Correction: The Effect of UV-C Stimulation of Potato Tubers and Soaking of Potato Strips in Water on Color and Analyzed Color by CIE L*a*b* Sustainability 2020, 12, 3487

Given that the expressions of concern in this paper [...]

Given that the expressions of concern in this paper [1] have raised a signification nature of UV-C stimulation of potato tubers's effects on French fries' color, the authors, yet, contend that the outcome of the paper [1] did not fulfill to cover the insights of the research project based on inconclusive evidence of the recent major concerns raised in readership. Consequentially, the authors have extended this research and would like to update the published paper in the following aspects. The new version has been peer reviewed by original reviewers.
The changes are as follows: (1) Replacing the title: Application of the CIE L*a*b* Method for the Evaluation of the Color of Fried Products from Potato Tubers Exposed to C Band Ultraviolet Light with The Effect of UV-C Stimulation of Potato Tubers and Soaking of Potato Strips in Water on Color and Analyzed Color by CIE L*a*b* (2) Change the description of the statements in Sections 1 and 2 to refine the purpose and scope of the research: • experiments were conducted in the period 2017-2018 • potato strips were soaked in water the following combinations: (1) 20 • C for 15 min and (2) 40 • C for 20 min.
• Using the CIE L*a*b* method based on instrumental color measurement.
(3) To extend the research, the authors replaced Table 1: Sustainability 2020, 12, 7473; doi:10.3390/su12187473 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Table 1. Analysis of variance in a single classification. The effects of the relationships between the parameters of potato tuber exposure on the selected color evaluation ratios of the french fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (∆L*, ∆a*, ∆b*, ∆E*, ∆C*, ∆H*).
Test probability 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 With Table 1. Analysis of variance in multiple classification. Influence of tuber stimulation, immersion conditions of semi-finished products, type of frying and place of color measurement on image brightness (L*), chromaticity of image (a*) and chromaticity of image (b*) determined by CIE L*a*b*. (4) To clearly represent the experiment results, the authors replaced Table 2   Table 2. Average values of the selected color evaluation ratios for french fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (∆L*, ∆a*, ∆b*, ∆E*, ∆C*, ∆H*). with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ∆E* for the tuber stimulation methods. with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.   with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2.

Types of Stimulation
The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.  with specific Table 2 and also added Tables 3 and 4   Table 2.

Types of Stimulation
The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ΔE* for the tuber stimulation methods.   Table 3. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ∆E* for the immersion conditions of the semi-finished products in water.                 Table 4. The average values of the color parameters (L*, a*, b*) and the total color difference ∆E* for the point (spot) of color measurement on the French fries.  (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text:

Types of Stimulation
According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, ΔE*, ΔC*, ΔH*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: Differences in brightness (ΔL*) were in the range of -5.012 to 1.208 (Table 2, Figure 1). with Analysis of French fries' color parameters after UV-C tuber stimulation indicated that lightness (L*) ranged from 85.78 to 90.79 (Table 2). The lowest values were obtained for French fries produced from tubers stimulated before storage (3, 4) (85.78, 85.93), while the highest values were observed for French fries prepared from tubers stimulated two days before processing (1, 2) (90.15, 90.79). Lightness of control samples (unstimulated tubers) was at the level of 89.58. The a value (color ranging from green to red) assumed values from 0.52 to −8.20.  (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text: According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, ΔE*, ΔC*, ΔH*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: Differences in brightness (ΔL*) were in the range of -5.012 to 1.208 (Table 2, Figure 1). with Analysis of French fries' color parameters after UV-C tuber stimulation indicated that lightness (L*) ranged from 85.78 to 90.79 (Table 2). The lowest values were obtained for French fries produced from tubers stimulated before storage (3, 4) (85.78, 85.93), while the highest values were observed for French fries prepared from tubers stimulated two days before processing (1, 2) (90.15, 90.79). Lightness of control samples (unstimulated tubers) was at the level of 89.58. The a value (color ranging from green to red) assumed values from 0.52 to −8.20.  (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text: According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, ΔE*, ΔC*, ΔH*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: Differences in brightness (ΔL*) were in the range of -5.012 to 1.208 (Table 2, Figure 1). with Analysis of French fries' color parameters after UV-C tuber stimulation indicated that lightness (L*) ranged from 85.78 to 90.79 (Table 2). The lowest values were obtained for French fries produced from tubers stimulated before storage (3, 4) (85.78, 85.93), while the highest values were observed for French fries prepared from tubers stimulated two days before processing (1, 2) (90.15, 90.79). Lightness of control samples (unstimulated tubers) was at the level of 89.58. The a value (color ranging from green to red) assumed values from 0.52 to −8.20.  (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text: According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, ΔE*, ΔC*, ΔH*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: Differences in brightness (ΔL*) were in the range of -5.012 to 1.208 (Table 2, Figure 1). with Analysis of French fries' color parameters after UV-C tuber stimulation indicated that lightness (L*) ranged from 85.78 to 90.79 (Table 2). The lowest values were obtained for French fries produced from tubers stimulated before storage (3, 4) (85.78, 85.93), while the highest values were observed for French fries prepared from tubers stimulated two days before processing (1, 2) (90.15, 90.79). Lightness of control samples (unstimulated tubers) was at the level of 89.58. The a value (color ranging from green to red) assumed values from 0.52 to −8.20.  (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text: According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (ΔL*, Δa*, Δb*, ΔE*, ΔC*, ΔH*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: Differences in brightness (ΔL*) were in the range of -5.012 to 1.208 (Table 2, Figure 1). with Analysis of French fries' color parameters after UV-C tuber stimulation indicated that lightness (L*) ranged from 85.78 to 90.79 (Table 2). The lowest values were obtained for French fries produced from tubers stimulated before storage (3, 4) (85.78, 85.93), while the highest values were observed for French fries prepared from tubers stimulated two days before processing (1, 2) (90.15, 90.79). Lightness of control samples (unstimulated tubers) was at the level of 89.58. The a value (color ranging from green to red) assumed values from 0.52 to −8.20. (5) In order to be consistent with the new tables above, the authors replaced the table and data citations in main text: According to Table 1, the color evaluation ratios of fries determined by the CIE L*a*b* method (∆L*, ∆a*, ∆b*, ∆E*, ∆C*, ∆H*) were statistically significantly varied with Conversely, the type of frying fat did not statistically significantly influence the parameters under study (Table 1).
(6) Authors replaced the Table 2 and data citations in main text: