Non-Destructive Evaluation of White-Flesh Dragon Fruit Decay with a Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some problems. My specific comments are as follows: 

1、There are too many keywords.

2、There is a problem with reference labeling.Please refer to the template.

3、In line 74-75, the aim of this study is too simple. Please elaborate on this content.

4、In line 78, sixty fruits were selected. The total number of samples is too small.

5、In line 151-153,the validation accuracy obtained was 84.21%. The validation accuracy is low. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2
The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some
problems. My specific comments are as follows:
1、There are too many keywords.
- The number of keyword has been reduced according to the reviewer suggestion.
2、There is a problem with reference labeling.Please refer to the template.
The reference labelling has been revised.
3、In line 74-75, the aim of this study is too simple. Please elaborate on this content.
The objective of the study has been extended and improved according to the reviewer
suggestion (new lines 86-88).
4、In line 78, sixty fruits were selected. The total number of samples is too small.
A higher number of fruits was acquired for finally selecting 60 pieces without damage, disease
or infection, and with similar colour and size.
Previous authors working with pitaya quality assessment have used similar number of samples
or less. Some examples:
Singh, A., Swami, S., Panwar, N. R., Kumar, M., Shukla, A. K., Rouphael, Y., ... & Kumar, P.
(2022). Development changes in the physicochemical composition and mineral profile of red-
fleshed dragon fruit grown under semi-arid conditions. Agronomy, 12(2), 355.
Wall, M. M., & Khan, S. A. (2008). Postharvest quality of dragon fruit (Hylocereus spp.) after X-
ray irradiation quarantine treatment. HortScience, 43(7), 2115-2119.
Magalhães, D. S., da Silva, D. M., Ramos, J. D., Pio, L. A. S., Pasqual, M., Boas, E. V. B. V., ...
& de Melo, E. T. (2019). Changes in the physical and physico-chemical characteristics of red-
pulp dragon fruit during its development. Scientia Horticulturae, 253, 180-186.
Junior, I. M. R., Magalhães, D. S., Rodrigues, F. A., Pasqual, M., & Pio, L. A. S. (2021). Fruit
quality and harvest point determination in white-fleshed dragon fruit. Research, Society and
Development, 10(7), e11810716287-e11810716287.
Ivorra, E., Sánchez, A. J., Verdú, S., Barat, J. M., & Grau, R. (2016). Shelf life prediction of
expired vacuum-packed chilled smoked salmon based on a KNN tissue segmentation method
using hyperspectral images. Journal of food engineering, 178, 110-116.
5、In line 151-153,the validation accuracy obtained was 84.21%. The validation accuracy is
low.
We agree that the validation accuracy is still not very high. However, it is important to consider
that the discriminant analysis was performed with actual commercial fruits. A validation
accuracy of 84.21 % is a promising result for a new technique used in not common tropical fruit
in Europe.
Previous authors working with fruits have obtained higher validation accuracies from a
discriminant analysis. However, there are several high-quality studies with validation accuracies
around 80% (Zhang et al., 2023; Németh et al. 2019).
Further research should be developed to validate the results with other varieties, conditions...
Zhang, J., Shen, Y., Ma, N., & Xu, G. (2023). Authentication of apples from the Loess Plateau in
China based on interannual element fingerprints and multidimensional modelling. Food
Chemistry: X, 100948.
Németh, D., Balázs, G., Daood, H. G., Kovács, Z., Bodor, Z., Zinia Zaukuu, J. L., ... & Kappel,
N. (2019). Standard analytical methods, sensory evaluation, NIRS and electronic tongue for
sensing taste attributes of different melon varieties. Sensors, 19(22), 5010

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors and Authors,

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Quality evaluation of white-flesh dragon fruit using a robotic sensor”. The objective of the present study was to assess dragon fruit decay using the non-destructive internal force sensor of a robot. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:

ABSTRACT

- When there is significance, it is not necessary to inform that the p value <0.05. This suggestion applies to the entire text.

- It was missing to add in the conclusion the information that the use of the robot is efficient in evaluating the quality of dragon fruit fruits.

- Replace keywords present in the title. No

INTRODUCTION

- Is there only one paragraph? This is not recommended. Split this paragraph into several paragraphs.

- With the separation of paragraphs. I suggest inserting more information and assembling the text in a logical sequence, according to the proposed theme.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

- Information needs to be separated. It's the same suggestion I mentioned in the Introduction. There are long paragraphs that need to be divided and reorganized to improve the reader's understanding.

- What statistical analysis was used? The authors only mentioned the program used for the analyses.

RESULTS

- Redo the data comparison graphs. It's very simple. There are other options to improve the visualization of these results.

- The presentation of the results is simple and all the figures need to be redone. It's difficult to visualize.

DISCUSSION

- This section needs to be reorganized. Same suggestion as the paragraphs. To divide. Rearrange.

CONCLUSIONS

- Collapse this section. There is a lot of information that needs to be synthesized and objective.

Author Response

We have revised this manuscript according to the reviewer suggestions. We have answered all the reviewer comments in separated letter, indicating the line number where the changes have been made. We also attach a pdf document with the changes highlighted in yellow.

REVIEWER 1
ABSTRACT
- When there is significance, it is not necessary to inform that the p value <0.05. This suggestion
applies to the entire text.
According to the reviewer “p value < 0.05” has been removed.
- It was missing to add in the conclusion the information that the use of the robot is efficient in
evaluating the quality of dragon fruit fruits.
The information about the use of the robot has been included in the abstract (new lines 19-22).
- Replace keywords present in the title. No
The keywords included in the title have been removed (new line 23).
INTRODUCTION
- Is there only one paragraph? This is not recommended. Split this paragraph into several
paragraphs.
According to the reviewer comment the Introduction section has been separated in five
paragraphs.
- With the separation of paragraphs. I suggest inserting more information and assembling the
text in a logical sequence, according to the proposed theme.
According to the reviewer suggestion, more information has been added and the text has been
assembled in a logical sequence (new lines 57-65, 68-74). Besides, four more references have
been included.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
- Information needs to be separated. It's the same suggestion I mentioned in the Introduction.
There are long paragraphs that need to be divided and reorganized to improve the reader's
understanding.
According to the reviewer comment the M & M section has been separated in several paragraphs.
- What statistical analysis was used? The authors only mentioned the program used for the
analyses.
The information about the statistical analysis has been added (new lines 152-156).
RESULTS
- Redo the data comparison graphs. It's very simple. There are other options to improve the
visualization of these results.
- The presentation of the results is simple and all the figures need to be redone. It's difficult to
visualize.
The images have been modified according to the reviewer comments. The comparison graphs
have been redone.
DISCUSSION
- This section needs to be reorganized. Same suggestion as the paragraphs. To divide.
Rearrange.
According to the reviewer comment the Discussion section has been separated in three
paragraphs.
CONCLUSIONS
- Collapse this section. There is a lot of information that needs to be synthesized and objective.
The conclusions have been summarized and re-written

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is suggested to accept this paper

Author Response

- Thank you very much for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear,

The authors were part of the suggestions proposed by the reviewers.

I suggest removing the horizontal lines inside the figures.

Author Response

- We have removed the horizontal lines in Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 as suggested by the reviewer.

- Thank you very much for your review.