Enhancing the Shelf-Life of Fresh Cassava Roots: A Field Evaluation of Simple Storage Bags
, Celestina Ibitayo Omohimi 2, Lateef Oladimeji Sanni 2, Adekola Felix Adegoke 2, Abdul-Rasaq Adesola Adebowale 2 and Ben Bennett 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The paper “Enhancing the shelf-life of fresh cassava roots: a field evaluation of simple storage bags.” is interesting for the researchers in the Food Production /Food Science area namely those interested in the specific cassava preservation prior processing.
Some comments/suggestions are provided in order to improve the manuscript.
The work is original, and the objectives of the work are clearly stated. A revision on some English spell is suggested as some grammatical issues are noticed along the manuscript.
The information in the manuscript is accurate in what concerns to theoretical generalizations, but references used are very limited to this kind of article. Authors should find other published data related with the theme and add it on both the introduction and discussion sections.
Methodology is well described. Section 2.6 – it should be re-written as like it is, is quite confusing; in this approach, measurements were only visual? Please describe.
Results and discussion are adequate to the objectives of the research. Discussion should be revised in order to include some more references.
Line 187 – replace “ether”
Pag 7 – graph – replace “humisity”
Table 3: please identify letters a, b, c, d in the legend.
Iine 290 - ..these approaches.. were not
Conclusion are directly related to the objectives.
Note: Scientific names should be written in italic form
Best regards
Author Response
Please find attached reply as pdf document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well-written and interesting manuscript, which could have impact on the further research, as well as application in the local agricultural industry (farms).
Cassava roots has serious impact on the local agriculture, and this manuscript is step forward to know more about its shelf-life extending, influence of root damage, variety, Starch content and cassava root with and without the peduncle on shelf-life. It also states that fresh cassava roots can be stored in a bag at ambient temperature for up to eight days with minimal deterioration or loss in starch. I can recommend publishing this manuscript in your journal with some corrections.
Correct unify through all manual script 10% without space before % or 10 % space before %
Line 84 correct oC to °C
Line 54 “and whether the roots are repeatedly damaged” please clarify what does “repeatedly damaged” mean.
Line 97 – 98. “Once the method was developed, two additional varieties were with TME 419 being TMS 0581 and TMS 1632.” vaguely written please rewrite begin what?
Line 102 replace: “,” with “:”
Line 106 “Additionally, fresh roots were either wetted with water (0.7 %) (to provide high humidity) or not wetted.” please clarify what does represent “water (0.7 %)”
Line 132 – 135 “Cassava roots (5 kg) were sampled at 0, 8 and 12 days. All treatments were replicated five times. Cassava roots (5kg) were sampled at zero, two, four, six and eight days.” Why duplicate is there any difference in sampling. If I understood correctly the spells were taken 0, 2,4,6,8,10 and 12 day. (every two days).
Line 145 and 155“Cassava roots (5kg) were sampled at zero, two, four, six and eight days.” What about samples at 10 and 12 day.
Figure three add storage data for 7,8,9,10,11, and 12 day.
Figure 4 b, how do author explain higher external score at 10 day of storage comparing to 12 days for external fungal rotting score.
Line 290 “However, these approaches using chemical treatments were included in this research because at a commercial scale, these methods would only be practical for high value markets.” Missing chemical treatments in this research. There are no results presented for included chemical treatments.
Author Response
Please find attached point wise reply to the comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
