A Comparative Study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for the Non-Destructive Quality Assay of Different Watermelon Cultivars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
File attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Dear professors,
The article team and I on behalf would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit an update on the Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1705462 titled "A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars".
We appreciate the precious time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your invaluable feedback on our research. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript in blue color.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
|
N. |
Comment |
Response |
|
1. |
Line (L)-36. Sp. Name to be italicized. |
Done |
|
2. |
L-163-insert space between 0.22um or keep the same trend in the entire manuscript. |
Done |
|
3. |
L-165- add space after comma |
Done |
|
4. |
L-166-space issue |
Done |
|
5. |
180-remove hyphen after mm |
Done |
|
6. |
208-209- provide ref |
Done |
|
7. |
226-deviation in place of division |
Done |
|
8. |
270-remove dot between mg.kg and do it for the entire manuscript |
Done |
|
9. |
L-293- remove “e” from puree |
Please, I mean puree not pure, and this is from the article 68 |
|
10. |
294-remove (. |
Done |
|
11. |
A general suggestion- keep the unit’s uniform throughout the manuscript as I can see various expressions of different units. |
Done |
|
12. |
305-same mg.kg and at many other places. Check the entire document |
Done |
|
13. |
L-326, replace “by” by “earlier” |
Done |
|
14. |
L-330-Add “previous study” after to and do it throughout the manuscript. I understand that the format of the journal demands but we need to do it in this way. |
Done |
|
15. |
335, add “other studies” after to |
I checked the line 335 and I didn’t find any word named to |
|
16. |
339, add studies after both |
Done |
|
17. |
344, revise the sentence carefully. |
Done the sentence was revised as follows: Furthermore, there was a distinguished peak for water at 1460 nm, this is due to the first O–H overtone and O–H combination band as described by [ |
|
18. |
347, add “other studies” and do it throughout the discussion section as well |
Done |
|
19. |
395-mg.kg….same issue |
Done |
|
20. |
One more suggestion, expand the abbreviation for the first time and then, keep abbrev throughout. I can detect many abbrev issues |
Done |
|
21. |
Formatting of ref not done properly or I will say very poor. I am listing a few for bold/unbold year (6,9,15,22,24,29-31,36-38,45,47-48,54-56,58-66,75-76,78-79,83,86,90), The issue of journal not formatted (ex-27,50 and at a lot of many other places), last page no. not provided at mnay places |
Done Thank you for your observation I processed all references you mentioned as you pointed |
|
22. |
DOI no. not provided at many places. |
Done I am sorry for this, I provided Doi with blue color and I repaired all the mistakes |
|
23. |
I saw colored highlights at many places, could not understand that. |
I am sorry I didn’t put any colored highlights, just I put the numbers of references inside the article in blue color |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars
Comments to the author:
The author touched that how to identify the best watermelon harvest period and compared two methods for evaluating watermelon quality. This research is very important for giving crucial instructions to watermelon growers for harvesting watermelon at the best period. However, there are some mistakes that need to be corrected. They are listed as follows:
- P1, L16; For ‘three consecutive harvest times’, the author didn’t mention how to choose ‘three consecutive harvest times’; for example, 180 days after planting or some other time point. It is really confusing about these harvest times.
- P1, L36; the word ‘that’ should change to ‘which’.
- P2, L53; ‘As well as’ should be deleted.
- P2, L62; the sentence ‘majority of several’ should change to ‘major’
- P2, L81; ‘Among these methods spectroscopy’ is confusing, which should be corrected.
- P9, Figure 3; Why does the reflectance(%)(1000nm to 1075nm) show different trends between the figures on the left side and right side?
- P9, L319; it should be noted that the six panels in Figure 2 should be listed as A, B, C, D, E, F and should be mentioned in L319 as Panel A, C, E, not ‘on the left side', which is not professional. It also fits all the other figures.
- P13, L436; the author mentioned ‘non-destructive methods’, however, all the experiments listed in this research are conducted with cut watermelon. How to explain this?
- P14, L484; the word ‘Citrullus lanatus’ should be italic. The same mistake happened on P16, L560. The reference part needs to be revised.
In conclusion, this study is interesting to identify the best cultivars, agricultural practices, and harvest dates. However, until the ‘Conclusions’, I didn’t find any resolutions about that. The author compared two methods to identify the non-destructive quality assay, which didn’t connect to the question mentioned in the ‘Abstract’ part.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Dear professors,
The article team and I on behalf would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit an update on the Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1705462 titled "A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars".
We appreciate the precious time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your invaluable feedback on our research. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript in blue color.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
|
N. |
Comment |
Response |
|
1 |
P1, L16; For ‘three consecutive harvest times’, the author didn’t mention how to choose ‘three consecutive harvest times’; for example, 180 days after planting or some other time point. It is really confusing about these harvest times. |
Done |
|
2 |
P1, L36; the word ‘that’ should change to ‘which’. |
Done |
|
3 |
P2, L53; ‘As well as’ should be deleted. |
Done |
|
4 |
P2, L62; the sentence ‘majority of several’ should change to ‘major’ |
Done |
|
5 |
P2, L81; ‘Among these methods spectroscopy’ is confusing, which should be corrected. |
Done |
|
6 |
P9, Figure 3; Why does the reflectance(%)(1000nm to 1075nm) show different trends between the figures on the left side and right side? |
Thank you very much for your valuable comment: Allow me to explain to you that on the two sides there is a form of a valley, but there is a difference in the construction of this valley. This is due to the different devices, the different calibration, the manufacturers, and the accuracy, all of this must be taken into account, but the two figures show that there is absorption in this wavelength range. If there is any other comment, I will be glad to receive it and reply to it
|
|
7 |
P9, L319; it should be noted that the six panels in Figure 2 should be listed as A, B, C, D, E, F and should be mentioned in L319 as Panel A, C, E, not ‘on the left side', which is not professional. It also fits all the other figures. |
Done Figure 2 and L319 were modified as you advised |
|
8 |
P13, L436; the author mentioned ‘non-destructive methods’, however, all the experiments listed in this research are conducted with cut watermelon. How to explain this? |
Thank you for your observation: I would like to clarify that the Non-destructive methods have two meanings. The first is that it does not destroy the fruit as it was described in your observation, and the other meaning is what this proposal means, which means that there is no damage in the watermelon flesh samples and there is no extraction of a solution to implement the chemical analyses. |
|
9 |
P14, L484; the word ‘Citrullus lanatus’ should be italic. The same mistake happened on P16, L560. The reference part needs to be revised. |
P14, L484; the word ‘Citrullus lanatus’ should be italic (Done) The same mistake happened on P16, L560 (Done) The reference part was revised |
|
10 |
In conclusion, this study is interesting to identify the best cultivars, agricultural practices, and harvest dates. However, until the ‘Conclusions’, I didn’t find any resolutions about that. The author compared two methods to identify the non-destructive quality assay, which didn’t connect to the question mentioned in the ‘Abstract’ part. |
Please allow me to try to explain these points mentioned in this point: About this final comment, the best cultivars were identified in L 428 and 429. About best harvest dates were identified in lines 435 to 437. About, compared two methods to identify the best non-destructive quality assay is identified in lines 441 to 442.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, ten quality parameters of three different watermelon cultivars harvested at three consecutive harvest times were determined and compared, and the reflectance spectra collected by two spectroscopic devices were used to predict the above quality parameter of watermelon flesh. The paper was written well and has a good reference and reference significance. However, there are still some minorproblems in the writing form of the paper. The details are as follows:
1. Figure2 shows the change of quality parameters of different watermelon varieties. Although this figure is visual, but some detail information could not be seen. Data normalization may be needed here. 2. Three harvest time should be provided. 3. The spectral pretreatment method used for modeling were not provided. 4. Two pieces of flesh were taken from each watermelon sample, Is the taken sample representative of the whole fruit? 5. This study mainly nondestructive detected the internal quality of watermelon flesh, what is the potential of using both of spectroscopic devices to evaluate these quality of the intact watermelon?Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Top of Form
Response to Reviewer 3
Dear professors,
The article team and I on behalf would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit an update on the Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1705462 titled "A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars".
We appreciate the precious time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your invaluable feedback on our research. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript in blue color.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
|
N. |
Comment |
Response |
|
1 |
Figure2 shows the change of quality parameters of different watermelon varieties. Although this figure is visual, but some detail information could not be seen. Data normalization may be needed here |
Thank you very much for seeing this point, but I would like to say that if data is entered in each corner, there will be three values in each corner, with a total of 18 points in one figure, and this is very much. This is in addition to the fact that all the details are mentioned in the text of the manuscript from lines No. 263 to 317. |
|
2 |
Three harvest time should be provided |
Done |
|
3 |
The spectral pretreatment method used for modeling were not provided |
Yes, you are right, and this is because the initial analysis of the spectral data with the application of some pretreatment methods did not have a significant effect. |
|
4 |
Two pieces of flesh were taken from each watermelon sample, Is the taken sample representative of the whole fruit? |
Yes, I think so, because each piece was semi-circular, with a diameter greater than 7 cm and a thickness of approximately 2 cm |
|
5 |
This study mainly nondestructive detected the internal quality of watermelon flesh, what is the potential of using both of spectroscopic devices to evaluate these quality of the intact watermelon? |
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, regarding the inquiry about the potential of using both spectroscopic devices to evaluate the quality of watermelon? I would like to clarify that these two devices can be used to assess the quality of watermelon flesh without the need for a chemical assessment one for color and the other for chemical attributes. As for the possibility of using them in evaluating the quality of the intact watermelon with its skin, this is difficult due to the thickness of the watermelon peel. |
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript did a comparative study between two different assay method, the results could be used in quality assessment of watermelon in the future, however, the manuscript must be improved.
1. The figures are really difficult to understand, they looks very reluctant to support the results.
2. All the data had no significant analysis.
3. Some descriptions were not consistent with the data of figures or tables.
4. The means of some sentences were confusing.
5. The discussion was not enough, especially for the assay methods.
The specific suggestions were in the manuscript file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4
Dear professors,
The article team and I on behalf would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit an update on the Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1705462 titled "A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars".
We appreciate the precious time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your invaluable feedback on our research. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by you. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript in blue color.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Comment 1: Line 46 to 54 (Introduction Section):-
Response: (Done) The paragraph was deleted as you advised and the references were modified according to this action.
Comment 2: Line 86 to 88 (Introduction Section):-
Response: (Done) I was meaning that most of these few reports were focused on watermelon. However, I did minor modifications in the second sentence as follows (Most of these NIRS reports concerning watermelon quality were focused on color, sugar content, vitamin C, and antioxidants, especially lycopene and β-carotene. Color is described as one of the significant aspects in determining the quality of watermelon).
Comment 3: Line 92 to 96 (Introduction Section):-
Response: Thank you for your comment. In fact, I would like to tell you that this comparative study was carried out to monitor the quality of watermelon fruits and to determine the best practices under study as well as the best methods of measurement
Comment 4: Line 102 (Materials and Methods Section):-
Response: Thank you for your observation It is a farm for the production of watermelons and there were no planting repetitions. About the interval between each harvest time was one week and I add it with blue color.
Comment 5: Line 190 (Materials and Methods Section):-
Response: Thank you for your insight vision on this point, please, it is known that it can use 70% or more than 70% of the samples for the calibration model and the rest samples for the validation model or you may use the Kennard-Stone algorithm with 80% for the calibration data set and 20% for the validation data set. So the research team saw to take more than 70% of the watermelon samples for the calibration model and the rest samples for the validation model.
Comment 6: Line 222 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: Thank you for your notification. Okay, I added a subtitle for this section under the title (Color analysis).
Comment 7: Line 228 to 232 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: Thank you for your precise observation. This paragraph will be modified to be specific to the color parameter a* only, whereas the coefficient of the color parameter a* is greater in all treatments for the two cultivars Galander and Style, except for one treatment only in the cultivar Style at the time of the second harvest and modified as follow:
It was observed that L*, a*, and b* values in the part (A) are often slightly higher than in part (B). However, mostly it was observed that a* color parameter corresponding to redness intensity for Galander and Style cultivars were higher than the Lady cultivar, this may be due to that these cultivars are grafted with pumpkin plants. The color parameters increased during the 1st and 2nd harvest time (HT) and then decreased gradually towards the 3rd HT.
Comment 8: Line 241 to 242 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: Thank you for your observation on this point. Allow me to clarify that it is the inverse relationship of the maturity stages represented in the values of each of the YI and WI, and this is evident in the Lady cultivar at the 1st harvest time, and the Style cultivar at the 2nd harvest time, and the Galander cultivar in 2nd harvest time, where you will find the higher the value of the YI, the lower the value of the WI.
Comment 9: Line 261 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: This word (significant) is one of the vocabularies of the word (noticeable), and since I am described these results through calculating the mean and standard deviation, so we prefer to use the noticeable word. Finally, if you see that we must change it to significant I will do it.
Comment 10: Line 266 to 268 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: My great thanks for this observation. Please allow me to explain this point, in general, there is a decrease in vitamin c value at all cultivars shown after the 1st harvest time, this decline continued until the time of the 3rd harvest, and the largest decrease appeared at the 2nd harvest time, and it may have recovered after that at the 3rd harvest, but it is still lower than the time of the first harvest. So, mentioned that the values deteriorated, with the delay in harvest time at all cultivars.
Comment 11: Line 275 to 276 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: Please, there is a sharp decrease that is evident in Figure 2 for all cultivars at different harvest times for all chemical parameters, for example, the lycopene levels during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd HT were varied for all investigated water-melon cultivars from 103.25 to 54.2 µgg-1, and this mentioned in lines 286 and 287.
Comment 12: Line 324 to 325 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: I think you will notice an evident decrease in the reflectance around 550 nm nearly around the wavelength peak of 560 and as a result of the inverse relationship between both the reflectance and absorption modes, this will lead to a strong absorption peak around the 560 wavelengths.
Comment 13: Line 338 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: Dear arbitrator, allow me to explain to you that there is a clear difference in the reflectance mode over the wavelength used between the 1st harvest time and the other times and that this difference is evidence of deterioration in quality as a result of delays in harvesting. According to this result, a large prediction model can be prepared by taking larger quantities, more cultivars, and different treatments.
Comment 14: Line 353 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: was modified with blue color
Comment 15: Line 360 to 363 (Results and Discussions Section):-
Response: the paragraph was modified as it (In contrast, this result of the lycopene prediction model was lower than what [68] had obtained in predicting the lycopene content of watermelon puree with a predicted value R2 of 0.97 and a SEP of 3.4 mg.kg−1 within a visible wavelength of 500-750 nm.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: A comparative study between Vis/NIR Spectroradiometer and NIR Spectroscopy for non-destructive quality assay of different watermelon cultivars
Comments to the author:
The author almost addressed my concerns. Please correct the following mistake.
1. P14, L467: ‘Citrullus lanatus’ should be italic.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript had been modified and improved. Although the author gave explanations in detail, some figures could not support the results strongly, so I think some figures could be replaced, if the author had more better or clearer one.
