Review Reports - Prediction of Quality Attributes of the Ruaner Pear Using Dielectric Properties During Post-Ripening Variable Temperature Frozen Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the interrelationship between quality attributes and dielectric properties of Ruaner pear during post-ripening variable-temperature frozen storage, a topic that has not been previously addressed in the literature, The study is original and relevant. The manuscript is well-structured, clearly written, and supported with appropriate experimental design, statistical analyses, and visual data presentation. however, it requires several modifications, which are listed below and should be addressed prior to further consideration for publication:

Lines 2–4: The title is overly long, contains vague wording. I recommend revising the title to highlight the predictive role of dielectric properties, for example: “Prediction of Quality Attributes of Ruaner Pear Using Dielectric Properties During Post-Ripening Variable-Temperature Frozen Storage”.

Lines 15–28: The abstract is generally clear but remains mainly descriptive, lacking emphasis on the study’s novelty and practical relevance. It should more explicitly highlight the innovation of using dielectric properties as a non-destructive tool for predicting quality attributes, and the main findings should be presented more concisely. I recommend that the authors revise the abstract to stress the novelty, practical application, and key outcomes,. In addition, it would be highly beneficial to provide a clearer description of the materials and methods and to include numerical data from the results to strengthen the abstract.

Lines 31-42. The information on the Ruaner pear is too descriptive. My recommendation to the authors is to reduce the general descriptive content and instead emphasize why the Ruaner pear requires objective methods of quality assessment during post-ripening and frozen storage.

Lines 43–51: My recommendation is strengthen the argument by explicitly connecting the problem of inconsistent quality with the potential of dielectric methods to provide objective, non-destructive evaluation.

Lines 51–53: the citation in line 51 referring to reference [4] should be carefully revised, since in the text it appears as Li Guopeng et al. [4], while in the reference list it is cited only as Li. Please review and ensure consistency, and uniformize the citation style throughout the text according to Agriculture (MDPI) guidelines.

Lines 54–64: The review of dielectric studies on apples, kiwifruit, and sea buckthorn is too broad and does not sufficiently emphasize the novelty of the present work on Ruaner pear. I recommend narrowing the discussion.

Lines 65–71 The knowledge gap is mentioned but expressed vaguely and does not explicitly identify what is missing in current research.

Lines 72–79: The objective is listed descriptively, resembling methodology rather than clear research aims. Please reformulate the objectives into concise, hypothesis-driven statements (e.g., “to establish predictive models of Ruaner pear quality attributes based on dielectric properties”).

Lines 81-90. Important details such as maturity index, size ranges, and homogeneity criteria should be included in the description of the fruit material. These omissions limit reproducibility. We invite the authors to improve the description of the raw material. Please provide explicit selection criteria (e.g., average weight, diameter, maturity index), and clarify how many fruits were initially harvested and how randomization was ensured.

Lines 91-111 The description of storage by farmers versus cooperative storage is informative, but overly narrative and lacks precise experimental parameters (e.g., number of freeze-thaw cycles, temperature/humidity ranges during storage). We therefore invite the authors to replace the narrative explanations with a more standardized methodology, including exact conditions (temperature, duration, humidity) and controlled parameters to ensure reproducibility.

Line 118 is missing a period after al.[12] It should be al.[12].

Line 128 is missing a period after Cao et al.[13]

Line 141. Please provide a more detailed description of section 2.4.4. Determination of Stone Cell Content.

Lines 141–166 (Dielectric Properties Measurement)

Lines 144-166: Please include complete instrument information (brand, model, city, country), specify calibration procedures in detail, and describe how many replicates were performed per sample and how data variability was handled.

Lines 169–193. Please clarify the statistical procedures, including criteria for principal component selection, significance thresholds (e.g., p < 0.05), and the specific functions/packages used in SPSS, MATLAB, and Origin. This ensures transparency and reproducibility.

Lines 194–239 The text is highly descriptive, reporting numerical values and percentages without emphasizing statistical significance or physiological explanations. It mainly repeats the information already shown in Figures 2 and 3. The authors are encouraged to reduce descriptive reporting and instead highlight overall trends with appropriate statistical context. The suggested adjustments should be made, as they would significantly improve the scientific quality of the study.

Lines 240 –254 : In this section, the authors should provide a clearer explanation of how variable temperatures accelerate or slow down ripening and support this with relevant literature on pears or similar fruits.. These adjustments are suggested to be carried out, as they would be beneficial to strengthen the study.

Lines 255– 264 The authors are advised to improve the discussion on how freeze-thaw cycles influence lignin deposition, cell wall structure, and stone cell distribution, as well as their effect on the texture perceived by the consumer. A comparison with previous studies on pears or other fruits is recommended.

Figures 2-5 should change “d” to “days”. In addition, the figures should include superscript letters to indicate whether there are significant differences or not. Likewise, Figure 3 of TT should include error bars.

Lines 265–307: The section is overly descriptive and lacks deeper analysis. The authors should reduce repetition, explain peel color changes through physiological mechanisms, support farmer vs. cooperative comparisons with quantitative data and references. Implementing these adjustments would be beneficial for the study.

Lines 308–326: In this section 3.3, the description of pulp color changes is mostly repetitive and does not sufficiently interpret the biochemical processes involved. The authors should explain the changes in L*, a*, b*, and ΔE values in terms of ripening and freeze–thaw effects on pigments and tissue structure. Implementing these adjustments would improve the clarity and scientific impact of the study.

Lines 329–360: In this section 3.4 the text is highly descriptive. The authors should provide stronger comparisons with previous dielectric studies on fruits. Implementing these adjustments would enhance the scientific depth and relevance of the discussion.

Lines 361-386: In this section, the authors should explain more clearly what the susceptance (B), conductance (G), and quality factor (Q) reveal about the properties of fruit tissue, and compare them with the results of previous dielectric studies.

The conclusion needs to be substantially improved, as it currently repeats results instead of synthesizing them. We recommend that the authors highlight the main findings in direct relation to the general objective of the study, It is also strongly advised to emphasize the practical applications of these findings

Authors are advised to check and review the Author Contributions section in accordance with the author guidelines for Agriculture.

In general, it would be extremely interesting and beneficial for the authors to increase the number of updated citations in the results section, especially those used for scientific explanations and comparisons with other studies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is generally good; however, a professional language editing service is recommended to ensure clarity and compliance with international publication standards.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Quality Attributes and Dielectric Properties of Ruaner Pear During Post-Ripening Variable-Temperature Frozen Storage and Their Relationship’’. (Ref: agriculture-3900829). Those comments are very valuable for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and made the necessary revision as required, which are marked in red in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is entitled: Quality Attributes and Dielectric Properties of Ruaner Pear During Post-Ripening Variable-Temperature Frozen Storage and Their Relationship. The study revealed that the quality of Ruaner pears gradually improved during post-ripening variable-temperature frozen storage. Dielectric parameters increased over time, and predictive models based on principal component analysis were developed to evaluate fruit quality. The strength of the study is that the results are described in detail. The applied statistical method is appropriate. Upon acceptance, the manuscript could be relevant to the field.

The weakness of the manuscript lies in the relatively modest introduction, which contains few references (only 10 in total). I recommend expanding this section, especially with references on food chemistry and physical changes, taking into account the specific ripening conditions of Ruaner pear.

Please check the use of significant figures in the manuscript and ensure consistency in the number of decimal places. I recommend using two decimal places throughout, where relevant (except in Tables 3 and 4 for the “Evaluation model”).

Line 32: “Pyres” – please check the spelling of the letter “e”; it should be Pyrus ussuriensis.

Line 82, Materials: The manuscript mentions pears from two different cultivation conditions (“farmer” and “cooperative”), but the Materials section does not explicitly state this. Please revise the section to clearly indicate that the pears originated from two different sources.

Line 124: “yellow-blue” expression – I recommend consistent use. If in the case of the a* value the negative-to-positive range is described (e.g., – to +), then for the b* value the negative range color should also be listed first, followed by the positive range color.

The Methods section does not provide information on color measurement and ΔE calculation; please add this to the section.

Tables 1 and 2: please check the position of parentheses in the first row.

Figures 9 and 10: I recommend improving the visibility to some extent.

The manuscript is well-structured.

The results are credible and acceptable.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the authors for the considerable effort they made to address all my previous comments and suggestions. After carefully reviewing their detailed responses and the revised version of the manuscript, I am pleased to confirm that the authors have satisfactorily incorporated the requested improvements.

From my perspective, the manuscript has been substantially strengthened, and I have no further comments at this stage.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English level is good, only minimal grammar adjustments are needed.

Author Response

Based the comments which were from reviewer 1, that was "From my perspective, the manuscript has been substantially strengthened, and I have no further comments at this stage.", we do not change the manuscript at this round, thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I accept the answers, I have no further questions except for a little minor correction. Formula 1 is understandable without the use of braktes since the difference is indicated by delta, the brakets can be omitted.

Thank you.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf