Quality of Soybean Seeds after Microwave Drying

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting, yet needs some minor revision.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English language and spelling should be checked by a proffesional, and corrected accordingly.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
I would like to express my deep gratitude for your dedicated and insightful work in correcting this paper. Your expertise and attention to detail were instrumental in improving the quality of the text. All requests have been fulfilled and are highlighted in plain red markup on the left side of the file. The review reinforced the validity and soundness of the presented results. So, thank you very much in advance!

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The goal for using the microwave to "dry" the soybean is not highlighted. The analyses indicate that the microwave is an excellent "pre-growing" method and not a "drying" method because the purpose of drying seeds is typically for storage, which was not studied in this manuscript.

2. The examples (references 20 and 21) in the Introduction Section are not about drying but about using microwaves to extract active compounds. The samples in the references were immersed in solvents while subjected to microwave irradiation.    

3. Line 68. The scientific name should be italics.

4. The authors increased the moisture level of the soybeans before subjection them to microwave irradiation. This is a standard method for seed germination used by laymen. "Drying" the soybeans after increasing the moisture contents does not seem practical. The authors must consider using terminology other than "drying" to better represent the study's goal.

5. The explanation about conventional drying is missing from the Methodology Section.

6. The explanation of the characteristics of "abnormal plants" should be added in the manuscript so that the readers can understand what is considered an "abnormal plant".

7. Table 2. How did you get the "abnormal plants" for treatments 11 to 13 if there were no seeds' germination?

 

The authors need to send the manuscript for English checking because there are a lot of confusing sentences, and there is even part of the manuscript not in English  (lines 119 to 120).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the thorough and rigorous review of our work. Your feedback was valuable and we appreciate the time and effort invested in this review process.

Regarding specific aspects of your review, we would like to respectfully present some counterpoints:
1. Regarding evaluating only immediate seed damage and focusing only on the immediate effect after drying, we emphasize that the aim of this study was to provide an analysis of this specific aspect of drying. To that end, we have made significant changes to improve the clarity and comprehensiveness of the study. In lines 36 and 80, we adjust the main objective of the article to focus exclusively on the immediate damage of seeds after drying. We recognize, however, that storage is a critical factor for the long-term preservation of seed quality and, therefore, it is a relevant topic that deserves attention in future studies.

2. Regarding the drying associated with the previous rewetting of the seeds, we emphasize that, in the agricultural context, it is common for unpredictable climatic variations to occur, such as unexpected rains during the harvest. These climatic conditions can lead to the natural rewetting of the seeds, creating a subsequent need for drying. Considering this scenario, it is essential to understand and investigate the effects and implications of rewetting soybean seeds during the drying process.  We hope that our study will contribute to the current scientific knowledge about soybean seed drying, under conditions in which natural rewetting can occur.
3. Regarding references 20 and 21 in the introduction, we agree with the considerations, and both have been deleted from the text.
4. The scientific name on line 68 has been changed to italics.
5. The explanation about conventional drying was added in the Methodology Section in line 121.
6. The explanation of the characteristics of "abnormal plants" was added in the manuscript (line 132)
7. We recognize the need for English language checking, and all text has been revised, however, we are open to other suggestions in this area.

Thanks again for the careful review and valuable comments that enriched this work. We are committed to continually improving our studies and contributing to scientific advancement in this particular field.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1.    Line 98: “(b.u)” is “wet basis” or “dry basis”? Please change it to the relevant abbreviation.
2.    Line 119-120: Please translate to English.
3.    Table 2: Please change all commas to be dots for all the decimal signs.
4.    Table 2, column 4: Please revise “Firs” to “First”
5.    Line 237-238: Please translate “1 e 2” and “conformable treatment da Table 2” to English.
6.    Line 249-250: Please translate “1 e 2” and “conformable treatment da Table 2” to English.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my deepest gratitude for the thorough and rigorous correction of our scientific article.  Thank you for the time and effort dedicated to this task. I would like to point out that, during a review, a data annotation error was identified in our statistical analysis. However, upon careful review, we found that this particular error did not affect the main analysis and the results presented. Thank you for addressing this issue, as it has helped us to re-evaluate our data verification procedures.

About the 15 points highlighted in the correction, below are the changes made:

1. Citations were adjusted using the Mendeley program.
2. The DOI reference: 10.1080/07373937.2021.1914078 has been duly added. (line 66)
3 - 5. Scientific names are written in italics throughout the text and references.
6 - 14. All requested checks were met and corrected.
15. The statistic was redone as there was an annotation error in our spreadsheet data. The data has been verified and corrected, we greatly appreciate your contribution in sending the results to the conference.

I express my gratitude for the thorough review and high rigor applied in correcting our work. Your contributions were extremely valuable and resulted in significantly improved work.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer 4 Report

de Faria et al. reported an interesting finding regarding quality of soybean seeds after microwave drying, which may be useful for quality improvement of soybean agriculture.

I would like to address several comments as following:

 

1.       For affiliation, I would suggest to write only the affiliation without academic position.

2.       Box plot in Figure 3 needs to be improved. There was no numbers on y axis although there were numbers written above each bar. It is hard to follow. In relation to this figure, line 221-233 needs to be rephased to make the explanation more clear. Please explain more detail the difference among temperature and power used in the experiement.

3.       As Figure 7 is highlighting important findings, the explanantion of this figure needs to be elaborated (line 302-308). Authors wrote that „In the microwave drying process, 303 the temperature did not exceed the recommended index for most soybean seeds of 42°C.” Products in conventional drying may also fit to this criterion (not exceed 42°C if the drying time was stopped before 8 hours). Please explain in more detail about this result.

4.       I would suggest authors to write brief conclusions about their findings after explanation of each figure. Therefore, it would be easier to follow. The conclusion in 326-327 is too general and does not imply the overall findings.

 

5.       The discussion part is not sufficient. Authors may include the following reference DOI: 10.1080/08327823.1993.11688200 in the discussion part as they also reported about microwave drying of soybean.

 

moderate editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the thorough correction of our scientific article. Your contribution was fundamental to improving the quality of the work. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this review.

I would like to highlight 5 important points resulting from your correction:

1. Author affiliations were corrected as suggested, ensuring the accuracy of institutional information.

2. About the Graphs in Figure 3: I apologize for the lack of numbers on the axes of the graphs. Despite several attempts, it did not participate to adjust them as requested. I hope you can understand this limitation, and if you have any additional suggestions, I would be grateful to consider them.

3. All text between lines (302-308) has been rewritten to improve the clarity of information. However, I am aware that there is always room for improvement. I am open to other suggestions that may further improve the quality of the article.

4. Minor changes have been incorporated into the conclusion based on your suggestion. Thank you for pointing out this opportunity for improvement.

5. The reference mentioned on line 436 has been properly attributed to the discussion.

I sincerely thank you for your valuable contribution. Your corrections and suggestions were essential to improve the quality and accuracy of our scientific article. I am so grateful for their dedication and attention to detail.

Yours sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript clearly highlight the problem statement and the objective of the research. The authors have addressed the comments accordingly.

The English quality is acceptable

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Review of applsci-2387526-v2

 

Thank you for the revised manuscript. It can be accepted now, with these typographical errors amended during the post-production/proofreading stage.

 

1. Line 76: Please remove this error --> Clique ou toque aqui para inserir o texto.
2. Line 137: Please remove this error --> Clique ou toque aqui para inserir o texto.
3. Line 234: Please translate “1 e 2” to English.
4. Line 246: Please translate “1 e 2” to English.
5. Please write scientific names in italic, and with the uppercase only for the genus. For example, corn is written with uppercase Z and lowercase m (Zea mays), not Zea Mays (in reference 9). Other references that have same error= references number 20, 21, 25, 30, 48, 51

 

 

 

 

Review of applsci-2387526-v2

 

Thank you for the revised manuscript. It can be accepted now, with these typographical errors amended during the post-production/proofreading stage.

 

1. Line 76: Please remove this error --> Clique ou toque aqui para inserir o texto.
2. Line 137: Please remove this error --> Clique ou toque aqui para inserir o texto.
3. Line 234: Please translate “1 e 2” to English.
4. Line 246: Please translate “1 e 2” to English.
5. Please write scientific names in italic, and with the uppercase only for the genus. For example, corn is written with uppercase Z and lowercase m (Zea mays), not Zea Mays (in reference 9). Other references that have same error= references number 20, 21, 25, 30, 48, 51