Microbiology and Quality Attributes of ‘Pione’ Grapes Stored in Passive and Active MAP

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the version which I got from the Editor on 9th May I do not see any mistakes. In my opinion it is a very well planned, well-structured and perfectly written paper which can be published in the current form. I hope other reviewers will also appreciate your work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your revision and comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The effect of gas concentration in the films on the microbiological and overall quality of ‘Pione’ grapes was compared when stored in passive MAP at 25°C and 10°C and active MAP at 10°C to determine the optimum packaging system for storage and distribution of ‘Pione’ grapes. The results showed that a 10% CO2 level in either passive or active MAP was the best atmosphere to control the microbial proliferation and not to cause high CO2 injury such as rachis browning of ‘Pione’ grapes stored at 10°C. Overall, the MS is well written and the findings are pretty interesting. I think it can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

Some detailed comments are as follows:

(1) Why were two different high OTR films used for passive and active MAP? (2) Only 1 berry was used for microbial counts, I am afraid the amount is insufficient.

(3) There are no error bars in figure 1?

Author Response

Thank you for improving the quality of our manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This article aimed to evaluate the quality of ‘Pione’ grapes during passive and active modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) storage. The authors concluded that a passive MAP with low OTR films or active MAP of 10-20% CO₂ with high OTR films at 10°C was the optimum packing system for ‘Pione’ grapes to control microbiological quality without high CO₂ injury such as rachis browning.

 

 

 

The article is straightforward, and it contains original information.

 

 

 

This article would be improved if the authors clarified or revised the following:

 

 

 

Was there any particular reason that the authors used higher OTR film (1250 ml/ 10 m²/d/atm) for passive MAP study versus OTR (1170 ml/m²/d/atm) films for active MAP study? The data for control samples, which are not subjected to packaging films at 10°C and 25°C during the storage of the testing days, may be needed.

 

 

 

Line 27. Revise to “… control physical and microbiological quality ….”

 

Line 98. What was the pH of the homogenized solution of berries? Have the authors considered any potential impact of berry pH on injuring bacteria and limiting the growth of other bacteria?

 

Lines 172-173. Revise the sentence or clarification since the berry firmness in 10°C high OTR reduced significantly. In addition, the authors may need to address why the testing was not done for 10°C on day 2 and 25°C on day 8.

 

Lines 306-310. Revise the phrase for clarification as followings: “In conclusion, the use of passive MAP with low OTR films or active MAP of 10-20% CO₂ with high OTR films was the best atmosphere to control the microbial proliferation and not cause high CO₂ injury such as rachis browning of ‘Pione’ grapes stored at 10°C. Therefore, selecting packaging films with suitable OTR is crucial to maintaining the quality of ‘Pione’ grapes.

Author Response

Thank you for improving the quality of our manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I have revised the manuscript entitled “Microbiology and Quality Attributes of ‘Pione’ Grapes Stored in Passive and Active MAP”

 

It is an interesting manuscript,  that presents a comprehensive study described in a clear straightforward and detailed form. However there are some aspects that must be modified for publication. It will be subjected to MAJOR REVISION.

 

Introduction: Ok

 

Material and methods: OK

 

RESULTS:

 

Figure 1. The errors bars are missing, please add.

 

Figure 2: The significant differences (a,b,c) should be added.

 

Figure 3. The identification of the bars with lines is confusing, another identification is suggested that allows them to be identified more easily: eg. grid etc. significant differences(a,b,c)  should be added.

 

Figure 6 and 7. Same situation than Fig. 3. Change the Bars ID : instead lines, other more easily. Significant differences(a,b,c)  should be added.

 

 

Discussions:

 

Line 263-277: There is a lot of discussion about other results and very little about what was found in the study. Please add more discussions about your own work and compare with other authors.

 

Line 278-281: The correlation between microbial counts and CO2 is mentioned. Are there any other studies that support this result? Please discuss.

 

Line 281-282: Very little is discussed about the influence of active or passive MAPS or CO2 on firmness or solids, please discuss more in this part, the results obtained.

 

Line 297-300

 

It is mentioned that different microorganisms were found than in other reports, but the possible causes are not discussed. Please discuss.

 

Author Response

Thank you for improving the quality of our manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors made the corrections required. Thanks.