!
Response: Line 61:
(1) ‘Based on our previous study, ’ has been added to the text.
(2) Optimum of coatings is out of the scope of this paper.
(3) We have only one treatment in this study.
Line 93: The reported data in the results and discussion are not statistically analyzed. Why you have written the method of statistical analysis?!
Response:
The reported data in the results and discussion have been statistically analyzed.
The results are poorly discussed and need revision.
Response:
The results and discussion have been revised.
The conclusion should be improved. Add the major findings, and their importance.
Response: The conclusion have been improved.
The charts do not have a horizontal and vertical axis
Response:
The charts have been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
I reviewed the review manuscript entitled: “Effects of Pullulan-based Coatings Incorporated with É›-polyly-sine and Glutathione on the Preservation of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Post-harvest”.
Here are some comments and curiosities I have about the manuscript.
Format errors
1. Vigna unguiculata L. in the title (line 4) should be written in italics
2. The last name of the author should be in capital letters (line 5)
3. The size of some sentences in the letter is smaller or bigger. For example: line 45, line 81, etc. Font sizes should be uniform
Introduction
1. Line 41: I think something like functional compounds would look better than spices and nutrients.
2. É›-polyly-sine has a broad-spectrum against which pathogens? Please, give some examples.
3. Are there no previous studies in which these cultures are coated with other film-forming solutions? Is this the first study that has been done? (lines 47-48).
Materials and methods
1. Line 55: 3x105 ïƒ which units?
2. Line 61-62: 1% is w7v or w/w? The same applies for 0.2 and 0.3%
3. Line 72 and line 77: perhaps, both could be written in the manuscript in a mathematical formula format
4. Line 89: please, could you explain why MDAs are measured?
Results and discussion
1. Line 106: you mention that the difference is significant, which is the significance value (P value)?
2. Lines 123-125. Was bacterial growth seen on uncoated pods?
3. Line 147. you mention that the difference is significant, which is the significance value (P value)?
4. Are there other examples of crops that are coated after harvest to improve their half-life? What are they? What coatings do they use? The results discussed have not been compared with other studies. I consider that this part needs to be improved throughout “Section 3”.
Figures
1. None of the 5 figures have X and Y axes. They must be put.
2. Figures 2 and 3 has no bars of standard deviation.
Author Response
I reviewed the review manuscript entitled: “Effects of Pullulan-based Coatings Incorporated with É›-polyly-sine and Glutathione on the Preservation of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Post-harvest”.
Here are some comments and curiosities I have about the manuscript.
Format errors
- Vigna unguiculata L.in the title (line 4) should be written in italics
Response: Line 4:
‘Vigna unguiculata ’ has been written in italics.
- The last name of the author should be in capital letters (line 5)
Response: Line 5:
‘mao’ has been revised as ‘Mao’.
- The size of some sentences in the letter is smaller or bigger. For example: line 45, line 81, etc. Font sizes should be uniform
Response:
Font sizes throughout the main text has been revised uniform.
Introduction
- Line 41: I think something like functional compounds would look better than spices and nutrients.
Response: Line 41:
‘spices and nutrients’ has been deleted from the text.
- É›-polyly-sine has a broad-spectrum against which pathogens? Please, give some examples.
Response:
We think that it is appropriate to put reference [9] here.
- Are there no previous studies in which these cultures are coated with other film-forming solutions? Is this the first study that has been done? (lines 47-48).
Response:
We confirm this is the first study that has been done.
Materials and methods
- Line 55: 3x105à which units?
Response: Line 55:
‘Da’ has been added to the text.
- Line 61-62: 1% is w7v or w/w? The same applies for 0.2 and 0.3%
Response: Line 61-62
‘(w/v)’ has been added to the text.
- Line 72 and line 77: perhaps, both could be written in the manuscript in a mathematical formula format
Response:
We wrote the Decay index and Rust spot index in the present form by referring a previously paper.
- Line 89: please, could you explain why MDAs are measured?
Response: Line 172-174:
‘Environmental stress and tissue aging can decrease the ability of the tissue to scavenge active oxygen and induce the production of a large number of free radicals, which then produce MDA, and this amount can reflect the degree of membrane damage’ has been indicated in the text.
Results and discussion
- Line 106: you mention that the difference is significant, which is the significance value (P value)?
Response: Line 109:
‘(P < 0.05)’ has been added to the text.
- Lines 123-125. Was bacterial growth seen on uncoated pods?
Response:
Bacterial growth sha been seen on uncoated pods.
- Line 147. you mention that the difference is significant, which is the significance value (P value)?
Response: Line 150:
‘(P < 0.05)’ has been added to the text.
- Are there other examples of crops that are coated after harvest to improve their half-life? What are they? What coatings do they use? The results discussed have not been compared with other studies. I consider that this part needs to be improved throughout “Section 3”.
Response:
Figures
- None of the 5 figures have X and Y axes. They must be put.
Response:
X and Y axes of figure 1-5 have been put,
- Figures 2 and 3 has no bars of standard deviation.
Response: Standard deviation have been put on Figures 2 and 3.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your great efforts for this paper and the journal.
