Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To determine the effects of dehydration on the kinetics of hot air drying of fruits under condition that was similar to the industrial food technology. In this paper, the drying characteristics of fruits under different temperatures and wind speeds were investigated. The comments for the improvement of this paper are as follows:

1.The title needs to be more specific. "some fruits" is not clear.   Also, can the conclusions of this study be used for other fruits? Please clarify and discuss.

2.Please further conclude current studies related to the topic of this paper in the world, and clearly show your contributions to current technologies.

3.Suggestion for Results: 3.1 is the result for apple, and 3.2 is the result for apricot. I do think the technical indicators need to be used for the results, not the types of fruits.

4.Sample photos and testing photos need to be added.

5.How to optimize the drying process according to your experimental results in this paper? Please improve.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,   The authors of the manuscript are thankful to the referees for their work on this manuscript, as well as kind comments and proposals. We have modified the manuscript and Supplementary Information according to the remarks of the referees and believe that the overall quality of this paper was improved as a result. In the following, we address point-by-point the questions raised and suggestions made by the referees.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Optimization is the term when used better to use other experimental designs like Response surface methodology. So, suggest revising the title without the optimizations

The Abstract must revise, and the conclusions must add at the end of the conclusions

Keywords are must revise, remove the keyword “footechnology”

Add other keywords also

In the introduction, remove the table as many tables and images are there in the document, must remove it.

Line 31, “th” should be superscript

Line 49 to 61 is too general, and must revise with the proper advanced information

I am sure there are many studies present on drying, given the literature

What is the gap?

Oven driving has many disadvantages, how can select this?

Give the objective of your study at the end of the introduction

How varieties are selected? What are the effect of varieties and operating factors that should write in the introduction?

Better to remove table 2

Section 2.2 Should be concise.

The equipment used in drying is fabricated by you or supplied? Mention about this

In 2.3.1, why no pretreatment is used, as you know that PPO is the problem in the apples (line 170)

Table 4, mention in a footnote what V represents and the numerical represents

Section 2.3.3 should be concise, the manuscript is much more lengthy

The materials and methods should end with the Data analysis section

In the results section there are many images, hence request you decrease the number.

Section, 3.1.1. should be a color change?

Lien 331 uses “to” or “-“  between the numbers

What are V1, V2, and V3 in different figures? Or graphs?

Figure 4, what is DR in the Y- axis?

You cannot club the all verities in one graph?

There is a serious issue in the presentation of the figures. There are 23 figure, which is too much for a manuscript

The statistical issues should be used and data should be analyzed and should present the results accordingly.

The discussion should be the comparison between the varieties and the processing conditions

Should revise all the results presentations

If possible, present results and discussion together

In the results section discussion is present

In conclusion, out of all the studied varieties which variety is best?

 

How considered T = 60°C and v = 1.5m/s are best? 

Number of references also much better limit the number

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The authors of the manuscript are thankful for your work on this manuscript, as well as kind comments and proposals. We have modified the manuscript and Supplementary Information according to the remarks and believe that the overall quality of this paper was improved as a result. In the following, we address point-by-point the questions raised and suggestions made by you.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has been improved according to the comments. The comments for the improvement of the manuscript are as follows: 
1.It is recommended to add a photo of the equipment at test.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the manuscript are grateful  for your work on the  manuscript entitled ”Research on the process of convective drying of apples and apricots using a original drying installation”, as well as for your kind comments and suggestions. We have modified the manuscript and supplementary information in accordance with your comments and believe that the overall quality of this paper has been improved as a result.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. All the images and tables should be self-explanatory. It means all the abbreviations used in the images and tables should explain in the footnote. 

2. Figure 8, add the "slices" after heading  

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
The authors of the manuscript are grateful  for your work on the  manuscript entitled ”Research on the process of convective drying of apples and apricots using a original drying installation”, as well as for your kind comments and suggestions. We have modified the manuscript and supplementary information in accordance with your comments and believe that the overall quality of this paper has been improved as a result.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf