Efficiency of Osmotic Dehydration of Pomegranate Seeds in Polyols Solutions Using Response Surface Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper, (horticulturae-1332184) entitled “Efficiency of Osmotic Dehydration (OD) of pomegranate seeds in Polyols Solutions using response surface methodology” is an interesting approach to elucidate the influence of polyol compounds, such as erythritol and sorbitol, on the osmotic dehydration process of pomegranate seeds, evaluating the efficacity of the OD process based on the determination of water loss, solid gain, weight reduction, and effective diffusivity.

This, in my opinion, is an interesting and original study. However, the study could have led to more dependable results if the authors had better structured it; some aspects of the paper need improvement. Overall, the paper is well designed and the literature cited is relevant to the study, but some references should be checked and/or updated. The figures and tables (with some exception, due to their complexity) are clear.

 

Some minor amendments have been addressed to the authors.

 

My detailed comments follow the text sequence:

 

Suggestion 1: Pag 1 line 33-41, Pag 2 line 42-74 “Introduction”

The introduction did not provide a generalized background on the topic, it appears too generic, so it should be rearranged. In my opinion, the motivations for this study need to be made clearer, to ensure that the reader quickly gives an overview of the issue and of the innovative approach herein proposed (with advantages and drawbacks, if there are any).

Suggestion 2: Pag 2 line 53-55: please rephrase the sentence as it is unclear.

Suggestion 3: Pag 2 line 79: please change “very well” with “carefully” and “conserved” with “stored”.

Suggestion 4: Pag 3 line 85: “oscillation rate 160 rpm”, please delete quotation marks.

Suggestion 5: Pag 3 line 86-88: please rephrase the sentence “Osmotic solutions were conducted with 86 selected substances from the polyol group, purchased from Brenntag company (Poland), (erythritol and sorbitol) and distilled water to reach a concentration of 20, and 40 °Brix” as it is unclear.

Suggestion 6: Pag 3 line 89-91: please rephrase the sentence “To compare the OD process kinetics, sucrose (from the local store) solution was used as 89 a control. OD was carried out in temperatures of 30 °C, 40 °C, and 50 °C, at a time, ranges 90 between 10 min and 60 min, atmospheric pressure, and with an approximately 4:1 syrup-to-fruit ratio”.

Suggestion 7: Pag 5 line 135: what stands for “CIELAB coordinates”? Please specify the acronym.

Suggestion 8: Pag. 5 Line 146-169: “2.6. Weight reduction water loss, solid gain, and effective diffusivity”. Please rewrite the whole paragraph. The content of this part, in my opinion, should be rearranged and/or replaced to provide for readers a clear approach, eventually avoiding too complex mathematical formulas if not fundamental to explain the issue; this part seems too technical and cannot be understood by non-specialists. Moreover, please check symbols and syntax of Eqs. From 3 to 8. The same holds for equations 9, 10, 11 and 12, 13, and 14: as they are presented are quite difficult to follow. As general rule please check the syntax of all equations involved in the text.

Suggestion 9: Pag. 6 Line 179: please replace “Kriskal-Wallis” with “Kruskal-Wallis”

Suggestion 10: Pag. 6 line 201: “The values of the adjusted” please delete the capital letter. 

Suggestion 11: Pag. 16 Line 482-483 please change the “These results suggest that polyols could be a promising compound for the osmotic dehydration of pomegranate seeds giving a higher mass transfer than sucrose agent” with “These results suggest that polyols could be promising compounds for the osmotic dehydration of pomegranate seeds giving a higher mass transfer than sucrose agent”.

Suggestion 12: please try to make the tables 3, 4 and 5 more readable.

 

 

 

Based mainly on the reservations mentioned in my general comments, I recommend minor revision of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. The remarks and suggestions indicated by the reviewers have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we present the answers to the questions and remarks of the reviewers.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I carefully read the manuscript entitled “Efficiency of Osmotic Dehydration of pomegranate seeds in Polyols Solutions using response surface methodology” by Bchir et al.

The study suggests the use of other compounds (erythritol and sorbitol) as substitutes of sucrose. Certainly, this is an interesting topic especially under the current health guidelines and the highlighted necessity of a healthy lifestyle.

 

I appreciated the experimental design of the study and I think that the manuscript is well structured. Abstract and Keywords respect the Journal’s guidelines. The language is adequate and I suggest minor revisions.

My main concerns are reported below:

L34 Remove “which is”.

 

L38 I think that in the sentence “The most notable function of sugar in food is its sweet taste”sugar has properties and not functions.

 

L43 Please report some examples of “various diseases”.

 

L43- 45 References miss in this sentence “Furthermore, 43 a new world health organization guideline consigns children and adults to reduce their 44 daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake”.

 

L47-49 The sentence “Research shows that children with the highest intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are 47 more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a low intake of sugar-sweetened 48 drinks [4].” is in contrast with lines 39 – 42.

 

L62- 63 Instead of “In fact, Bialik et al. [10], Cichowska et al. [11], Lowithun et al. [12], Vicente 62 et al. [13], Konopacka et al. [14], Nieto et. [15] and Dermesonlouoglou et al. [16]” I suggest the use of “Several authors [10, 11,12,13,14,15,16]”.

 

L77 Plant varieties should be reported as ‘El-Gabsi’.

 

L80 I suggest to substitute “recuperated” with “collected”.

 

L179 Please explain why you chose the “nonparametric Kriskal-Wallis test”.

 

L185 Please explain what is “Lack of Fit”. Then, before performing ANOVA, did you check if the ANOVA assumptions were respected?

 

L197 There are two “:”

 

L 278 “Erythritol” change into “erythritol”. This has to be done also along the manuscript and also for sorbitol.

 

Tables 4, 5 and 6: The numbers reported have to be rounded to obtain the same amount of decimals.

 

 

Hoping that the revision will be helpful for both Journal and authors, I will give my kind regards.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. The remarks and suggestions indicated by the reviewers have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we present the answers to the questions and remarks of the reviewers.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

There is no information regarding the importance of pomegranate seeds or their dehydration that informs the reader why this work is performed, and why it is important to evaluate OD.

 

Although I understand that lots of information was obtained from statistical analysis, tables are to extensive and very difficult to read. I encourage authors to try and reduce the information therein, and placing the remaining info on supplementary material.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. The remarks and suggestions indicated by the reviewers have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we present the answers to the questions and remarks of the reviewers.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for this interesting and useful work.

Several comments:

• I recommend you to move Table 2 in the chapter 3. Results and discussion;
• Also chapter 3.1. Statistical anakysis may be move in the chapter 2. Materials and Methods. Discussion of results of statistical analysis may be stay in the hapter 3. Results and discussion;
• chapter 2.6 - what do you mean "total solids content" and how you measured it?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. The remarks and suggestions indicated by the reviewers have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we present the answers to the questions and remarks of the reviewers.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your answers. I believe that the manuscript has improved its quality.

I still think that some data could be placed as supplementary data. However, I would like to leave that decision to authors and editor.

There are some minor spelling mistakes (e.g. line 76 carfully, carefully) that have to be corrected. 

Best regards

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his valuable comments and suggestions. The remarks and suggestions indicated by the reviewers have been taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript. In the following, we present the answers to the questions and remarks of the reviewers.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx