Evaluation of the Effects of Different Packaging Materials on the Quality Attributes of the Tomato Fruit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

suggested improvements:

l97, rpm is meaningless without the knowledge of the radius. Recommendation: indicate the relative centrifugal force g (xg).

l100, indicate the type of HPLC column

l103, its “internal standard” not “internal method”

general remarks:

-       Awkward high number of repeated conjunctions

-    Missing information on supplementary material, author contribution, funding and inst. Review board statement, informred consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgements and COI

 

grammar/form:

l76, every 7 days

Table 2, no table break in line for one test specimen

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author looked at how various packaging methods, including stamped paper + polyvinyl chloride, expandable polystyrene sheet + polyvinyl chloride, stamped paper + flow wrapping, expandable polystyrene sheet + flow wrapping, polypropylene, and unpackaged storing at cold and ambient conditions, affected the quality attributes of "Nema-Netta" tomatoes by evaluating firmness, physiological weight loss, pH value, and titratable acidity. They contend that a mix of packing and cold storage can produce the perfect atmosphere for retaining the quality of tomatoes. I think the way research papers are currently formatted is well organized and suitable for publication in the journal of applied sciences at MDPI. The manuscript might be approved for publication in this journal with only minor modifications. However, let me first provide some general and specific criticism of the authors.

General comments: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of various packaging methods, including stamped paper + polyvinyl chloride, expandable polystyrene sheet + polyvinyl chloride, stamped paper + flow wrapping, expandable polystyrene sheet + flow wrapping, polypropylene, and unpackaged storing at cold and ambient conditions, on the quality attributes of "Nema-Netta" tomatoes by evaluating firmness, physiological weight loss, pH value, and titratable acidity. In my opinion, the current study work style is appropriate for publication in MDPI's journal of applied sciences. So, I think the work could be published in this journal with minor changes.

Specific comments:     

 

1. Abstract: The author should rewrite the abstract. In lines 11-14, please use all lowercase letters where appropriate.
2. Introduction: The author should rewrite the introduction with more relevant references. They should briefly mention the review literature on different packaging materials. At the end of the introduction, they should write about the study's objectives.
3. Please fix the typos on lines 140,165 and 193.
4. Please fix the sentence "the SP Tray is a recommended biodegradable package that has become a viable package to use" in the introduction and conclusions.
5. Reference section: the author didn't follow the guidelines for referencing styles. Please follow the style and instructions of the journal.
6. The language and style of English must be extensively adjusted.

 

Author Response

Good day

Thank you for the comments and suggestions made to the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is interesting, but the authors have yet to comprehensively justify the novelty of the study.

The introduction is too short. Please introduce each of the material histories, such as when they have been developed, the major merit of innovators, authors, and companies, and cite their original articles, patents, etc.

Please clearly investigate with properly cited original articles: how could those materials have been used for a long while without proper tests or quality and safety data released? What is the reason?

Methods:

Why total phenolic content, individual phenolic contents, vitamin C, minerals, and lycopene were not tested for quality control?

The parameters the authors tested are very basic, other phytochemicals and nutrients are much more important. 

Author Response

Good day

Thank you for the comments and suggestions made to the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting study about the use of different packaging materials to preserve the quality of tomatoes, though I have several comments and remarks.

Abstract
The abstract starts as a report, not with a general problem setting.

Abbreviations should be indicated in the abstract (e.g. stamped paper (SP), expanded polystyrene (EPS, etc.) and systematically used.

I don’t understand the conclusion; EPS trays + PVC wrap results in best conservation. And then in the next sentence, I don’t understand the use of the word ‘hence…. ‘.

E.g. the %PWL at day 28 is the same as unpacked tomatoes? Same for other biochemical properties.

As far as I know, PVC is not biodegradable. So, I don’t understand the last sentence: “SP Tray + PVC (biodegradable) is a recommended biodegradable package that has become a viable package to use”.

PS/PVC combination looks the best. I would expect that in the conclusion: the selected conventional materials are better than the stamped paper, chosen as green alternative in this study.

1. Introduction

Line 1-45: The importance of tomato conservation to avoid product deterioration is very well introduced. Good point!!

Line 46: Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art about tomato packaging materials completely lacks in the introduction.

Need for recyclable or circular packaging that maintains tomato shelf-life is missing.

Line 49: What kind of innovative technologies have been developed?

2. M&M

Line 65-66: why was the RH chosen differently for the 2 temperature conditions?

The selected packaging materials are not described in this section?

What are the OTR, CO2TR and WVTR values of the respective materials? It would also have been interesting if the OTR, CO2TR and WVTR of the sealed packaging concepts were measured. This could explain the observed results.

What is difference between cling wrap and flow wrap?

Are pictures available of the packed fruit in the respective packaging concepts?

What does a 1 kg PP bag look like?

3. Results

Line 133: Where is 0.27% in table 1? Which packaging concept is described in this line?

Please check format of table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: why is the first package concept in bold? Sometimes cling wrap, sometimes not?

Line 139: Can the letters of the Duncan’s test be further explained?

Line 140: Please check the use of “: vs ;” in the caption?

Line 145-146: 119 N vs 130 N at which day?

General suggestion: I would add a graph of the different properties over time (per temperature condition), as it’s more visual than the table.

Line 224: What is meant with the “Old PP plastic”?

The discussions about arguments for the observed changes in biochemical properties are very good and make use of a lot of other literature. Tough, it’s logic and known that higher temperatures increase the respiration of tomatoes, it’s interesting to see the results for these specific tomatoes.

In parallel, it’s logic that more permeable packaging materials influence the respiration rate and thus the shelf life, so it’s a pity that this material aspect is not measured nor in depth discussed in the manuscript.

 4. Conclusion

Line 274: cold storage conditions of (8-12°C …): place of the first bracket?

Line 278: ’… compared to tomato samples at ambient storage’. Can this be quantified? And also compared with storage without packaging?

Line 279: There is no reflection about cling vs flow wrap in the manuscript?

Line 284: ‘… SP Tray is a biodegradable package that has become a viable package to use’

Why didn’t the authors include a more sustainable alternative for the PVC wrap in combination with the stamped paper in this study?

5. Recommendation

From line 295 no info available?

References

Doi are missing

Are Ref 8 and 9 the same?

It's a very interesting study, but I miss the material aspects discussion, which can explain the observed biochemical property changes in more detail.

Author Response

Good day

Thank you for the comments and suggestions made to the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the revision. Hope to see more evaluation parameters that will be tested in following up studies.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I like your additions in the manuscript.

If you need gas permeability measurements, feel free to contact our group (my mail address can be be obtained from the editors).

Kind regards