Effect of Harvesting Stages and Calcium Chloride Application on Postharvest Quality of Tomato Fruits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript : Coatings-1410074

The authors made an interesting and very labor-intensive experiment to use calcium chloride to extend the shelf life of MT-3 tomato fruit. I have some detailed comments for the Authors:

Why were 1%, 1.5%, and 2% calcium chloride solutions used? After all, the authors cite studies on 6% (line 68) and 8% (line 376) solutions used for fruit.

Lines 110-111; You used the numbering C1, C2, C3 ..... while in the experimental design and statistical analysis (lines 242-243) you labeled the same groups as T1, T2, T3. Correct.

Line 112; What was the weight of the tomatoes in each group (C1, C2, C3) intended for immersion in a calcium chloride solution? Provide for one observation.

Line 117; What weight of tomato fruit is put in a 1.9-liter container?

Line 124; How were tomato fruits selected for testing? .. randomly, same weight, size? How many tomatoes are in each group?

Line 129;  How many kilograms of tomato fruit were stored in each group? Provide for one observation.

Lines 268-270 : You forgot to insert table 1

Lines 642-644; There is a suggestion in the discussion that: the tomato fruit should still retain acceptable marketing and eating qualities.  Did you evaluate the taste and smell of tomato fruit? Are there differences in taste and smell? After all, if there are tomato fruits intended for eating, it should be written about it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of coatings-1410074

The authors reported the effect of harvesting stages and calcium chloride application on postharvest quality of tomato fruit. In general, the report is comprehensive which contains some useful information. However, one general problem is lack of emphasis. The discussion also needs to be more in-depth, especially on the effects of calcium treatment.

If only one cultivar of tomato was studied, it would be better to use ‘tomato fruit’ rather than ‘tomato fruits’.

Materials and methods: some parameters in a same group like physicochemical properties should be grouped in a section to make the manuscript more coherent. Similarly, the results and discussion should be restructured. For instance, some Figures should be grouped to make it succinct. Which of the results should be highlighted? Readers can not tell it easily the key novelty of this report.

What was the possible different effects between calcium chloride and calcium lactate, which was previously reported (Ultrasonics-Sonochemistry, 60, 104784)?

Calcium is generally agreed to enhance the interaction with protein and other molecules (Food Chemistry, 277, 327-335; Food Hydrocolloids, 45, 72-82). In postharvest fruit system, whether the rule is similar or different? More discussion should be applied. And the mechanism for the effects of calcium chloride should be enhanced.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

GENERAL COMMENT TO EDITOR

 

This research was conducted to investigate the effect of different maturity stages and pre- and postharvest treatments with different concentrations (0.0%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2.0%, w/v) of calcium chloride on the postharvest performance, antioxidant, and enzymatic activity of lowland tomato fruits. In my opinion, although the experiments are well-described and efficiently applied to assess all these aspects, there was not scientific novelty of this research. Some results are not discussed and there is a frequent doubt if authors are presenting the results obtained in their developed work or those found in the literature (please, see some examples in Lines 301-303; 310-312; 343-345; 367-369; 442-443; among others). Table 1 is missing. Furthermore, there are a lot of linguistic errors throughout the manuscript that requires English edition. Other comments are stated below:

 

#Abstract:

Line 12: “Tomatoes are the most important source…”. >> they are a good source, not the most important

Line 24: please, define POD, POP and PAL

 

#Introduction

Line 32: Solanaceae should be in italic

Line 37: The functional foods of (?) tomato fruits >> Tomate fruits or Tomato-based functional foods

Line 41-43: Needs edition, please choose a verbal form.

Line 54-56: sentence needs edition

Uniformize the abbreviations (vit C or ascorbic acid or vitamin C), P=0.05 or p=0.05, calcium chloride or CaCl₂…

 

#Material and Methods

Line 122: should be 25-30 ºC instead of 25-30ºC…

Lines 148-149: “The absorbance reading at 148 663, 645, 505, 453 nm at UV-spectrophotometer was measured” -edit sentence

Line 159: “DPPH and TPC” should be defined for the first time

Lines 161-162 AND Lines 171-172 >> include space between them

Line 204-205: “reagent II. About 1 mL of 204 extract solution was mixed with 0.1 g fruit tissues was homogenized on an ice bar” >>> edit sentence.

 

#Results and Discussion

In the sections 277-279; 295-296; 325-327; 354-356; 358-360; results should be presented for better understanding and properly discussed.

In my opinion, all Figures should appear after the main text.

Lines 285-286: “The ethylene production of tomato fruits at the breaker and half-ripe stage were ob-285 served showed different results than the mature green stage” >> needs English edition

Lines 305-306. Please, explore these main findings.

Lines 411-426: The expression of the ascorbic acid and TPC should be in mg/100 g fw to be better compared to values found in literature.

Lines 580-581: what is the meaning of “… PAL activity was significant among the treatments”. Please, clarify.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for coatings-1410074-v1

Though the authors improved some parts, the novelty of the manuscript was clearly stated. As there was report on using calcium lactate for postharvest tomatoes (Ultrasonics-Sonochemistry, 60, 104784), the authors need to discuss the novelty of this current work. The response No. 5 (to reviewer 2) is not much effective. If just changing a salt from calcium lactate to calcium chloride without any further discussing the difference can not justify the novelty, or changing from one cultivar to another without significant changes in other aspects will not be considered sufficient novelty as well. Without justifying the novelty of the work, it is hardly to be regarded as a scientific paper.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The sugestions were accordingly adressed and the discussion section was improved. In my opinion, the manuscript could be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx