Next Article in Journal
Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Liver Fibrosis: A Dose-Dependent Recovery
Previous Article in Journal
Stochastic Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance for UAVs Using Covariance Control
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Destructive Classification of Sweetness and Firmness in Oranges Using ANFIS and a Novel CCI–GLCM Image Descriptor
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of Preservation Methods on the Volatile Compound Profile and Physicochemical Properties of Aronia melanocarpa Berries

Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(19), 10470; https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910470
by Elżbieta Górska-Horczyczak 1,*, Ewelina Jamróz 1, Klara Żbik 1, Agnieszka Markowska-Radomska 2 and Magdalena Zalewska 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(19), 10470; https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910470
Submission received: 25 July 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 25 September 2025 / Published: 27 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensory Evaluation and Flavor Analysis in Food Science)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the effects of different preservation methods (convective drying, freeze-drying, and freezing) on the volatile compounds, physicochemical properties, and antioxidant activity of berry (Aronia melanocarpa). The topic is innovative, filling a gap in the field regarding the influence of preservation methods on the volatile composition of black chokeberry, and holds practical application value.

 

Here are my comments:

 

Introduction

The background section on market demand and health benefits is somewhat lengthy and could be more concise, with greater focus on the scientific issues of preservation techniques.

Clearly state the novelty of this study.

 

Materials and Methods

Specify the maturity criteria for fruit harvesting (e.g., sugar content, firmness).

Supplement the final moisture content data for freeze-drying and hot-air drying to verify whether the target of "below 10%" was achieved.

Provide detailed descriptions of the electronic nose (HERACLES II) calibration methods and parameters (e.g., sampling time, equilibration temperature).

Clarify whether compound identification was verified via mass spectrometry (MS) or reference standards, as relying solely on Kovats retention indices may not be sufficiently reliable.

Mention the use of internal standards for peak area correction.

 

Results and Discussion

Indicate whether error bars represent standard deviation (SD) or standard error (SE) and specify the meaning of significance markers (a, b, c) in figure captions.

The DPPH metric alone does not represent total antioxidant activity.

"Volatile compound profile" could be replaced with "VOC profile."

Explain the specific mechanism behind the increase in benzaldehyde proportion after freeze-drying.

The impact of VOC changes on actual flavor perception should be validated through sensory experiments, as the bitter almond note may reduce palatability.

In Table 3, is "Relative Percentage" normalized? Clarify the calculation method.

PCA Analysis: Consider labeling the dispersion of treatment groups (e.g., confidence ellipses) and discuss the key driving compounds (e.g., benzaldehyde, ethanol) for PC1 and PC2.

More clearly distinguish between changes in "absolute content" and "relative proportion" (e.g., the increased proportion of benzaldehyde after freeze-drying may be due to the loss of other volatiles rather than an absolute increase).

Discuss why frozen samples showed similar TPC to fresh samples but a significant decline in TAA.

 

Conclusion

Highlight practical application recommendations, clearly suggesting suitable scenarios for different preservation methods.

Mention the study’s limitations.

There are too many references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have completed the review of the manuscript titled "Effects of Preservation Methods on the Volatile Compounds Profile and Physicochemical Properties of Aronia melanocarpa Berries," which compares and analyzes the impact of freezing, convection drying, and freeze-drying on the chemical and physical characteristics of aronia berries.

The manuscript is well-structured, easy to read, and although the experiments are very simple, they are both consistent and well-executed. The results are presented clearly, and the discussion effectively explains the significance of the evaluated parameters. The authors performed excellently in this context. The manuscript contains some editorial errors that need to be addressed, so the authors are advised to revise the document to correct these issues. Additionally, I suggest that section 3.6 would benefit from being broken down into shorter, more focused paragraphs to improve readability.

However, while the authors claim a lack of research on the effects of different preservation methods on the volatile compound profile of chokeberries, I am not entirely convinced of the innovative scientific aspect and relevance of this work. This is particularly true given that the study only encompasses four preservation variables. Therefore, the document can be accepted after minor revisions in terms of structure and presentation, but I recommend that the editor carefully evaluate the scientific significance and overall relevance of the findings before making a final decision. 

 

 

Line 310. there are two brackets

Line 312. Is the citation in the right place?

Line 341. Missing space

Remove the space between the numbers and %

Line 504. Wrong citation style 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is adequate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments, suggestions, and corrections are provided in the attached PDF file. Please double-check all references for accuracy and consistency with the journal’s guidelines.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article can be published in its current form and can play a certain inspiring role in this field.

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the first round of review, the authors have made improvements to the manuscript; however, some points still require further clarification. I kindly ask the authors to check all comments carefully and either revise the manuscript accordingly or provide appropriate explanations.

One important issue that remains is the formatting of the text, particularly with respect to the labeling of figures and tables. In addition, the newly added figures appear blurry and should be replaced with higher-resolution versions.

Please also pay attention to the citation style: references in the text should appear as numbers in parentheses, in regular font (not italics or bold). Furthermore, the reference list should use abbreviated journal titles consistently, which does not seem to have been followed throughout. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop