Mechanical and Barrier Properties Optimization of Carboxymethyl Chitosan-Gelatin-Based Edible Film Using Response Surface Methodology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please enhanace the novelty of the work in abstract section
The introduction is very generalized, please highlight the objectives and outcomes of the study.
Please add an schematic illustration for the experimental recipe.
A more details for the membrane should be added with its significance
Did the authors investigate the effects of moisture and temperature on the proposed film.
The authors should provide the shelf life of the proposed coating with respect to other available ones.
Please improve the quality of graphs.
Please double check spelling and grammar errors
Please double check the spelling and grammar erros
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The script entitled "Performance optimization of carboxymethyl chitosan-gelatin-based edible coating and its preservation effect on sweet cherries" is a good attempt to promote or enhance the shelf-life of sweet cherries using carboxymethyl chitosan-gelatin- based edible coating. Script has been written meticulously and presented with scientific inputs. However, there are certain constructive suggestions to improve it a step ahead.
Abstract: What is the purpose? What is the conclusion? And add numerical data. The abstract should be more informative by giving real results rather than elastic sentences. Important and main contents should be given. Support the results with some quantitative data.
Abstract should be rewritten focusing on major results and inferences of the same.
There is no meaningful letters mention of the figures’ captions
Discussion section: This part needs more specific detailed comparative studies. The reasons for the observations and the relationship between the results are not well established. You could use the mentioned manuscript to improve this section: Modified atmosphere packaging with chitosan coating to prevent deterioration of fresh in-hull Badami’s pistachio fruit
Conclusion: what is the future of your findings? Conclusion is not insightful, what are suggestions?
Using newer references and removing old references and writing references based on the journal format
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the paper entitled “Performance optimization of carboxymethyl chitosan-gelatin-based edible coating and its preservation effect on sweet cherries” was the use of CMCS and GL as film-forming substrates, the addition of CaCl2 and AA as crosslinking agents and antioxidants, and the use of the casting method to prepare the film. Based on the single-factorial test, this study developed a three-factorial test at three levels using the response surface method. It was found that all three CMCS-GL based edible coatings could effectively reduce the rotting rate and weight loss during storage. Among them, AA -CaCl2- CMCS-GL coating has the best effect. It can be used as a new method for postharvest preservation of sweet cherries.
The paper is interesting, the methodology is adequate and explicitly stated and the subject is very topical. The results are remarkable and for this reason, I recommend the publication of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The abstract should be completely revised since it is not clear the main idea of this work. Briefly explain the main idea of the presented research and report some results.
2. Editing of English grammar is mandatory. Some sentences are not well written and there are many typos.
3. Which is the novelty of the work compared to similar systems? Usually, the introduction reports the advantages of the presented research compared to similar systems. The authors should provide with a comparison with other polymer-based systems used for fruit preservation.
4. The statements regarding the mechanical performances should be supported by some references.
5. How did the amount of gelatin affect the barrier properties? Is it supposed to form a polymeric network with CMCS? Can the authors supply a tentative schematization for the chemical interaction between the polymers, AA and CaCl2?
6. Which is the advantage of using a statistical approach to obtain the reported data? How did the author exploit the outcomes?
7. Table 10: some comments related to the statistical significance of some contributions should be reported and provided.
8. Did the authors check the limits of using all the reagents for fabricating a coating for fruit preservation?
9. Some microbiological data could add other interesting details to the reported research.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors previously studied the effect of edible coating on the quality of stored cherries. The results were published in an article https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6412/11/4/396. So there is a suspicion that the current article is part of the previous published work. However, the two articles differ in the parameters determined.
The authors used in the earlier article the most complex composition of the coating they studied in the current article. Interestingly, the authors in the conclusions of both articles identify the same edible coating composition as the best for the quality of stored cherries.
In addition, the authors do not mention the previous publication at all in the introduction or elsewere. Hence, there are ethical doubts about the articles.
Another concern is that the conclusions of the previous article do not contribute to the research of the authors' current work, which supports the idea that these are artificially divided results of a larger work.
I submit to the editor's judgment whether to consider publishing a paper in a journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewers have addressed the comments well. I have no objection for accepting the article.
Minor spelling and grammar check needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The corrections were done.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
The revisions supplied by the authors improved the quality of the manuscript. I cna now recommend the publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your positive comments.
Reviewer 5 Report
In the introduction, you should devote a paragraph to comment on the your previous 2 publications on similar topic and demonstrate what is new in the current article, how it differs from the previously published ones. Such an explanation can be based on the comment that the authors posted in the cover letter in response to my comment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
