Review Reports
by
- Can Hu 1,
- Jie Li 1 and
- Zhenhao Du 1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Manoj Mahawar Reviewer 2: Miguel A. Aguilar-González
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find the attached pdf for comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
What was the reason for using that method of sugar determination.
In lines 17, 18 and 22 place the points correctly.
How porous media were used and how these media were presented (granular filter films or werevwrh). O refers to the porosity of the fruit.
In line 61 homogenize the reference.
In line 98, change the phrase: , as shown in Figure 1 to the phrase in the digital photographs of Figure 1.
In the text it is very important to mention why a mathematical model based on red dates was used as a reference.
At the foot of table 1 write the source of the authors of the reference 30.
Write how the rate of loss of drying was determined, in the different methods.
Place the legends of the letters a b c and d inside the graphs.
The sentence on lines 250 to 253 is confusing, please clarify or change.
Please write that a calibration of the equipment was carried out, mainly scales, thermometers and sensors.
Write what the mathematical expression of line 307 represents (to make it more understandable for those who are not related to this area of research.
Clarify what is the systematic error of the equipment when carrying out the measurements, mainly in the determination of sugar and/or humidity.
Explain why films are not used for the protection of the fruits.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments appropriately. The MS can be Accepted.