An Evaluation of Different Sweet Olive Cultivars with Different Ripening Degrees Grown in the Puglia Region, Southeastern Italy
, Andrea Mazzeo 1, Antonio Trani 2, Simona Pitardi 1, Sara Bisceglie 1 and Giuseppe Ferrara 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please improve the English writing.
Author Response
Comments and instructions for authors
Line 33: Please replace the comma with a point and "mln" with "million." In English, points are used in numbers instead of commas.
Done
Line 81: Please keep only the number in brackets and remove the author's name. The number citation format is sufficient.
Done.
Lines 110-112: Please reformulate these sentences for clarity, as their meaning is currently unclear. Lines 115 and 122: Please reformulate to avoid repetition of the same sentences.
Thanks for the suggestion, the sentences have been reformulated.
Line 116: Please indicate the origin of each cultivar. Using a map to show each location would be suitable.
The area of collection has been indicated, since for the origin the information are scarce.
Line 121: Please insert references for all data cited in section 2.1.
Citation inserted.
Line 123: Please ensure the cultivar names are consistent with those in Table 3, where "Dolce Triggiano" and "Triggiano Dolce" were inverted.
Thanks, correction made.
Line 124: Please indicate the method of collecting and sampling.
Information inserted in the text.
Line 126: Please explain how you ensured that all fruits were in the ripening stage before harvest.
Information inserted in the text.
Line 129: Please indicate the number of volunteers and their gender distribution. Does age influence the sensory attributes cited in this study?
Information inserted in the text. The age could influence the sensory attributes, since older volunteers could better appreciate the bitterness with respect to the younger volunteers.
Lines 129-143: Please indicate the reference on which you based the sensory profile of all cultivars. It is also recommended to insert some images of the sensory evaluation session.
Information inserted in the text.
Line 152: Please remove "after the measurement of pomological parameters."
Done.
Line 154: Please include the pulp-to-stone (P/S) ratio in the pomological parameters, not in the physical parameters. Also, please verify if you are discussing the P/S ratio or the percentage of pulp, as they are different terms. The materials and methods section refers to the P/S ratio, but Table 3 mentions the percentage of pulp.
Sentence reformulated. Data of P/S inserted in the text.
Line 160: Please replace "flash" with "flesh." Line 163: Please keep only "[20]"
Line 192: Please replace "Turkey" with "Tukey."
Done.
Lines 197-198: Please make the initials of sensory attributes lowercase.
Done
Line 200: Please write out the full names of the sensory attributes (e.g., "Flavour_int" and "Destoning_cap"). Ensure the image is high resolution and the legend is clear; consider changing it if necessary.
Done.
Line 205: Please expand on the significant differences observed among the studied cultivars. Line 210: Please insert a comma before "however."
Changes inserted in the revised text.
Line 212: Please use consistent terminology for descriptors (e.g., "Destoning aptitude" vs. "destoning capacity") as indicated in Table 1 and line 198.
Done.
Line 217: Please use points instead of commas for numbers in Table 1. Also, please ensure consistent spacing between numbers and letters in each column, as observed discrepancies between Table 1 and Table 2.
Done.
Line 226: Please write out the full name of "T. di Bitetto." Line 227: Please add "and" in "olive size and rounded shape."
Done.
Line 229: Please include a scale in the images to provide measurement context. Line 233: Please replace "variety" with "cultivar" throughout the text.
Information inserted in the figure caption ( square 2 cm). Done.
Line 240: Please clarify: in the title of Table 2 that parameters are measured in two seasons, as this information is not clear in the table data.
Done.
Lines 253-254: Please clarify: the statement "The harvest year showed substantial effects on pulp," as there is no supporting data in the table or manuscript.
This statement is supported by the statistical difference of the pulp percentage in the 2 seasons (data in table 3).
Line 269: Please correct to "Eleven phenolic compounds." Lines 276-278: Please replace RT comma numbers with points. Line 285: Please mention Index 1 in Table 5 if it is referenced.
Done.
Line 294: Please correct to "we provide valuable insights into important characteristics."
Done.
Lines 297-298: Please clarify whether the pulp-to-stone ratio (P/S) or the percentage of pulp is considered, or if both are.
Done.
Line 304: Please correct the reference to "Ho-Min Kang and Giuffre [31]." Line 309: Please correct to "soluble solids."
Done.
Line 310: Please correct to "Malheiro et al. [32]."
Done.
Lines 310-311: Please verify which reference is correct, [32] or [33], as they appear in the same sentence.
Done.
Line 328: Please ensure the title of Table 6 matches the format of other table titles and replace commas with points.
Done.
Lines 332-333: Please consider if conducting condensed tannins tests would enhance the interpretation of bitterness and astringency, or if these parameters are only explained by oleuropein.
Maybe oleuropein played a key role.
Line 337: Please correct to "(RT 2.12)."
Done
Line 340: Please replace commas with points in Table 7.
Done
Line 355: Please double check the unit of polyphenols (Please see line 165) !!
Done
General Comments:
This work deals with sensory, pomological, and chemical parameters of olive samples, and is a valuable contribution to the field of food science and nutrition. After addressing all comments and recommendations, the work may be accepted for publication.
Please improve the English writing.
Please expand the discussion section to explore the implications of the findings. Discuss how the results might impact olive cultivation practices, consumer preferences, and the potential market for sweet olives.
Please provide more detailed interpretations of the data in the results section. Explain why certain cultivars had higher phenolic content or why panelists preferred specific sensory attributes.
Please reformulate the conclusion to avoid repetition of the results and discussion sections.
Please ensure that all references and citations are formatted according to Horticulturae's guidelines to avoid any discrepancies.
The English and the paper have been improved as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral
The study evaluates and compares the organoleptic, pomological, chemical and physical parameters of seven sweet olive cultivars in the Puglia region over 8 weeks of maturation for two consecutive seasons (2022 and 2023). The varieties are local, but their sweet (when mature) taste made their information interesting to the olive world (researchers, producers, and consumers). Please emphasise the maturation degree through the text. This aspect is important because the bitterness typically decreases as maturation progresses.
Specific:
Title. The maturation stage should be included in the title, as the maturation degree is essential for describing the products.
L13. and
L16. The panel used is not a consumer’s panel. Please correct throughout text
L52. split, better cracked?
L60. 50% water, 19% carbohydrates? It sounds like a rare olive composition.
L67. A citation should support this sentence. Or is it just a hypothesis?
L70. Please, cite to support
L107. The sentence requires clarification.
L130. consumer panel. This panel type cannot be considered a consumer’s panel, which requires at least 30 individuals.
Figure 1. These data are also presented in Table 1. Please avoid duplication.
L208. Please consider the comment in L130.
L209 and following lines. Please indicate how significance was tested. They are compared in Table 1. Ideally, Table 1 should be retained. Also, an explanation regarding p-values should be provided.
Table 5. Some polyphenols may also have remained bound to the solid olive phase components. If so, they would have been quantified.
Lin 309. Please correct.
L362-363. Regarding the varieties involved in the study?
Several paragraphs are excessively worded. Besides, some revision will be advisable.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome edition advisable
Author Response
General
The study evaluates and compares the organoleptic, pomological, chemical and physical parameters of seven sweet olive cultivars in the Puglia region over 8 weeks of maturation for two consecutive seasons (2022 and 2023). The varieties are local, but their sweet (when mature) taste made their information interesting to the olive world (researchers, producers, and consumers).
Comment 1: Please emphasise the maturation degree through the text. This aspect is important because the bitterness typically decreases as maturation progresses.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. As suggested, we have emphasised the maturation degree throughout the text starting from the abstract.
Specific:
Comment 2: Title. The maturation stage should be included in the title, as the maturation degree is essential for describing the products.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We agree with this comment. The suggested modification was included in the title.
Comment 3: L13. and
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The typing mistake was corrected.
Comment 4: L16. The panel used is not a consumer’s panel. Please correct throughout text
Response 4: We agree with the reviewer, we changed accordingly in the revised form of the manuscript.
Comment 5: L52. split, better cracked?
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The word split was substituted by cracked for better understanding, as suggested.
Comment 6: L60. 50% water, 19% carbohydrates? It sounds like a rare olive composition.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment, we taken wrong reference values. In the revised form of the manuscript we changed the mean values according to the USDA food database. L62-66
Comment 7: L67. A citation should support this sentence. Or is it just a hypothesis?
Response 7: We removed the sentence, and reformulated the following one in order to be consistent with literature. Thank you for the suggestion.
Comment 8: L70. Please, cite to support
Response 8: Thank you for your comment. The cited reference [9] supports both findings regarding abundance and health benefits. We replaced the cited reference at the end of the sentence.
Comment 9: L107. The sentence requires clarification.
Response 9: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been better explained and integrated within the text with another relative sentence.
Comment 10: L130. consumer panel. This panel type cannot be considered a consumer’s panel, which requires at least 30 individuals.
Response 10: Thank you for your comment. We agree with this comment. As referred to in the answer to comment 4, the consumer’s panel was replaced by only “the panel” throughout the text, as suggested.
Comment 11: Figure 1. These data are also presented in Table 1. Please avoid duplication.
Response 11: Thank you for your comment. We believe that both Figure 1 and Table 1 can presented in parallel because data in Figure 1 showed a simple graphical representation of the 2-year average of the organoleptic results of the different olive samples, while Table 1 represents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and comparison of 2-year means of organoleptic parameters of different olive samples of the seven olive cultivars.
Comment 12: L208. Please consider the comment in L130.
Response 12: Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been into consideration for changes in the text.
Comment 13: L209 and following lines. Please indicate how significance was tested. They are compared in Table 1. Ideally, Table 1 should be retained. Also, an explanation regarding p-values should be provided.
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been taken care of. Significant levels were indicated as shown in Table 1. In addition, an explanation of p-values was provided at the bottom of the table.
Comment 14: Table 5. Some polyphenols may also have remained bound to the solid olive phase components. If so, they would have been quantified.
Response 14: We agree with the reviewer and we are convinced that part of these compounds (probably the most part) remain bounded or trapped in the solid part of the olive. But the aim of our investigation was to evaluate the amount of these compound freely available in the water phase of the drupe, so easily absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, during humans consumption.
Comment 15: Lin 309. Please correct.
Response 15: Thank you for your comment. It has been corrected.
Comment 16: L362-363. Regarding the varieties involved in the study?
Response 16: Thank you for your comment. It was ment regarding sweet olive varieties in general. The sentense has been adjusted for better undersanding.
