Combination of Sulfur Dioxide-Generating Pads Reduces Gray Mold Disease Caused by Botrytis cinerea in ‘BRS Vitoria’ Hybrid Seedless Grapes during Cold Storage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Your article is nice and well organized. Topic about seedless grapes and its preservation for a longer period of time with optimal kept quality parameters.
However, there is a room for improving the manuscript. In the attached manuscript I provided my comments for improving the article. Please take them into consideration and if they fit your vision, please take an action. I hope that they will contribute toward better version of it. Thank you.
In addition briefly: abstract should be rewritten in a shorter way without many explanations about your experimental part. Introduction should be modified in terms of better state of the art for the topic of grape preservation with other methods.
Revision of Experimental part is also needed.
Your Results and discussion is well written and presented.
The conclusion is missing from your article.
I hope that this review will contribute towards improving the manuscript and possibly publishing it.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Your article is nice and well organized. Topic about seedless grapes and its preservation for a longer period of time with optimal kept quality parameters.
However, there is a room for improving the manuscript. In the attached manuscript I provided my comments for improving the article. Please take them into consideration and if they fit your vision, please take an action. I hope that they will contribute toward better version of it. Thank you.
In addition briefly: abstract should be rewritten in a shorter way without many explanations about your experimental part. Introduction should be modified in terms of better state of the art for the topic of grape preservation with other methods.
Revision of Experimental part is also needed.
Your Results and discussion is well written and presented.
The conclusion is missing from your article.
Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your valuable remarks. I inform you that all of your suggestions were considered, and changes were properly made along the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have some suggestions with the aim to improve the quality of your work. To my opinon you must improve/rewrite the abstract making it much more brief and pointing which are the most important results. You should include references to the introduction and discussion, and more clarity in some aspects of introduction and methodology. Find my comments here:
The work presents the results of applying SO2 to grape in cold storage (three treatments) with the control without SO2. And measures the incidence of Botrytis cinerea to the grapes and the stems, and also the weight loss and shattering of grapes. However it is not clear how these results are all of them are or there aren´t equally important, their relevance or their applicability. And the work lacks of clarity in some parts and a final statement as conclusion of the results and discussion section.
The tittle is concise and informative; however, I suggest to use for the first time the scientific name of the mold Botrytis cinerea in the tittle.
The suggested extension of the abstract is 200 words, and yours is 421 words. It is so long and detailed. I strongly suggest to avoid methological details, and restrict it just to communicate, one or two lines of state of the art, one or two lines of methods and the most important findings, conclusions and future work.
L 16-32 All the abstract should be synthesized, specially these lines.
L 33-36 The end of the abstract should identify clearly the most important results/conclusion or the direction of future works.
L 37 The keyword Vitis spp. L. is wrong. If you refer to all the genus Vitis, use Vitis L., if you refer to a new Vitis vinifera cultivar use Vitis vinifera L., however if you are referring to a non-identified species of Vitis use Vitis spp. (without taxonomical authority). You can refer also to the nothospecies if you know from which species has been hybridized (using nothotaxonomy).
L 40 With grapewine you refer to Vitis vinifera? It is economically relevant other Vitis species for grapewine and table grapes? I suggest to include the species or the genus in brackets after grapewine à i.e.: grapewine (Vitis vinifera)
L 47 I consider interesting to declare which species or cultivar were hybridized.
L 64-72 It is relevant to cite Youssef et al. 2015 and de Aguiar et al 2018 here, and also in the discussion. Two works controlling the Botrytis cinereal in BRS Vitoria using sulphur dioxide in Brazil.
L 75-76 “… no other study has been conducted using FieldSO2 … “ It is the most important of the study design? If it is the differential concept with other similar works, clarify it in the Abstract and even in the tittle. I suggest to declare it in the abstract and name it in the tittle. It should define which is the importance of the work.
L 77-79 I suggest to rewrite the last sentence of the Introduction, to declare the aim of the study in the form of a Hypothesis or research question instead of a exploratory case. A declared hypothesis can be tested while assessing the association could lead to different scenarios to describe.
L 81 This is not the first time that ‘BRS Vitoria’ seedless grape appears to write it à (Vitis spp.)
Write Vitis spp. in the first time that it appears.
L 93-95 Rewrite it please, it is not clear how the treatments and replications are related with plots.
L 80 Material and methods section should be clearer including subsections, at least one with the study area and climate (a map can be included) and other with the study design. The study design should be a little more clear, structuring better the paragraphs. And the number of samples analysed is not clear to me. 5 replicates per treatment, it means that the n is only 5, with a total n of 20 considering all the samples in all the treatments? Five per sample/treatment/time total n=60? Delcare the number of samples used (total n).
L 135 Results are clearly presented, but the discussion can be improved. For example, by comparing not only with other cultivars with the same treatment, but also with the literature in the same cultivar with similar treatments (Youssef et al. 2015 and de Aguiar et al 2018).
The results are presented in separated paragraphs, explaining the information contained in the different tables. However it is not clearly presented which results are more important, or which is the relevance of each result (i.e. applicability).
L 255 The end of the results and discussion section lacks of final remarks resuming which are the most important results or the direction of future works.
Author Response
Dear authors,
I have some suggestions with the aim to improve the quality of your work. To my opinon you must improve/rewrite the abstract making it much more brief and pointing which are the most important results. You should include references to the introduction and discussion, and more clarity in some aspects of introduction and methodology. Find my comments here: The work presents the results of applying SO2 to grape in cold storage (three treatments) with the control without SO2. And measures the incidence of Botrytis cinerea to the grapes and the stems, and also the weight loss and shattering of grapes. However it is not clear how these results are all of them are or there aren´t equally important, their relevance or their applicability. And the work lacks of clarity in some parts and a final statement as conclusion of the results and discussion section.
Reply: Dear reviwer, thanks for your valuable remarks. I inform you that all of your suggestions were considered, and changes were properly made along the manuscript.
The tittle is concise and informative; however, I suggest to use for the first time the scientific name of the mold Botrytis cinerea in the tittle.
Reply: Information added to the tile.
The suggested extension of the abstract is 200 words, and yours is 421 words. It is so long and detailed. I strongly suggest to avoid methological details, and restrict it just to communicate, one or two lines of state of the art, one or two lines of methods and the most important findings, conclusions and future work.
Reply: The Abstract was reduced to reach around 200 words, as requested.
L 16-32 All the abstract should be synthesized, specially these lines.
L 33-36 The end of the abstract should identify clearly the most important results/conclusion or the direction of future works.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 37 The keyword Vitis spp. L. is wrong. If you refer to all the genus Vitis, use Vitis L., if you refer to a new Vitis vinifera cultivar use Vitis vinifera L., however if you are referring to a non-identified species of Vitis use Vitis spp. (without taxonomical authority). You can refer also to the nothospecies if you know from which species has been hybridized (using nothotaxonomy).
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 40 With grapewine you refer to Vitis vinifera? It is economically relevant other Vitis species for grapewine and table grapes? I suggest to include the species or the genus in brackets after grapewine à i.e.: grapewine (Vitis vinifera)
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 47 I consider interesting to declare which species or cultivar were hybridized.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 64-72 It is relevant to cite Youssef et al. 2015 and de Aguiar et al 2018 here, and also in the discussion. Two works controlling the Botrytis cinereal in BRS Vitoria using sulphur dioxide in Brazil.
Reply: Dear reviewer, as it is a Communication, we have reached more than 15% of self-citation, and Editor of Horticulturae requested to reduce it, so I believe that we are no longer allowed to add these references.
L 75-76 “… no other study has been conducted using FieldSO2 … “ It is the most important of the study design? If it is the differential concept with other similar works, clarify it in the Abstract and even in the tittle. I suggest to declare it in the abstract and name it in the tittle. It should define which is the importance of the work.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions. Indeed, this is the first report to extend the cold post-harvest conservation of BRS Vitoria seedless grape up to 60 days.
L 77-79 I suggest to rewrite the last sentence of the Introduction, to declare the aim of the study in the form of a Hypothesis or research question instead of a exploratory case. A declared hypothesis can be tested while assessing the association could lead to different scenarios to describe.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 81 This is not the first time that ‘BRS Vitoria’ seedless grape appears to write it à (Vitis spp.) Write Vitis spp. in the first time that it appears.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 93-95 Rewrite it please, it is not clear how the treatments and replications are related with plots.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 80 Material and methods section should be clearer including subsections, at least one with the study area and climate (a map can be included) and other with the study design. The study design should be a little more clear, structuring better the paragraphs. And the number of samples analysed is not clear to me. 5 replicates per treatment, it means that the n is only 5, with a total n of 20 considering all the samples in all the treatments? Five per sample/treatment/time total n=60? Delcare the number of samples used (total n).
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 135 Results are clearly presented, but the discussion can be improved. For example, by comparing not only with other cultivars with the same treatment, but also with the literature in the same cultivar with similar treatments (Youssef et al. 2015 and de Aguiar et al 2018).
Reply: Dear reviewer, as we described above, this is a Communication, and we have reached more than 15% of self-citation. The Editor of Horticulturae requested to reduce it, so I believe that we are no longer allowed to add these references to the ms.
The results are presented in separated paragraphs, explaining the information contained in the different tables. However it is not clearly presented which results are more important, or which is the relevance of each result (i.e. applicability).
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
L 255 The end of the results and discussion section lacks of final remarks resuming which are the most important results or the direction of future works.
Reply: Changes made according to the suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study primarily investigates the efficacy of combined use of sulfur dioxide-generating pads in reducing grey mold and preserving the quality of 'BRS Victoria' hybrid seedless grapes during cold storage. The originality of this research lies in its exploration of postharvest preservation methods using a combination of field ultra-rapid and dual-release sulfur dioxide-generating pads, an approach that has not yet been extensively discussed in the literature. It fills a significant gap in the field regarding innovative methods for postharvest disease management of table grapes. The paper provides empirical evidence of the benefits of using sulfur dioxide-generating pads in reducing the incidence of grey mold and maintaining grape quality, adding new insights to the subject area. The results suggest an alternative to traditional chemical fungicides, which is a substantial contribution to sustainable postharvest practices.
Although the research methodology is reliable, it is recommended that the authors consider additional controls, such as varying the concentration of sulfur dioxide or including a treatment with a single-release pad for comparison, to enhance the rationality of the experimental design.
Assessing the sensory attributes of the grapes post-storage to evaluate the impact of sulfur dioxide pads on grape flavor and acceptability would be beneficial. However, the safety of using sulfur dioxide should be discussed.
The references are relevant. Nevertheless, the authors should ensure that the most recent literature is included, particularly studies that have explored the use of sulfur dioxide in postharvest management.
In summary, the manuscript offers valuable insights into the use of sulfur dioxide-generating pads for postharvest preservation of grapes. With consideration of the above comments, this study could have a meaningful impact on the field of postharvest management for table grapes.
Author Response
The study primarily investigates the efficacy of combined use of sulfur dioxide-generating pads in reducing grey mold and preserving the quality of 'BRS Victoria' hybrid seedless grapes during cold storage. The originality of this research lies in its exploration of postharvest preservation methods using a combination of field ultra-rapid and dual-release sulfur dioxide-generating pads, an approach that has not yet been extensively discussed in the literature. It fills a significant gap in the field regarding innovative methods for postharvest disease management of table grapes. The paper provides empirical evidence of the benefits of using sulfur dioxide-generating pads in reducing the incidence of grey mold and maintaining grape quality, adding new insights to the subject area. The results suggest an alternative to traditional chemical fungicides, which is a substantial contribution to sustainable postharvest practices.
Although the research methodology is reliable, it is recommended that the authors consider additional controls, such as varying the concentration of sulfur dioxide or including a treatment with a single-release pad for comparison, to enhance the rationality of the experimental design.
Assessing the sensory attributes of the grapes post-storage to evaluate the impact of sulfur dioxide pads on grape flavor and acceptability would be beneficial. However, the safety of using sulfur dioxide should be discussed.
The references are relevant. Nevertheless, the authors should ensure that the most recent literature is included, particularly studies that have explored the use of sulfur dioxide in postharvest management.
In summary, the manuscript offers valuable insights into the use of sulfur dioxide-generating pads for postharvest preservation of grapes. With consideration of the above comments, this study could have a meaningful impact on the field of postharvest management for table grapes.
Reply: Dear reviewer, thanks for your valuable remarks. I inform you that all of your suggestions were considered, and changes were properly made along the manuscript. In addition, we will consider to vary the concentration of SO2 and include treatment with a single-release pad for comparison, as well to run a sensory analysis of grapes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Your manuscript is improved version now. You incorporated my earlier comments. Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments: Your manuscript is improved version now. You incorporated my earlier comments.
Reply: Dear reviewer, many thanks for your final review stating that our manuscript was improved and all of your earlier comments were incorporated to it.
