The Shelf Life of Yellow Passion Fruit with an Edible Biocomposite Coating Based on Chitosan, Graphene Oxide Nanoparticles, and Beeswax
, Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha 2,*, NÃcolas Oliveira de Araújo 3, Francisco Klebson Gomes dos Santos 4, José Francismar de Medeiros 1, Arthur Lira Vasconcelos de Sousa 2, Luiz Paulo de Oliveira Queiroz 5 and Ricardo Henrique de Lima Leite 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
This work investigated the properties of a biocomposite film with chitosan (CH) incorporated with beeswax (BW) and graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles for use as an edible coating to extend the shelf life of yellow passion fruit at 22°C and 70% RH for eight days. This was a very valuable result of industrial application on preservation of yellow passion fruit. However, in total, the Abstract and Conclusion parts were not well organized and the English should be improved. Thus, before its further review step and acceptance by Horticulturae, the follow suggestions might be useful to the improvement of this manuscript:
1) Abstract: (a) lines 33-35, it is necessary to give precise data on how much higher the chroma value, soluble solid (SS) content and acidity of treated fruit were than those of the control.
2) Conclusion: The conclusions were inconsistent with the content of the Results and Abstract.
3) Why was the rot rate of the fruit not measured ?
4) The freshness of the edible part is very important for passion fruit, why the internal flesh was not shown ?
5) Line 704 and similar words : the word “passion fruit” don't need to be italics.
6) Line 108: the Latin name of passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims), “Passiflora edulis” need to be italics.
7) Why were the surfaces of these three films (CH, CH+BW, CH+BW+GO) not observed by SEM ?
8) Figure 5: It is necessary to indicate that the data were measured using pulp or peel ?
9) It is suggested to unify the representation of the control throughout the full text and in the figures. It is recommended to use the word “CH” to instead of control.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear editor,
I am honored to be invited to review Manuscript ID horticulturae-3079890 entitled “The shelf life of yellow passion fruit with an edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles and beeswax” for the Horticulturae. For the fairness and justice, I had carefully reviewed the manuscript and given the following comments:
This work investigated the properties of a biocomposite film with chitosan (CH) incorporated with beeswax (BW) and graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles for use as an edible coating to extend the shelf life of yellow passion fruit at 22°C and 70% RH for eight days. This was a very valuable result of industrial application on preservation of yellow passion fruit. However, in total, the Abstract and Conclusion parts were not well organized and the English should be improved. Thus, before its further review step and acceptance by Horticulturae, the follow suggestions might be useful to the improvement of this manuscript:
1) Abstract: (a) lines 33-35, it is necessary to give precise data on how much higher the chroma value, soluble solid (SS) content and acidity of treated fruit were than those of the control.
2) Conclusion: The conclusions were inconsistent with the content of the Results and Abstract.
3) Why was the rot rate of the fruit not measured ?
4) The freshness of the edible part is very important for passion fruit, why the internal flesh was not shown ?
5) Line 704 and similar words : the word “passion fruit” don't need to be italics.
6) Line 108: the Latin name of passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims), “Passiflora edulis” need to be italics.
7) Why were the surfaces of these three films (CH, CH+BW, CH+BW+GO) not observed by SEM ?
8) Figure 5: It is necessary to indicate that the data were measured using pulp or peel ?
9) It is suggested to unify the representation of the control throughout the full text and in the figures. It is recommended to use the word “CH” to instead of control.
Author Response
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
July 09, 2024
Editor-in-Chief
Horticulturae
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit a revised version of my manuscript, entitled "The shelf life of yellow passion fruit with an edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles and beeswax," to Horticulturae. I acknowledge the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our work.
We have incorporated substantial changes in our manuscript to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have also highlighted these changes in the revised version of the manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and remains available for further clarifications or modifications.
Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns of reviewer 1.
Comments from Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Abstract: (a) lines 33-35, it is necessary to give precise data on how much higher the chroma value, soluble solid (SS) content and acidity of treated fruit were than those of the control.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The data were better highlighted in the abstract.
Comment 2: Conclusion: The conclusions were inconsistent with the content of the Results and Abstract.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. We have improved it.
Comment 3: Why was the rot rate of the fruit not measured?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Your suggestion is valuable. In our study, the focus was to evaluate the effectiveness of chitosan (CH) films incorporated with beeswax (BW) and graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles as an edible coating to extend the shelf life of yellow passion fruit. For this purpose, we evaluated the fruit respiration rate, weight loss, skin pigmentation, soluble solids, titratable acidity, antioxidant capacity and sensorial analysis (indirectly, we evaluate the fungus occurrence and total acceptance of the fruit). In addition, we evaluated the films properties as WVP, color parameters, and solubility. These parameters were chosen to comprehensively understand the influence of the coating on the overall postharvest quality and shelf life of yellow passion fruit. Although rot rate is an important factor, the scope of our current study limited our ability to measure it. Future research will include assessments of the rot rate to provide a more complete picture of the effectiveness of the biocomposite film in preserving fruit quality. At the end of the discussion section (lines 698-700), this justification was also inserted to make the manuscript clear. We appreciate your understanding and will consider your suggestion in subsequent studies.
Comment 4: The freshness of the edible part is very important for passion fruit, why the internal flesh was not shown?
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. In our study, the focus was to evaluate the effectiveness of chitosan (CH) films incorporated with beeswax (BW) and graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles as an edible coating to extend the shelf life of yellow passion fruit. For this purpose, we evaluated fruit respiration rate, weight loss, peel pigmentation, soluble solids, titratable acidity, and antioxidant capacity, in addition to WVP, color parameters, and solubility of the films. These parameters were chosen to comprehensively understand the influence of the coating on the overall postharvest quality and shelf life of yellow passion fruit. However, as observed in the intervals of lines 565-569 and 623-626, evaluating fruit respiration rate and peel color can convey an indirect perception of freshness and visual attractiveness. In future studies, we plan to submit a comprehensive analysis of internal pulp quality to provide a more comprehensive view of fruit freshness and edibility during storage. The authors understand the importance of this variable; however, they preferred to include it in the following manuscript, which is currently under development. We appreciate your understanding and will consider your suggestion to increase the scope of our research in subsequent studies.
Comment 5: Line 704 and similar words : the word “passion fruit” don't need to be italics.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The words "passion fruit" were placed in regular font.
Comment 6: Line 108: the Latin name of passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims), “Passiflora edulis” need to be italics.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The words "Passiflora edulis" have been placed in italic font.
Comment 7: Why were the surfaces of these three films (CH, CH+BW, CH+BW+GO) not observed by SEM?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Your suggestion is valuable. Our study was designed to investigate these macroscopic parameters directly relevant to consumer acceptance and commercialization. Given the scope and objectives of our current study, we prioritized to evaluate fruit respiration rate, weight loss, peel pigmentation, soluble solids, titratable acidity, and antioxidant capacity, in addition to WVP, color parameters, and solubility of the films, over microscopic structural analysis of the films. We recognize the importance of understanding the microstructural characteristics of the coatings. Future studies are under development and will incorporate SEM analysis to examine the surface morphology and interactions of the CH, CH+BW, and CH+BW+GO films. We appreciate your understanding and will consider your suggestion to increase the scope of our research in subsequent studies.
Comment 8: Figure 5: It is necessary to indicate that the data were measured using pulp or peel?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The label for Figure 5 has been adjusted.
Comment 9: It is suggested to unify the representation of the control throughout the full text and in the figures. It is recommended to use the word “CH” to instead of control.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Your suggestion is important. The authors understand that the separation between the film control and the fruit control was necessary. The figure and Table 1 refer to CH as the film control. As for the figures in the results section, where the fruit properties are analyzed, the control is the uncoated fruit, as initially specified in lines 183-184.
Additional clarifications
In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.
The manuscript text has undergone moderate English language editing and proofreading.
All sections, tables, and figure numbering that required reorganization have been adjusted.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you about the status of our submission.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a study about a study on the shelf life extension of yellow passion fruit using an edible biocomposite coating made of chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and beeswax. The manuscript is well structured, and the presented results are clear and cover the points to understand the study on the biocomposite film with chitosan (CH) incorporated with beeswax (BW) and graphene oxide (GO) nanoparticles for use as an edible coating to extend the shelf life of yellow passion fruit. The study is well designed and complete, all the information about the substrate used, the experimental conditions, the number of replicates, and the evolution of respiration through CO2 analysis during the study correlated with weight loss, skin color, soluble solids content (SS), titratable acidity (TA) and ratio (SS/TA), and antioxidant compounds. The study also includes statistical analysis and sensory analysis. At the end of the Introduction section, a paragraph should be inserted to highlight the novelty of the research and its complexity.
Suggestions:
- At the end of the Introduction section, a paragraph should be inserted to highlight the study's novelty, its complexity, and why you chose this type of edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and beeswax.
- What is the purpose of the biocomposite coating in the passion fruit?
- What are the characteristics of passion fruit that make it highly perishable?
- How does the incorporation of graphene oxide affect the CH+BW matrix?
- What were the images in Figure 1 made with? What tool was used?
- There are interactions between chitosan and graphene oxide samples? Were the surface structures of the films and their crystalline structure measured?
- Information should be given about the method and procedure used to determine the CO2 concentration, even if the reference was passed, this being one from 1952.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
July 09, 2024
Editor-in-Chief
Horticulturae
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit a revised version of my manuscript, entitled "The shelf life of yellow passion fruit with an edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles and beeswax," to Horticulturae. I acknowledge the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our work.
We have incorporated substantial changes in our manuscript to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have also highlighted these changes in the revised version of the manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and remains available for further clarifications or modifications.
Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns of reviewer 2.
Comments from Reviewer 2
Comment 1: At the end of the Introduction section, a paragraph should be inserted to highlight the study's novelty, its complexity, and why you chose this type of edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and beeswax.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Paragraph added (lines 99-110).
Comment 2: What is the purpose of the biocomposite coating in the passion fruit?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The following is an explanation of the comment. For fruits with intense physiological metabolism (high respiration rate and water loss), such as yellow passion fruit, the use of biocomposite coatings is an alternative that aims to improve the efficiency of the coating since chitosan has excellent film-forming capacity as well as antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. However, when applied in isolation, CH packaging presents weak mechanical and water vapor barrier properties that can be improved by incorporating composites in its biopolymeric matrix, such as graphene nanoparticles and beeswax. We hope to have contributed to resolving current doubts and remain available to resolve future doubts.
Comment 3: What are the characteristics of passion fruit that make it highly perishable?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The following is an explanation of the comment. Yellow passion fruit is highly perishable due to its physiological and metabolic characteristics, such as high ethylene production and respiration rate, which accelerates metabolic processes and increases ripening. In addition, when combined, the loss of water from the fruit, sensitivity to mechanical damage, and attack by microorganisms means that passion fruit has a short shelf life and requires special care in the post-harvest phase. We hope to have helped resolve your current doubts, and we remain available to answer any future ones.
Comment 4: How does the incorporation of graphene oxide affect the CH+BW matrix?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Incorporating graphene oxide into the biopolymeric matrix of chitosan and beeswax positively affects several properties of the films and fruit metabolism. Being a carbon-based material with excellent physical, chemical, and microbiological properties, GO promotes significant improvements in the biopolymeric matrix. It fills the intercellular spaces, which would be occupied by water molecules, making the material more hydrophobic and with better mechanical, morphological, and thermal properties, suitable for preserving fruits and vegetables. Incorporating GO improves the water vapor barrier properties, reduces solubility, increases opacity, strengthens the film structure, improves antimicrobial properties, and can delay fruit ripening. We hope to have helped resolve your current doubts, and we remain available to answer any future ones.
Comment 5: What were the images in Figure 1 made with? What tool was used?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The suggestion was added in the range of lines 140-142.
Comment 6: There are interactions between chitosan and graphene oxide samples? Were the surface structures of the films and their crystalline structure measured?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The following is an explanation of the commentary. The focus of our study was on the practical application and effectiveness of biocomposite films in preserving yellow passion fruit rather than on the detailed characterization of surface and crystalline structures. Although the specific interactions between chitosan and graphene oxide were not directly measured, the observed improvements in film properties suggest effective interaction. GO occupied intercellular spaces and facilitated the formation of a more robust and stable biopolymeric matrix. This interaction increased hydrophobicity. The uniform dispersion of GO within the CH matrix was also indicative of good compatibility, which contributed to the improved performance of the biocomposite films. The authors understand that the interactions and structural characteristics of the films are important, but our research prioritized the practical results of using these coatings in a post-harvest context. We hope to have clarified your current questions and remain at your disposal for any future questions.
Comment 7: Information should be given about the method and procedure used to determine the CO2 concentration, even if the reference was passed, this being one from 1952.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Added suggestion on line range 215-223.
Additional clarifications
In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.
The manuscript text has undergone moderate English language editing and proofreading.
All sections, tables, and figure numbering that required reorganization have been adjusted.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you about the status of our submission.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
July 09, 2024
Editor-in-Chief
Horticulturae
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am grateful for the opportunity to submit a revised version of my manuscript, entitled "The shelf life of yellow passion fruit with an edible biocomposite coating based on chitosan, graphene oxide nanoparticles and beeswax," to Horticulturae. I acknowledge the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. I am grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our work.
We have incorporated substantial changes in our manuscript to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have also highlighted these changes in the revised version of the manuscript. We hope the revised manuscript meets your expectations and remains available for further clarifications or modifications.
Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns of reviewer 3.
Comments from Reviewer 3
Comment 1: Table 2 - How many fruits of each treatment were used for the 0-day outcomes? The same results?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Given that the treatments had no effect at time zero, a general sampling of the physical-chemical quality of the fruits was carried out at the time of harvest, hence the repetition of the values. In this sampling stage, 6 fruits were analyzed, two per treatment. This information was added in the range of lines 197-198 for greater clarity. We hope to have helped clarify your current doubts and remain at your disposal to clarify any future doubts.
Comment 2: Describe the determination of the time of the harvest?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. In section "2.4 Preparation of fruits", this information has been added.
Comment 3: In the Results: Errors in Figure numbers (Line 325-Figure 3; Line 344-Figure 4; Line 345 Figure 4A, etc.)
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The numbering of the figures has been adjusted.
Comment 4: Line 76-Did you mean antimicrobial properties?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Yes, GO nanoparticles can exhibit antimicrobial effects. The word has been replaced (line 70 and 78).
Comment 5: Line 142 - Correct the units of WVP here and in the rest of the paper.
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The authors understand that the WVP unit is consistent with the ASTM E96-00 standard. However, we have inserted "( )" in the unit denominator to improve readability.
Comment 6: Table 1. First line: SD of L*(0.30a)
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The adjustment was promptly carried out (table 1).
Comment 7: Line 161-162 - What are the characteristics of the standard black background?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The black pattern features have been added (line 178).
Comment 8: Line 169-170 - Already written in the previous part (Line 109-110)
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The redundancy has been removed (lines 184-190).
Comment 9: Lines 216 and 421 - I suggest correcting the titles: not appropriate
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The title has been corrected.
Comment 10: Line 304-306 - Explain the suitability of films?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. An additional discussion was inserted in the interval between lines 330-334.
Comment 11: Line 314, 316 - Units!
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Units have been adjusted.
Comment 12: Line 407-408 - Incorrect results for soluble solids!
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. SS values ​​have been corrected.
Comment 13: Line 575 - Reference 54?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. Information has been added to improve clarity and readability (lines 603-604).
Comment 14: Line 621 - Figure 1?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The figure indication has been corrected.
Comment 15: References -Wrong order of references from reference 52 - Where is the reference Chen et al. (54)?
Response: Thanks for the contribution. Suggestion accepted. The reference by Chen et al. is cited on line 604. After that, all references were readjusted in the correct order.
Additional clarifications
In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers have been corrected.
The manuscript text has undergone moderate English language editing and proofreading.
All sections, tables, and figure numbering that required reorganization have been adjusted.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing from you about the status of our submission.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Edna Maria Mendes Aroucha
Department of Engineering and Ambiental Sciences, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid Region, Mossoró 59625-900, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have carefully read throughout the revised manuscript. The authors had made sufficient adjustments according to the suggestions from the reviewers, but before the acceptance of the revised manuscript, the layout format and the division of paragraphs need to be re-optimized. Thanks !
