Cultivars and Fruit Part as Differentiating Factors of Physicochemical Characteristics of Mango Starches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting theme.

I suggest improving the title, I think you want to cover a lot that makes it not very understandable and uninteresting.

The abstract does not reflect much of the research. There is a lack of clarity in the parts of the abstract.

I suggest reviewing the connection between title, objective and conclusion and clearly reflect that in the abstract.

 Improve keywords.

what you call starch has proteins, lipids, simple sugars (has other non-starchy components) and in line 62 it is well defined that it is starch, therefore I suggest using a broader word when you have other components and not pure starch.

Line 79. add some measurable parameter, for example days after flowering, size, color, brix degrees. Due to the type of research, this data is important.

Review the phrase “component do not differ by Tukey's test (p<0.05).” in the tables.

Cite some works on fruit starch, for example banana starch (line 252-256).

 Table 3, I think it can be better represented in a graph.

 Improve the quality of the PCA figures, now they are of low quality.

I suggest improving the discussion of the PCA, based on the research and the findings and not just write what you see in the graph.

In general terms, the discussion could be better. I suggest adding more contributions from the researcher with the findings. The importance or significance of these results for science.

Author Response

We thank you for agreeing to contribute to our work and for your careful review.

As you suggested we have removed the term "clean label" as we understand that the focus of the study is to reduce waste and the valorization of mango as a source of starch.

As suggested by reviewer 2 we changed the title, abstract and keywords.

The pulp to kernel ratio of each cultivar was added.

The material and methods were subdivided and the methodologies were better described.

Graphs of the variation in swelling power and solubility of starches were added at the suggestion of reviewer 2.

We hope we have met all your suggestions and we are available for further corrections if you feel it is necessary.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

too general without reference to work - keywords

Introduction - the term "clean label" is mentioned several times in the work - but I don't see a connection at work, maybe zero waste is better?

line 84 fruit to stone ratio - should be written with ":"

2.2. Isolation of stars from mango pulp and - too general, it is necessary to specify this methodology

2.3. Starch analysis - this chapter should be divided into subchapters - adequately to the method used. the methods of determining protein and fat together with color, viscosity, etc. are very badly read

line 405 - characteristics probably better properties

416-17- cp is for the statement "multi-functional'? maybe modified and if modified, then not by what method? Not every modification and final form of starch - will allow it to be called clean label.

Author Response

We thank you for agreeing to contribute to our work and for your careful review.

As you suggested, we have changed the title, abstract, and key words.

In the starch extraction process, part of other components remain in the final product. We hope that with the changes made in the text the doubt about the presence of other components in the final product has been clarified.

The analytical methodologies for starch characterization were described in more detail.

We inserted graphs of the variations in swelling power and solubility of the starches at different temperatures as you suggested. However, suppression of the table would impair the comparison of the factors.

We inserted paragraphs highlighting the significance of the findings in the study.

We hope we have met all your suggestions and we are available for further corrections if you feel it is necessary.

Sincerely,

Authors