Enhancing Potato Quality in Fries Production Using Ultrasonic Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this study is to assess the effect of ultrasonic treatment of seed potatoes on the quality of potato tubers intended for French fries. Authors analyzed key biochemical parameters of potato tubers such as: dry matter content, starch and soluble sugars. Also authors tested features of French fries such as color, consistency, taste and smell, content of fat, humidity and dark ends. This research has added knowledge about the effect of ultrasonic treatment on potato processing. Despite of that contribution in potato science there are some weakness points in this manuscript.

First of all, methodological inaccuracies and haziness in experiment design make it difficult to understand.  No information about number of plants per each potato varieties, number of repetitions, what reproduction of seed was used for planting. What was the way to apply ultrasound as a pre-planting treatment?

This manuscript is not well structured, because its large part is devoted to the description of well-known statistical indicators or already found correlations between biochemical parameters of potato tubers and potato processing. For instance, item 3.6 named Descriptive statistics of tuber and fries features copies the description of well-known statistical indicators. Two Items that are 4.2 named Genetic features and quality of French fries and 4.5 named French fries quality and chemical composition of tubers, they both should be shortened as they present lots well-known information not related to ultrasound treatment of seed potatoes.

Not all the cited references are available for reader. I was not able to find the first and second cited literature references.  Doi is missing in many references ex. 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11 and many others.

Novelty of study is not doubt as the results are significant, conclusions justified and supported by the results. In order to make this paper interest to the reader it has to be focused on the main object after throwing out unnecessary matter.

Author Response

Responses to Review 1.

Thank you for your positive assessment of our work and valuable substantive suggestions improving the quality of our manuscript.

Reply 1. The methodological requirements in subchapter 2.1 have been supplemented with the following text: “In a 15 m² plot, 60 potato plants [2 rows of 30 plants each] were grown, with three replications under two cultivation technologies.” In addition, the method of using ultrasound before planting has been supplemented in subchapter 2.2 “Experimental Methods for Preparing Seed Potato Tubers”.

Reply 2. Dear Reviewer, our research focuses on comparing different cultivation technologies and their effect on the characteristics of French fries, so we decided that it is worth including descriptive statistics to show the full picture of the data (e.g. average crispiness in two technologies with standard deviation). In the cited subchapters 4.2 and 4.5 of chapter “4. Discussion” we cite our own research results in comparison with the results of other authors.

Reply 3. The bibliography list has been supplemented and corrected. Dear Reviewer, not all literature items have DOI, therefore older items do not have DOI.,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides insightful responses regarding the interaction between years, potato varieties, and meteorological conditions. It addresses a practical issue (the quality of French fries) with a sustainable technological solution. However, there is no mention of the cost or economic feasibility of the technology, which is crucial to assessing its practical applicability. I have added detailed comments addressing the need for consistent terminology and improvements in sentence structure throughout the manuscript.

Suggestions:

• Line 16-17: Replace "in the three replications" with "with three replications."

• Line 35: Revise to: "One such emerging technology involves the application of ultrasonic processing in agricultural practices."

• Line 43: Adjust to: "leaving a gap in understanding its impacts on the quality of the final product."

• Line 46-47: Replace “examining the impact” with “investigating the effects.”

• Lines 183-184: Provide more details or a brief technical description of the method for readers unfamiliar with it.

• Line 258: Meteorological conditions are presented as results, but there is no explanation of how the analyses were conducted.

• Line 320-322: Revise to: "effect on the values of these parameters."

• Line 383-385: Replace “years of research” with “years of study.”

• Frequency, power, and duration of ultrasonic treatments are not discussed concerning the existing literature. The choice of these parameters appears arbitrary and should be justified based on prior studies or preliminary tests.

The explanation of the selection of ultrasonic parameters and their relationship with the results should be elaborated.

Compare the findings with alternative competing technologies, such as other pre-planting treatment techniques.

Specify where sensory tests were conducted, how the team was trained, and whether the project underwent an ethics committee review for research approval.

• Figure 2: Improve clarity. In Figure 2b, the label "with ultrasounds" is missing.
• Figure 4: Ensure consistent terminology in all figure captions. Maintain a uniform style.
• Improve the quality of all figures. Remove background lines from graphs to enhance readability.

The article alternates between "French fries" and "fries." Choose one term and use it consistently throughout the text.

Ensure that all units of measurement (e.g., kg.ha⁻¹, °C) are standardized and verify the correct use of periods or commas in numerical data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the text can be improved to make it clearer and more precise, particularly in terms of fluency, grammar, and technical terminology.

Author Response

Responses to Review 2

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your kind review and precise suggestions for changes, which undoubtedly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Line 16-17. Corrected according to the Reviewer's suggestion.

Line 35. Corrected according to the Reviewer's suggestion.

Line 43-47. Corrected according to the Reviewer's suggestion.

Line 183-184. According to the Reviewer's suggestion, the method of determining starch was described.

Line 258. The origin of the meteorological data described in the experiment was explained.

Line 320-322. Corrected the indicated sentence.

Line 383-385. Corrected the sentence according to the Reviewer's suggestion.

In response to the question about the frequency of ultrasonic treatments and their duration, we answer that the description has been supplemented with the required details in subsection 2.2 "Experimental Methods for Preparing Seed Potato Tubers".

We answer the question how and where sensory tests were conducted as follows:

"The sensory evaluation of French fries was conducted in the Laboratory of Commodity Science at the Faculty of Agrobioengineering, University of Life Sciences in Lublin. The evaluation team, consisting of laboratory staff and students, was previously familiarized with typical sensory profiles of French fries (e.g., ideal crispness, appropriate degree of doneness, etc.).

The sensory evaluation procedure was presented to the panelists as follows: The tasting was conducted in silence, free from external influences. Panelists rinsed their mouths with water or a neutralizing agent (e.g., non-carbonated water) between samples. The evaluation was carried out in a predetermined order under consistent conditions (lighting, temperature, sample quantity).”

Response to Figure 2b: Figure legend supplemented with the phrase “with ultrasound” as suggested by the reviewer. Corrected captions for Figures 2a and 2b and their backgrounds, and removed grid lines.

Changed phrase “fries” to “French fries” as suggested by the reviewer.

Units of measurement supplemented with appropriate periods and commas as suggested by the reviewer.

Improved English as suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to Authors

The manuscript entitled “Enhancing Potato Quality for Fries Frits Production Using Ultrasonic Techniques” is interesting.

 This paper addresses a significant gap in the literature regarding innovative methods to improve the sensory attributes of processed potato products. The overall assessment is that the manuscript is well-organized, the methodology is sound, and the results are clearly presented. However, some revision is needed before the final acceptance.

Specific comments

Literature Review:

1. The authors could consider adding a brief summary of the key findings from the literature review, highlighting the gaps in the existing knowledge that this study aims to address.

Materials and Methods:

2. More details on the experimental design, particularly the parameters used for the ultrasonic treatment of potatoes, are necessary to ensure replicability of the experiment by other researchers.

3.The authors are advised to provide a detailed explanation of the statistical methods employed, including model selection, hypothesis testing, and interpretation of statistical results.

4.The manuscript currently lacks specific photographs documenting the experimental processes involving the potatoes and the preparation of French fries. It is recommended that the authors include clear images of key stages in the experiment, such as the ultrasonic treatment setup, the planting of potatoes, and the frying process of the French fries.

Results and Discussion:

5.The discussion section should provide a more in-depth analysis of the results, including deviations from expected outcomes and potential reasons for these discrepancies.

6.Given the significant impact of environmental conditions on potato quality, the authors are encouraged to discuss in more detail how these factors influenced the results of the study.

7.The manuscript would benefit from additional explanation regarding the differences in the response of various potato cultivars to ultrasonic treatment and the implications of these differences on the quality of the final product.

8.The authors should discuss the limitations of ultrasonic technology in practical applications, including a cost-benefit analysis and potential technical challenges.

9.The conclusions should clearly summarize the principal findings of the study and emphasize their significance to the food processing industry.

Reference: It's best to update the references and replace them with new.

Author Response

Responses to Review 3

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your positive assessment of our work and valuable substantive recommendations improving the quality of our manuscript.

Response 1. In accordance with the Reviewer's suggestion, a summary of the existing knowledge and limitations of the use of ultrasound was included in Chapter 1.

Response 2. The description was supplemented with the required details of conducting the discussed experiment in subchapter 2.2 “Experimental Methods for Preparing Seed Potato Tubers” in accordance with the Reviewer's suggestion.

Response 3. Dear Reviewer, we used a three-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to analyze the obtained experimental results. Confidence intervals were determined using the T-Tuckey test at a significance level of p=0.05. The analysis of variance models included the main factors of the research and their double interactions. Additionally, descriptive statistics of the studied features were performed using the SSPS program. The choices regarding the experimental model, hypothesis testing and interpretation of results are crucial because they allow for reliable and precise inferences based on the data. In the case of ANOVA analysis and Tukey's test, these are standard techniques used to analyze differences between groups in experimental studies.

Answer. 4. Appropriate photos and a diagram of sonication of potato tubers are included.

Answer 5. The discussion was supplemented with a paragraph on the effect of ultrasound on potato tubers. We cannot conduct a detailed discussion on the effects of using ultrasound in food processing of potatoes for frying French fries, because such studies have been conducted for the first time. Therefore, our results should be considered preliminary, opening up new research perspectives in this field. The use of ultrasound in potato processing technology has not been widely analyzed so far, which prevents direct comparison of our results with previous studies.

Answer 6. Dear Reviewer, as part of future research, we will conduct detailed comparative analyses, taking into account various ultrasound parameters (e.g. frequency, duration, intensity) and their effect on the quality characteristics of fries, such as texture, taste, fat content or sensory parameters. In addition, it seems appropriate for us to investigate the physicochemical mechanisms underlying the observed effects, which will allow for a better understanding of the effect of ultrasound on the structure and properties of potatoes.

Answer 7. Dear Editor, we write about the differences in the response of different potato varieties to ultrasound in Chapter 3 "Results" and in Chapter 3.2 and in Chapter 4. "Discussion", subchapters 4.2 and 4.3.

Answer 8. Dear Reviewer, we have supplemented the limitations of ultrasound technology in the "Discussion" chapter in the subchapter "Limitations of ultrasound technology".

Answer 9. The conclusions have been reworded.

Answer 10. The list of references has been supplemented and corrected. However, not all literature items have a DOI.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made the necessary correction in this manuscript. I am satisfied on this new version. Thank you very much for a such useful collaboration.

 

Author Response

Dear Academic Editor,

We sincerely thank you for the precise and valuable suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality of our manuscript.

We would like to add that, in the initial concept of writing this manuscript, we did not plan to include the presented figures, as we considered this not to be an agronomic study but rather a description of the process of producing French fries. However, to meet the requirements of the two Reviewers, we have included these figures.

1. As per the Editor's suggestion, Figure 1 has been revised.
2. Dear Editor, Figure 2 illustrates the process of potato tuber sonification in an aqueous environment before planting in the field. It has no direct connection with the production of food, i.e., the French fries discussed in the manuscript.
3. We inform you that the controversial Figure 4e has been removed from the manuscript.
4. For the remaining figures (Figure 3a, b, c, d, e), their resolution has been increased to 300 dpi.
5. The description of Figure 3 has been supplemented.
6. In accordance with the Editor's suggestion, the legends of all tables and figures have been replaced with full descriptions, removing the expression (* Notations as in Table 2).

 

Sincerely,
Piotr Pszczółkowski