Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is advisable to double check the graphs, in particular: Fig. 2,3,5,6,7: value scales and data labels are missing;

The graph chosen for figure 2 is not easy to read;

132: lifespan or shelf life;

199: distance is an important element but previously it is never taken into consideration, why? are there data related to the case study?

The conclusions must be improved

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has to be significantly improved. It is not so well edited (specifically all the figures) and it misses of a well structured division of sections. Discussion are too much long and conclusions too much short.

More details are reported in pdf file in attachment.

Some general recommendations:

Introduction (to revise)

For example: which is the novelty of this study? There are some other similar studies carried out on this topic? if so, please, include into the introduction a short but exhaustive literature review about your research.

Material and method (to revise)

For example: Too much poor information about the questionnaire.

Results (to revise)

Specifically, the quality of figures.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors followed the suggestions. The paper is now ready to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx