Volatiles Distinguishing the European ‘Conference’ and the Asian ‘Yali’ Pears Stored at Different Post-Harvest Temperatures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for their work. The only criticism is that the introduction was too long. Could remove the paragraph that details the volatile compounds quite a bit
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I consider that it is an interesting work, with very valuable results at the level of volatile compounds, which determine the quality and are important for the postharvest handling of two pear cultivars. The study is well approached, the manuscript, in general, is well written and presented, I think that including my suggestions it can be published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of fruit storage under conditions of programmed temperature changes from 20 °C to 1 °C on the formation of volatile substances in European and Asian pear cultivars. This is an interesting study within the scope of the Journal.
However, I have some recommendations:
-The paper could be improved by adding some chromatograms for example from the main volatile substances that distinguish the different storage regimes of pear cultivars ‘Conference’ and ‘Yali’.
-Explanations about the contents of volatiles that distinguish the storage regimes of pear cultivars ‘Conference’ and ‘Yali´
-Explanation about the higher content of Ethanol and Eugenol in "Conference" cultivar.
-Explanation of the variation in the concentration changes of ethanol in ‘Conference’ and ‘Yali’ pear cultivars during storage at different conditions
-Why didn´t the authors perform a statistical evaluation (e.g. PCA) to distinguish both cultivars evaluated?
-The different volatile profiles obtained due to different cultivars and different storage conditions are perceived in a sensorial evaluation? Could the authors add some information about it?
-Could information be added about the shelf-life period recommended to both cultivars related to their profile compounds and storage conditions.
-Do the authors have any orientations to give to the agro-industry community from your results? Please add some objective information in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
After reviewing the paper and the authors' responses to the reviewer's comments, I´m very pleased with the results and my suggestion is to accept the paper in its present form.
