The Effect of Preharvest UV Light Irradiation on Berries Quality: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Preharvest UV irradiation is a useful method to extend the shelf life of fruits and to improve the quality of fruits. The authors reviewed the effects of preharvest UV light treatment on fruit appearance, flavor, and disease resistance. The method they introduced matches with the current trend of consumers to pursue healthy and natural food, and is thus likely to develop further in future. At this point, however, clarifying the molecular and physiological mechanism of preharvest UV irradiation would be required. I suggest the following points to make this review a high impact for academic community.
1) In my understanding, the postharvest UV treatment and preharvest UV treatment are different in that only the fruits are irradiated in the former case, but the tissues other than the fruits can be irradiated in the latter case. If so, the irradiation conditions seem to be different case by case and so the factors that affect the results could also be different. For example, the UVC, UVB, and UVA have different efficiencies to penetrate living materials. Thus, the vertical UVC irradiation to young plants might affect apical meristems, but not old leaves or fruits behind the other leaves. In this case, some signals would be transmitted from the irradiated tissue to the fruits. The authors can analyze each report based on the view point such that the effect of UV treatment is cell autonomous or non-cell autonomous.
2) As a first step forward establishment of preharvest irradiation techniques academically, the authors can summarize here a) irradiation methods, b) whether cell autonomous or non-cell autonomous, c) a possible mechanism(s) for the response(s). The information can be added to Table 1 or mentioned in an independent chapter.
3) The dose response curve is important of course. However, it needs an additional information about the tissue where the absorbing dose is calculated.
4) (L390-L391) Plants have specific receptors for UV light. Also, DNA damage induced by UV invokes specific responses inside the cell. I believe supplemental UV light is detected by plant cell in a certain case.
5) The units of UV dose are written in different ways (e.g., kJ/m2 vs KJm-2). Please unify.
6) Spell out the abbreviations when they appear first.
7) Other revisions were put in the pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Very few studies have been on the effect of preharvest UV light irradiation on fruit quality yet and it mainly summarizes the related research on strawberries in this manuscript. It is suggested to narrow the theme to only strawberry fruit or berries fruit.
2. Please add the treatment time and dose of UV in Table 1.
3. Some studies (Xie et al. reported that preharvest UV-139 C did not affect anthocyanin content in strawberry [21]) showed that UV treatment would not increase anthocyanin. Putting the conclusion that UV could increase anthocyanin in Figure 1 is not accurate and will mislead readers.
4. Lines 122-142 in Section 2.2 and 157-184 in Section of 2.3 are similar. Please reorganize these two parts.
5. If the theme not narrow to berries fruit, carotenoids, chlorophyll, and betaine are also contribute to some fruit color. Please add this related content in a section of 2.2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript looks greatly improved in the revised version and there are only minor concerns left before publishing this review in Horticulturae.
l The Table 1 became much more informative by adding the columns of UV dose and treatment time. However, irradiation condition is usually described as “dose rate” and “(total) dose”. The “dose rate” means the quantity of UV radiation per unit time, for example, kJ/m2/s, kJ/m2/m, kJ/m2/h, or kJ/m2/d”. I assume that the authors refer “dose rate” to "Single”, then I would suggest changing the subject of the third column from “Single/Total dose” to “Dose rate (kJ/m2/d)/Total dose (kJ/m2)”. If not, please make what “Single/Total dose” means clear.
l In some rows of the third column, only one number is shown. If no dose rate or Total dose was reported in original paper, please show those like “-/xxx” or “xxx/-”.
l In the Reference [37], the authors irradiated 0.14 W/m2 for 6 days in a medium dose condition, and 0.19W/m2 for 4.5 days in a high dose condition. Based on my calculation, the Total dose are 21.168 and 21.546, which differ from numbers shown in Table 1. Although I could be wrong, please double check all numbers in Table 1 before resubmitting the paper.
l Other minor revisions are mentioned on PDF.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The photo of the tree model on the left of figure 1 suggested being replaced by the berries model.
Author Response
Thanks for your kind suggestion. I have replaced the tree model on the left of Figure 1 with the berries model.
