Effects of Variety and Pulsed Electric Field on the Quality of Fresh-Cut Apples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript appears interesting and the experimental plan is well-organized. I reported some comments.

Introduction

Lines 43-51. The content of this part appears a repetition of the previously part (lines 38-42). I suggest to change and report examples on vegetable treatment.

Material and Methods – Raw material

It is not clear the selection of fruits. What is “differences less than 5%..”. What are the differences evaluated? Authors should briefly explain.

Result and discussion

Lines 158-159. The statement is not completely correct or clear. Cattle’s weight loss is statistically the highest since 1^st day of storage and that of Ralls became as higher as Cattle’s one since 4^th day.

Lines 184-185. Without a statistical analyses among the different storage times is difficult to underline for all cultivar a decreasing trend during the last observation. I suggest to modify the phrase.

Equation (9) and table 2. Authors should check the coefficient of X6 of the equation, it does not fit with Eigenvalue of table 2.

Lines 256. The phrase “At the end of storage (after the 6th day), the PPO activity of the E2 groups reached the lowest value…” would underlined that at 8^th and 10^th day E2 showed the lowest PPO activity respect other treatments? Authors should specify that the lower value refers at the same storage time, even if at 8^th day E1 and E2 were not significantly different.

Lines 267-272. Could authors give an explanation of the E2’s trend of POD activity. It is very strange. It rose at the initial time (at 8^th it is as Control) while at 10^th day it is the lowest respect other treatments.

Line 281. Is the word “eliminated” correct?

Lines 284-286. E3 and E2 show not statistically differences for MDA at initial, 4^th and 10^th day of storage. The phrase should slightly change.

Lines 291-294. Without a statistical evaluation among different storage time, the statement is not proved. From Figure 3d it is not possible appreciate if the variability of the samples brought to an overlapping of the different treatment/time measures. Authors should check this aspect.

Lines 296-298. The TP of all PEF treatments are statistically not different since the 2^nd day of storage. The phrase should slightly change.

References

Check references 10 and 25 one of authors is Dalla Rosa, M. not Rosa D. M.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper:

Effects of variety and pulsed electric field on the quality of fresh-cut apples

by Li et al., Agriculture

General comments:

In this study, it was investigated how pulsed electronic field (PEF) treatment affects the quality of of five apple varieties suitable for fresh cut. Changes in appearance and nutritional properties were evaluated on the basis of the following analyses: weight loss, firmness, color, titratable acid (TA), polyphenoloxidase (PPO) activity, peroxidase (POD) activity. In addition, microbiological analysis was conducted. My response is major revision.

Specific comment:

On a microbiological point of view microbiological analyses are lacking. First of all, it is not specified which type of microorganisms are being investigated, so which media was used? More details need to be given. Furthermore, I feel it strange to believe that analyses were conducted using sterile distilled water, as this solution causes cell lysis, I suggest reviewing the method applied. In addition, I cannot understand, what solidifies after dilutions and I was curious if these wooden sticks were sterile, why do you choose these wooden sticks to spread?

In order to make the research more comprehensive, I believe that a sensory analysis of the product which considers consumer feedback is essential.

Figures with statistical analysis should be clearly formatted; letters should not overlap.

Discussions, mainly concerning microbiological results, are poorly commented on.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the presented manuscript entitled “Effects of variety and pulsed electric field on the quality of fresh-cut apples” should be improved before it can be considered for publication in the Journal. The desired improvements should allow the presentation of a more detailed description of experimental procedures and a deeper analysis/conclusions from experimental results. I present my comments and suggestions in detail in the attached file. The remarks for the Materials and methods section can be considered minor, however, a little more insightful conclusions from experiments are desired in my opinion.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved according to all reviewers suggestions and now I feel is ready for publication.

Author Response

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express once again our sincere gratitude for your constructive comments on our articles.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript has been improved sufficiently to be considered for publication. I would like to present three suggestions:

1.      Should lines 121-124 be written in italics? The concentration of NaOH solution (line 123) should be written with ”mol L^-1” where “-1” should be superscript.

2.      Please remove double statements, like in lines 138 and 138.

3.      Line 424 – I still cannot understand the meaning of “storage quality of fresh-cut apples”. If there is a possibility to explain it in the text I would appreciate it.

Author Response

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express once again our sincere gratitude for your constructive comments on our articles.

Point 1:  Should lines 121-124 be written in italics? The concentration of NaOH solution (line 123) should be written with ”mol L^-1” where “-1” should be superscript.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your valuable advice. And we have made the modification.

Point 2:  Please remove double statements, like in lines 138 and 138.

Response 2: We feel sorry for our carelessness. It has been modified in the manuscript.

Point 3: Line 424 – I still cannot understand the meaning of “storage quality of fresh-cut apples”. If there is a possibility to explain it in the text I would appreciate it.

Response 3: Thank you for your recommendation. We have rewritten it.