Controlled Atmosphere Storage and Sorbitol Dipping Minimize Chilling Injuries in ‘Palmer’ Mangoes
, Vanessa Maria Dantas Pedrosa 1, Maiqui Izidoro 1, Tiago Santana Balbuena 2, Alex Guimarães Sanches 1 and Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira 1,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introductory part (lines 35 to 92) is well described and explained, and makes it clear what problem is to be solved and what the intended goal is.
In line 55, subscript should be placed in hydrogen peroxide and oxygen.
Check line 57;
In line 61, subscript should be placed in sorbitol;
Check line 67;
In line 72, subscript should be placed in hydrogen peroxide;
Check line 75;
Materials and Methods line 94 to 223
Well worded, missing subscripts as reported in rows:
Coordinates are missing in line 97;
Check line 98;
Check line 103;
Check line 109, subscript should be placed in oxygen and carbon dioxide;
Check line 109, plural missing on fruit word;
From lines 119 to 122 are missing subscripts
Line 170 missing subscripts;
Line 197 missing subscripts;
Results, line 223 are equally well explained.
Line 302 missing subscripts;
Line 307 missing subscripts;
Line 330-321 the font of the words is too big;
Line 412 missing subscripts;
Line 435, 438, 452, 465, 476, 477, 479, 489, 492 missing subscripts;
Is missing the part of the discussions to the results obtained. Although something is hinted at it is really superficial explanation from a scientific point of view. I recommend doing a background on the physiological responses of the fruit due to the dipping performed.
Conclusions 496 to 509 could also be more thorough.
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 1
Article title: Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol
Editor:
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments and we also submitted the manuscript to MDPI English Editing Service (attached file).
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 1:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Comment I:
The introductory part (lines 35 to 92) is well described and explained and makes it clear what problem is to be solved and what the intended goal is.
Answer:
Thank you for the comment.
Line 55, subscript should be placed in hydrogen peroxide and oxygen.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Check line 57;
In line 61, subscript should be placed in sorbitol.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Check line 67;
In line 72, subscript should be placed in hydrogen peroxide.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Check line 75;
Materials and Methods line 94 to 223
Well worded, missing subscripts as reported in rows:
Coordinates are missing in line 97.
Answer:
The coordinates of both locations were included as suggested.
Check line 98;
Check line 103;
Check line 109, subscript should be placed in oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Check line 109, plural missing on fruit word.
Answer:
The plural form for the word fruit is fruit. But we modified to fruits as suggested.
From lines 119 to 122 are missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 170 missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 197 missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Results, line 223 are equally well explained.
Line 302 missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 307 missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 330-321 the font of the words is too big.
Answer:
The manuscript was written with the same font size (12). Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 412 missing subscripts.
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 435, 438, 452, 465, 476, 477, 479, 489, 492 missing subscripts
Answer:
The subscripts of all molecules were provided in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Is missing the part of the discussions to the results obtained. Although something is hinted at it is really superficial explanation from a scientific point of view. I recommend doing a background on the physiological responses of the fruit due to the dipping performed.
Answer:
The discussion was modified as suggested.
Conclusions 496 to 509 could also be more thorough.
Answer:
The conclusion was modified as suggested.
“All comments have been addressed”.
Answer:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript and contributing to its improvement.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was prepared carelessly, without respecting the journal's standards or the rules of scientific writing.
The authors did not follow the journal's rules regarding the insertion of citations in the text.
The authors wrote almost all of the chemical formulas incorrectly, without writing the numbers in subscript style.
Line 128: It would be better to write CRD in full. It is not a common abbreviation, so it forces the reader to go back through the text to see the meaning of the abbreviation.
Line 140: Did the fruits lose weight on day zero?
Line 149: Does each side of the fruit have an equator?
Some of the conclusions contradict the data presented and even the photographs shown.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
In many cases the wording is incorrect, for example, without singular/plural agreement, as in the case of "fruit were".
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 1
Article title: Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol
Editor:
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments and we also submitted the manuscript to MDPI English Editing Service (attached file).
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 2:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Comment I:
The manuscript was prepared carelessly, without respecting the journal's standards or the rules of scientific writing.
Answer:
We are so sorry for the mistakes related to not following the journal’s standards. We modified the manuscript according to the Instructions for Authors.
Comment II:
The authors did not follow the journal's rules regarding the insertion of citations in the text.
Answer:
We are so sorry for the mistakes related to not following the journal’s standards. We modified the manuscript according to the Instructions for Authors.
Comment III:
The authors wrote almost all of the chemical formulas incorrectly, without writing the numbers in subscript style.
Answer:
All chemical formulas were written correctly in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Line 128: It would be better to write CRD in full. It is not a common abbreviation, so it forces the reader to go back through the text to see the meaning of the abbreviation.
Answer:
The acronym CRD was written in full as suggested.
Line 140: Did the fruits lose weight on day zero?
Answer:
No, the fruits did not lose weight on day zero. However, it is necessary to measure the weight on day zero to calculate the weight loss during the storage period. Thus, the weight loss on day zero is also zero.
Line 149: Does each side of the fruit have an equator?
Answer:
We substitute the word “equator” with “center” to better describe where the measurements were carried out.
Comment IV:
Some of the conclusions contradict the data presented and even the photographs shown.
Answer:
The conclusion was modified as suggested.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am honored with opportunity to review manuscript “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol”, by group of authors from Brazil.
The manuscript merit is to show and to explain reduction of CI injuries with application of sorbitol (different concentrations 0.1 and 2.5 % ) on different temperatures and on different CA conditions (I) 21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2 at 8°C and (II) 5 kPa O2 + 5 kPa CO2 at 4°C. In experiment I sorbitol does not had effect on CI, while in experiment II (CA) there is no statistical difference between control and control + CA, however there is difference between CA and sorbitol treated fruits. And up to this point, manuscript does have full sense. However there are some serious questions regarding results and experiments:
1) If in experiment II (CA) there is no statistical difference between control and control + CA, and there is difference between CA and sorbitol treated fruits why is interaction non-significant?
2) Regarding samples. Samples (fruits) does originate from two locations, which is reason why there is two unrelated experiments, and have consequence that difference in fruit behavior in two experiment could be related to fruit rather than to treatment
3) In all two published papers by group of authors (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108248) there is no means of three replications (only figures) and in this paper only estimated values are presented. On top of that, presentation of result does not clearly show significance of factors. I suggest presenting results in form like in table 1 https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8090809. Presentation of the results in such way would greatly improve clarity of the results.
4) First experiment (‘Palmer’ mangoes in 0.1 and 2.5% (w/v) sorbitol solutions and store fruit under CA without modification of gas concentrations (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) at 8°C / 95%) is same as experiment in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108248; while second experiment (5 kPa O2 + 5 kPa CO2 at 4°C / 95% RH for 28 days) is similar to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800 with difference in storing temperature (8 and 4 °C), which significantly lowers novelty of presented data.
Regarding the meaning or manuscript, manuscript is lacking of meaning. The title is “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol” suggesting same paper as in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800; in the aim is “…was to evaluate the effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes in 0.1 and 2.5% (w/v) sorbitol solutions and store fruit under CA without modification of gas concentrations” and then there are two separate experiments which prevents authors to conclude about significance of CA. Conclusion underlies lack of novelty since all conclusion (treatment with sorbitol and storage in CA on 4 and 8 ⁰C) are already present in current literature.
This manuscript due to high volume of data, suffer from lost focus. If authors are to rewrite this manuscript with suggested statistic, it must be more focused. In present form is really hard to follow.
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 1
Article title: Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol
Editor:
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments and we also submitted the manuscript to MDPI English Editing Service (attached file).
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 3:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Comment I:
I am honored with opportunity to review manuscript “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol”, by group of authors from Brazil.
The manuscript merit is to show and to explain reduction of CI injuries with application of sorbitol (different concentrations 0.1 and 2.5 % ) on different temperatures and on different CA conditions (I) 21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2 at 8°C and (II) 5 kPa O2 + 5 kPa CO2 at 4°C. In experiment I sorbitol does not had effect on CI, while in experiment II (CA) there is no statistical difference between control and control + CA, however there is difference between CA and sorbitol treated fruits. And up to this point, manuscript does have full sense. However there are some serious questions regarding results and experiments:
Comment II:
If in experiment II (CA) there is no statistical difference between control and control + CA, and there is difference between CA and sorbitol treated fruits why is interaction non-significant?
Answer:
We guess the reviewer is referring to chilling injury development (Table 7). Based on our results, only the main factors showed significance (Treatments and storage period). We did not get significant interaction between the main factors.
Comment III:
Regarding samples. Samples (fruits) does originate from two locations, which is reason why there is two unrelated experiments, and have consequence that difference in fruit behavior in two experiment could be related to fruit rather than to treatment.
Answer:
In Brazil, mangoes are produced in many growing regions and the Northwest of Brazil is responsible for 75% of the country’s production. Thus, the results of our first experiment and the other results from our research group (Sanches et al., 2021; Sanches et al., 2022a; Sanches et al., 2022b), should be validated with fruits produced in the Northwest of Brazil.
I understand that the growing location could have affected the results, but many other factors also might have contributed to our results.
Comment IV:
In all two published papers by group of authors (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108248) there is no means of three replications (only figures) and in this paper only estimated values are presented. On top of that, presentation of result does not clearly show significance of factors. I suggest presenting results in form like in table 1 https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8090809. Presentation of the results in such way would greatly improve clarity of the results.
Answer:
The significance of the F test was included in all tables was suggested.
Comment V:
First experiment (‘Palmer’ mangoes in 0.1 and 2.5% (w/v) sorbitol solutions and store fruit under CA without modification of gas concentrations (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) at 8°C / 95%) is same as experiment in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108248; while second experiment (5 kPa O2 + 5 kPa CO2 at 4°C / 95% RH for 28 days) is similar to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800 with difference in storing temperature (8 and 4 °C), which significantly lowers novelty of presented data.
Answer:
As we explained in the introduction, our group has tested the use of sorbitol solutions and other polyols to minimize chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes. The main difference of these studies is the storage temperature.
The first experiment was not the same as Sanches et al. (2021). In our first results (Sanches et al., 2021), different polyols (propylene glycol, sorbitol, and glycerol) solutions (0.1, 0.5, and 2.5%) were used to control chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored at 8°C in a normal cold room. Thus, we did not use CA. The reason to use CA without gas modification was to show that sorbitol does not act as a modified atmosphere agent as the relative humidity of the CA chambers was around 95% and in at normal cold room only 87%.
The second experiment was also not the same as Sanches et al. (2022a) as these authors stored the fruits at 8°C and we stored at 4°C.
Although there isn’t a novelty in terms of the use of sorbitol, the ability to combine CA and sorbitol at other temperatures can be considered a novelty.
Comment VI:
Regarding the meaning or manuscript, manuscript is lacking of meaning. The title is “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol” suggesting same paper as in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800; in the aim is “…was to evaluate the effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes in 0.1 and 2.5% (w/v) sorbitol solutions and store fruit under CA without modification of gas concentrations” and then there are two separate experiments which prevents authors to conclude about significance of CA. Conclusion underlies lack of novelty since all conclusion (treatment with sorbitol and storage in CA on 4 and 8 ⁰C) are already present in current literature.
This manuscript due to high volume of data, suffer from lost focus. If authors are to rewrite this manuscript with suggested statistic, it must be more focused. In present form is really hard to follow.
Answer:
As we explained in the introduction, our group has tested the use of sorbitol solutions and other polyols to minimize chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes. The main difference of these studies is the storage temperature.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript, produced by the authors, has some intriguing results, and is well written, which for me meets the journal requirement for publication. I only recommend these concerns in some areas of the manuscript to help improve the manuscript.
Below are some major concerns and suggestions:
1. In line 26 and 127, the statement is not complete. Please check after “ambient”.
2. The abstract has no conclusion of the current study and therefore does not state the significance of the current study. Please, state why this study is useful at the current state in the abstract.
3. The manuscript references do not represent the journal style.
4. In line 57, please, check the writing of the word “accumulation”. Also, in line 67, please, check the writing of the “preventing”.
5. In line 75, com-pared should be compared.
6. In the introduction, please indicate some of the results of the current study and also, provide statement regarding the significance of the current study.
7. In the results section, line 292, there is no caption for Figure 3. Please, revise.
8. In Figure 5 and 7, the labels on the fruits are not displaying properly. Please check and revise.
9. Moderate grammar checks should be carried out in the MS.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate grammar checks should be carried out in the MS.
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 1
Article title: Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol
Editor:
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments and we also submitted the manuscript to MDPI English Editing Service (attached file).
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 4:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Comment I:
This manuscript, produced by the authors, has some intriguing results, and is well written, which for me meets the journal requirement for publication. I only recommend these concerns in some areas of the manuscript to help improve the manuscript.
Below are some major concerns and suggestions:
Answer:
Thank you for the comment.
Line 26 and 127, the statement is not complete. Please check after “ambient”.
Answer:
Comment II:
The abstract has no conclusion of the current study and therefore does not state the significance of the current study. Please, state why this study is useful at the current state in the abstract.
Answer:
A conclusion was added to the abstract as suggested.
Comment III:
The manuscript references do not represent the journal style.
Answer:
We are so sorry for the mistakes related to not following the journal’s standards. We modified the manuscript according to the Instructions for Authors.
Line 57, please, check the writing of the word “accumulation”. Also, in line 67, please, check the writing of the “preventing”.
Answer:
We checked the writing of both words as suggested.
Line 75, com-pared should be compared.
Answer:
The word “compared” was written correctly in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Comment IV:
In the introduction, please indicate some of the results of the current study and also, provide statement regarding the significance of the current study.
Answer:
We modified the introduction as suggested.
Comment V:
In the results section, line 292, there is no caption for Figure 3. Please, revise.
Answer:
The caption of Figure 3 was included in the original manuscript. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Comment VI:
In Figure 5 and 7, the labels on the fruits are not displaying properly. Please check and revise.
Answer:
In the original manuscript, all labels in Figures 5 and 7 were displayed properly. Maybe the journal formatting changed the original text. We made all the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers.
Comment IV:
Moderate grammar checks should be carried out in the MS.
Answer:
The manuscript was reviewed by a specialized language service was suggested.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was improved according to the revisions that were requested.
The part of the discussions concerning the results obtained has been improved. The explanation about the physiological response of the fruit due to the treatment has been implemented.
Therefore, in this form the manuscript can be published.
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 1
Article title: Controlled atmosphere storage and sorbitol dipping minimize chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes
Editor: Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript resubmission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments.
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 1:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 142 (former Line 140): I understand the authors' response, but the text remains incorrect. Clearly the fruit needed to be weighed on day zero to determine subsequent weight loss, but what is written is that weight loss was measured on day zero, when what should be written is that weight was measured from day zero to allow calculation of weight loss. Not only was weight loss not measured on day zero, it was never measured at all. Weight loss is not measurable; it can only be calculated/determined based on weight measurements. An article in a prestigious journal must take these details into account.
Line 149: The text of version 1 was poorly written, but it was understandable what had been done. Now it's worse because the reader who only has access to the final version won't know where the color was measured. The reader is informed that it was measured on two opposite sides, but on which sides? The apical side and the stylar side are in opposite positions to each other. If I hadn't read the first version I wouldn't know if that wasn't where the color was measured. Furthermore, where is the center of a side?
Chemical formulas - subscript/superscript: It really looks like your article has a problem with subscript/superscript. I don't understand why, because, although most of the formulas are incorrect, some are correct, with the numbers in subscript.
Figure 5 has titles of the ordinate axis covered by the fruits.
Figure 5 and table 9: “Control + CA” should be replaced by “CA”
Table 9: Numbers have too many decimal places. They should, as a maximum, be rounded to one place to the right of the decimal point. This would simplify reading without eliminating valid information.
Table 4 and conclusions (line 386): In the first column, when F is not significant, the comparison of means loses legitimacy. Furthermore, it is strange that a difference of 0.10 (1.80 vs 1.70) is not significant and that in the same statistical analysis a difference of 0.05 (1.70 vs 1.65) is statistically significant by the test of comparison of means. Furthermore, from the photographs, the differences between treatments are very little evident. Therefore, I think that the conclusion that Sorbitol 2.5% reduces chilling injury is very doubtful.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 3
Article title: Controlled atmosphere storage and sorbitol dipping minimize chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes
Editor: Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments.
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 2:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Line 142 (former Line 140): I understand the authors' response, but the text remains incorrect. Clearly the fruit needed to be weighed on day zero to determine subsequent weight loss, but what is written is that weight loss was measured on day zero, when what should be written is that weight was measured from day zero to allow calculation of weight loss. Not only was weight loss not measured on day zero, it was never measured at all. Weight loss is not measurable; it can only be calculated/determined based on weight measurements. An article in a prestigious journal must take these details into account.
Answer:
We modified the description of the weight loss determination as requested.
Line 149: The text of version 1 was poorly written, but it was understandable what had been done. Now it's worse because the reader who only has access to the final version won't know where the color was measured. The reader is informed that it was measured on two opposite sides, but on which sides? The apical side and the stylar side are in opposite positions to each other. If I hadn't read the first version I wouldn't know if that wasn't where the color was measured. Furthermore, where is the center of a side?
Answer:
We modified the description of the color measurement as requested.
Chemical formulas - subscript/superscript: It really looks like your article has a problem with subscript/superscript. I don't understand why, because, although most of the formulas are incorrect, some are correct, with the numbers in subscript.
Answer:
Again, the manuscript in Word format has ALL formulas with subscript/superscript. The journal formatting is changing the text. Thus, it is not our fault if the system does it incorrectly. I will report to the Chief Editor about this issue.
Find below a screenshot showing that all formulas are correct in the Word format.
Figure 5 has titles of the ordinate axis covered by the fruits.
Answer:
Again, the manuscript in Word format has ALL titles correctly stated. The journal formatting is changing the text. Thus, it is not our fault if the system does it incorrectly. I will report to the Chief Editor about this issue.
Figure 5 and table 9: “Control + CA” should be replaced by “CA”
Answer:
We replaced all “Control + CA” with “CA”.
Table 9: Numbers have too many decimal places. They should, as a maximum, be rounded to one place to the right of the decimal point. This would simplify reading without eliminating valid information.
Answer:
We believe that it is better to maintain two decimals in all tables as some differences would be more difficult to be visualized.
Table 4 and conclusions (line 386): In the first column, when F is not significant, the comparison of means loses legitimacy. Furthermore, it is strange that a difference of 0.10 (1.80 vs 1.70) is not significant and that in the same statistical analysis a difference of 0.05 (1.70 vs 1.65) is statistically significant by the test of comparison of means. Furthermore, from the photographs, the differences between treatments are very little evident. Therefore, I think the conclusion that Sorbitol 2.5% reduces chilling injury is very doubtful.
Answer:
We checked all results to correct any misplaced values.
Our results reflect the collected data. Every variable has its own variance and variability. Thus, if a variable has a difference of 0.10 and is not significant and another has a difference of 0.05 and is significant, it is due to its particular variability.
We do not manipulate our results and we are quite offended by the reviewer's comments. The data is completely open and if he or she wants to get access to the data set, we can make it available to this reviewer to run the statistical analysis and get its conclusion.
Regarding the pictures. Both were taken using a single fruit and they are a snapshot of the fruit. If the pictures are not convincing, we can take them out of the manuscript. The other results, especially the biochemical results, showed the efficacy of the sorbitol treatment to reduce chilling injury. It is our third publication using sorbitol and it indeed does not CONTROL chilling injury but minimizes the development of the symptoms.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAgain, I am honored with opportunity to review revised manuscript “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol”. Authors did a great work with manuscript, and I have to say that improvement is significant.
However, due to the large amount of data, errors have occurred. Results for CI in Table 7 and 8 are same (which is impossible, having in mind perishable nature of mango fruit). Those results are used for PCA presented on figures 7 and 8, which have to be calculated again. Those PCA will require changes in results and consequently, in discussion.
There is no mentioning regarding shelf life (other than it is up to 7 days). According to PCA results, shelf life lasted from 4 up to 10 days (Figure 3B and 4B), while tables shows different values. Please define storage times in material and methods and make necessary changes in tables and figures.
It is challenge to write manuscript with large amount of data. By focusing on CI, many other aspects of mango storage and shelf life is lost, but since all data is presented in supplementary and in manuscript it is not all lost. However, since the merit of manuscript is CI, I am missing graphical illustration CI. Pease present CI like you did in supplementary material (Figure 1), in your previous publication (Sorbitol immersion controls chilling injury in CA stored ‘Palmer’ mangoes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800)
Lines 113-114 „During each evaluation, chilling injury was immediately evaluated and some of the fruits were moved to ambient conditions (∼24 ± 2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) to evaluate them for signs of chilling injury.“ and Lines 128-130 „At each evaluation, some of the fruits were moved to ambient conditions (∼24 ± 2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) to be evaluated for signs of chilling injury.“ – please define length (in days) of fruit exposure to ambient conditions.
Lines 238-240 “On the other hand, after transfer to ambient conditions, the 2.5% sorbitol treatment reduced CI development (Table 4) and the mangoes showed better visual quality (Figure 1 and Figure 2).” This sentence is not correct; there is no significant difference between CI in dependence of sorbitol concentrations (Test bellow CI in table 4 “0.3ns). Usually, when effect of treatment is not significant (in this case F=0.3ns) differences between treatments are not significant by default. Please rewrite sentence.
Lines 241-248. Total explanation of variations for Figure 3A is 60.1 (PCA1+PCA2) which could be better. Please exclude non-significant variables (SSC%, pH). Also define significance of Treatments and Days as factors in all supplementary tables and if both factors and interaction is not significant, please also exclude it from PCA. Please rewrite Lines 241-248 according to newly obtained biplot
Lines 249-254. Total explanation of variations for Figure 3B is 61 (PCA1+PCA2) which could be better. Please exclude non-significant variables (SSC%, pH). Also define significance of Treatments and Days as factors in all supplementary tables and if both factors and interaction is not significant, please also exclude it from PCA. Please rewrite Lines 249-254 according to newly obtained biplot
Line 268 “evaluation days 21+5 and 28+5” while on the biplot there is 21+4 and 28+5. please define length (in days) of fruit exposure to ambient conditions, and make necessary changes throughout manuscript.
Lines 268-269 “which were closer to those of cold damage” on what is this part of sentence referred to results to experiment 2 or literature. Please move this part to discussion (and add appropriate reference)
Lines 272-275. Compared to what? To respected control? Interestingly CI of controls are much higher for experiment II (2.1, Table 7) when compared to experiment I (1.3, table 3), which make challenge when comparing two experiments. Please make comet and explanation for difference in CI (Table 3 and 7)
Lines 272-275. The results of CI of mangoes after storage (CI table 7) and after shelf life (CI Table 8) are same. Please check results throughout whole manuscript and supplementary data. If same mistake has occurred when PCA was made, please do again PCA. IF PCA required redoing, please make necessary corrections to lines 276-284.
Lines 286-300. Since CI was used for PCA in 8, when corrections to CI is corrected, please redo PCA and make necessary corrections to lines 286-300.
Lines 301-374. Disccusion. Results of CI are very interesting! At normal atmosphere different sorbitol concentrations did not change CI (neither after cold storage nor after shelf life), however, in CA, after cold storage there is no difference between Control+CA and 0.1 and 0.2% sorbitol (they are sharing same letter “b”). I would like to continue, but results for CI are same for table 7 and 8. Having in mind readers of Horticulturae journal, after necessary correction of results in table 8, please make comment (on paragraph) regarding treatments and occurrence of CI, and please make recommendation according to your results.
Lines 519-521 “Table 3. Effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes (skin and pulp) in sorbitol (0.1 and 2.5%) and storage at 8.0 ± 1.0°C and 95 ± 0.5% RH under controlled atmosphere without modification of gases (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) for 28 days on parameters fresh weight loss (FWL), chilling injury (CI), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), ratio (SSC/TA), and pH.” The results for pulp and skin are not shown, please make correction. Add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables. Please replace “under controlled atmosphere modification of gases” with “without atmosphere modification”.
Lines 522-523. Replace “common letters” with “same letter”; instead of “Tukey's test (P<0.05)” leave only “Tukey's test” since significance is stated in following sentence (Non-significant interaction (NS), significant interaction at P<0.05 (**), and significant interaction at P<0.01 (*)). Usually statistical difference P<0.05 is marked with (*) and high statistical difference (P<0.01) is marked with “**”. Is there oversight or do you really marked difference as stated in sentence (lines 522-533). PLEASE MAKE CHANGES IN ALL TABLE CAPTIONS.
Lines 525-528 “Table 4. “Effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes (peel and pulp) in sorbitol (0.1 and 2.5%) and storage at 8.0 ± 1.0°C and 95 ± 0.5% RH under controlled atmosphere without gas modification (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) for 28 days on the parameters of chilling injury (CI), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), SSC/TA ratio, and pH after transfer to ambient conditions (24 ±2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) for up to 7 days.” The results for pulp and skin are not shown, please make correction. Add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables. Please replace “under controlled atmosphere without gas modification” with “without atmosphere modification”, “for up to 7 days.” please be precise and define shelf life (Lines 113-114, Lines 128-130).
Line 569-571 – please remove (peel and pulp) and please add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables.
Figure 3 (LINE 636). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Figure 4 (LINE 648). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Figure 7 (LINE 693). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Author Response
Journal: Horticulturae
Number of the manuscript:
Version: 3
Article title: Controlled atmosphere storage and sorbitol dipping minimize chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes
Editor: Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for your reply regarding our manuscript submission.
We modified the manuscript according to all reviewer's comments and we also submitted the manuscript to MDPI English Editing Service (attached file).
Best regards,
Gustavo Teixeira
Reviewer 3:
Thank you so much for reviewing this manuscript. We addressed all your comments as stated below.
Comment I:
Again, I am honored with opportunity to review revised manuscript “Minimizing chilling injury in ‘Palmer’ mangoes stored under controlled atmosphere using sorbitol”. Authors did a great work with manuscript, and I have to say that improvement is significant.
However, due to the large amount of data, errors have occurred. Results for CI in Table 7 and 8 are same (which is impossible, having in mind perishable nature of mango fruit). Those results are used for PCA presented on figures 7 and 8, which have to be calculated again. Those PCA will require changes in results and consequently, in discussion.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
Due to the multiple variables and tables, we added the same results. We included the right CI results in tables 7 and 8. We also repeated the PCA analysis, and the necessary modifications were made in the results and discussion sections.
Comment II:
There is no mentioning regarding shelf life (other than it is up to 7 days). According to PCA results, shelf life lasted from 4 up to 10 days (Figure 3B and 4B), while tables shows different values. Please define storage times in material and methods and make necessary changes in tables and figures.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
As the reviewer might be aware, whenever mangoes are pulled out of the cold storage the fruit tends to ripen faster. Thus, at the first withdrawal, the fruit ripe after 10 days in ambient and after only 5 days after 7 days in cold storage. We made the necessary changes to address this issue.
Comment III:
It is challenge to write manuscript with large amount of data. By focusing on CI, many other aspects of mango storage and shelf life is lost, but since all data is presented in supplementary and in manuscript it is not all lost. However, since the merit of manuscript is CI, I am missing graphical illustration CI. Pease present CI like you did in supplementary material (Figure 1), in your previous publication (Sorbitol immersion controls chilling injury in CA stored ‘Palmer’ mangoes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111800)
Answer:
Indeed, it has been a challenge to write this manuscript with the amount of data. Initially, we thought of writing two manuscripts, but in addition to all previous publications (Sanches et al., 2022a; Saches et al., 2022b; Sanches et al., 2023), they would be very similar. Thus, we decided to combine the two experiments in one manuscript.
We included two figures to illustrate CI for both experiments as suggested.
Lines 113-114 „During each evaluation, chilling injury was immediately evaluated and some of the fruits were moved to ambient conditions (∼24 ± 2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) to evaluate them for signs of chilling injury.“ and Lines 128-130 „At each evaluation, some of the fruits were moved to ambient conditions (∼24 ± 2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) to be evaluated for signs of chilling injury.“ – please define length (in days) of fruit exposure to ambient conditions.
Answer:
We included the information as requested.
Lines 238-240 “On the other hand, after transfer to ambient conditions, the 2.5% sorbitol treatment reduced CI development (Table 4) and the mangoes showed better visual quality (Figure 1 and Figure 2).” This sentence is not correct; there is no significant difference between CI in dependence of sorbitol concentrations (Test bellow CI in table 4 “0.3ns). Usually, when effect of treatment is not significant (in this case F=0.3ns) differences between treatments are not significant by default. Please rewrite sentence.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
The sentences are correct, the mistake was made in table 4. Better visualization of the difference can now be seen in the CI figures.
Lines 241-248. Total explanation of variations for Figure 3A is 60.1 (PCA1+PCA2) which could be better. Please exclude non-significant variables (SSC%, pH). Also define significance of Treatments and Days as factors in all supplementary tables and if both factors and interaction is not significant, please also exclude it from PCA. Please rewrite Lines 241-248 according to newly obtained biplot
Answer:
The PCA was re-evaluated using only the significant variables. However, the explained variations increased due to the reduction of the number of variables. Thus, we decided to maintain all variables even the not significant using the univariate approach.
The supplementary tables were modified as suggested.
Lines 249-254. Total explanation of variations for Figure 3B is 61 (PCA1+PCA2) which could be better. Please exclude non-significant variables (SSC%, pH). Also define significance of Treatments and Days as factors in all supplementary tables and if both factors and interaction is not significant, please also exclude it from PCA. Please rewrite Lines 249-254 according to newly obtained biplot
Answer:
The answer to this comment is similar to the previous one.
The supplementary tables were modified as suggested.
Line 268 “evaluation days 21+5 and 28+5” while on the biplot there is 21+4 and 28+5. please define length (in days) of fruit exposure to ambient conditions, and make necessary changes throughout manuscript.
Answer:
The information in line 268 “evaluation days 21+5 and 28+5” is the same as in the Figure 4B (21+5 and 28+5).
Lines 268-269 “which were closer to those of cold damage” on what is this part of sentence referred to results to experiment 2 or literature. Please move this part to discussion (and add appropriate reference)
Answer:
This sentence was modified during the English language review process. We modified to: “which were closer to CI vector (Figure 4B)”.
Lines 272-275. Compared to what? To respected control? Interestingly CI of controls are much higher for experiment II (2.1, Table 7) when compared to experiment I (1.3, table 3), which make challenge when comparing two experiments. Please make comet and explanation for difference in CI (Table 3 and 7)
Answer:
Yes, compared to the control treatment (Table 7).
CI in experiment II is higher than in experiment I because the temperature was lower in experiment II (4°C) than in experiment I (8°C). Interestingly, sorbitol was quite effective at 4°C in reducing CI.
Lines 272-275. The results of CI of mangoes after storage (CI table 7) and after shelf life (CI Table 8) are same. Please check results throughout whole manuscript and supplementary data. If same mistake has occurred when PCA was made, please do again PCA. IF PCA required redoing, please make necessary corrections to lines 276-284.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
There was no need to redo the PCA as the data was correct for the PCA. The mistake occurred just in the Tables.
Lines 286-300. Since CI was used for PCA in 8, when corrections to CI is corrected, please redo PCA and make necessary corrections to lines 286-300.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
There was no need to redo the PCA as the data was correct for the PCA. The mistake occurred just in the Tables.
Lines 301-374. Disccusion. Results of CI are very interesting! At normal atmosphere different sorbitol concentrations did not change CI (neither after cold storage nor after shelf life), however, in CA, after cold storage there is no difference between Control+CA and 0.1 and 0.2% sorbitol (they are sharing same letter “b”). I would like to continue, but results for CI are same for table 7 and 8. Having in mind readers of Horticulturae journal, after necessary correction of results in table 8, please make comment (on paragraph) regarding treatments and occurrence of CI, and please make recommendation according to your results.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
Due to the multiple variables and tables, we added the same results. We did the correction and modified the results and discussion related to Tables 7 and 8.
Lines 519-521 “Table 3. Effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes (skin and pulp) in sorbitol (0.1 and 2.5%) and storage at 8.0 ± 1.0°C and 95 ± 0.5% RH under controlled atmosphere without modification of gases (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) for 28 days on parameters fresh weight loss (FWL), chilling injury (CI), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), ratio (SSC/TA), and pH.” The results for pulp and skin are not shown, please make correction. Add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables. Please replace “under controlled atmosphere modification of gases” with “without atmosphere modification”.
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
We added “Experiment I” in the caption of table 3 as suggested and we also replaced “under controlled atmosphere without gas modification” with “without atmosphere modification”.
Lines 522-523. Replace “common letters” with “same letter”; instead of “Tukey's test (P<0.05)” leave only “Tukey's test” since significance is stated in following sentence (Non-significant interaction (NS), significant interaction at P<0.05 (**), and significant interaction at P<0.01 (*)). Usually statistical difference P<0.05 is marked with (*) and high statistical difference (P<0.01) is marked with “**”. Is there oversight or do you really marked difference as stated in sentence (lines 522-533). PLEASE MAKE CHANGES IN ALL TABLE CAPTIONS.
Answer:
We modified the reference of the statistical results in all table captions as suggested as follows:
Means followed by the same letter within each column do not differ statistically from each other by Tukey's test. Non-significant interaction (NS), significant interaction at P<0.05 (*), and significant interaction at P<0.01 (**).
The use of “common letters” was suggested by other reviewer.
Lines 525-528 “Table 4. “Effect of dipping ‘Palmer’ mangoes (peel and pulp) in sorbitol (0.1 and 2.5%) and storage at 8.0 ± 1.0°C and 95 ± 0.5% RH under controlled atmosphere without gas modification (21 kPa O2 + 0.03 kPa CO2) for 28 days on the parameters of chilling injury (CI), soluble solids content (SSC), titratable acidity (TA), SSC/TA ratio, and pH after transfer to ambient conditions (24 ±2.0°C and 75 ± 2.0% RH) for up to 7 days.” The results for pulp and skin are not shown, please make correction. Add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables. Please replace “under controlled atmosphere without gas modification” with “without atmosphere modification”, “for up to 7 days.” please be precise and define shelf life (Lines 113-114, Lines 128-130).
Answer:
We are so sorry for this mistake.
We added “Experiment I” in the caption of table 4 as suggested and we also replaced “under controlled atmosphere without gas modification” with “without atmosphere modification”, and “for up to 7 days.”
Line 569-571 – please remove (peel and pulp) and please add in table caption “Experiment I” so that is easier to follow tables.
Answer:
We included “Experiment I” and “Experiment II” in the captions as suggested.
Figure 3 (LINE 636). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Answer:
We substituted the acronym “IC” with “CI” as requested.
Figure 4 (LINE 648). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Answer:
We substituted the acronym “IC” with “CI” as requested.
Figure 7 (LINE 693). On the both biplots there is “IC”. Please make correction (IC=CI?)
Answer:
We substituted the acronym “IC” with “CI” as requested.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Gustavo Henrique de Almeida Teixeira
Assistant Professor and Potato Postharvest Specialist
Department of Plant Sciences
[email protected], 208 423-6678
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
