The Effects of a Gum Arabic-Based Edible Coating on Guava Fruit Characteristics during Storage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleagues,

This work reported a gum arabic-based coating method combined with different plant extracts to prolong the shelf life of guava fruits during storage. Several parameters have been characterized and analyzed. A separated part of the discussion should be praised. However, several expressions in this manuscript have to be improved before publication. Thank you.

Abstract

Line 34-36, please rewrite this sentence to be more clear. What are ‘the most studied parameters’? and ‘exhibited the highest values for keeping the firmness’ is confusing…

Introduction

Generally, this part is quite complex and confusing. The authors have to improve the framework of the introduction to be more logical and easy to understand. For example, maybe i) the advantages of coating on fruits using GA and what’s the recent drawbacks; ii) three extracts have to be presented in individual graphs and their recent applications combined GA on fruits and guava; iii) what’s the objective and innovative points in this study?

Some other questions in these parts

Line 42-49, lack of previous references, for example, the authors said the stability of guava could be influenced by several factors, however without the citation of reference in this sentence. Besides, in Line 47, ‘these packaging materials’ presents for what, maybe ‘paper and plastic materials? If so, paper materials can be recycled.

Line 49, please replace a more suitable reference.

Line 65, although numerous studies reported the advantages of coating on fruits, however, the authors should give a summary of the previous works on the coating applications on the guava?

Line 115-116, I did not get the information about previous works regarding these natural extracts combined GA on Guava? Are no any similar reports? If so, please add to your introduction to highlight your work.

Results

Part 3.1 please add the ANOVA results in your whole discussion, for example ‘the higher fruit percent’ is significant for not?

Part 3.2, 3.3 the firmness and the pectin contents of fruits treated by GA 10% and GA 10% + MOR10% and would be significantly higher than other treatments. Are there any possible reasons in previous works to explain these results?

Part 3.7 PCA is not a tool to analyze correlations of studied parameters. It just reveals the major contributors of your samples variations. Thus, if the authors want to describe the correlations, they have to perform linear or non-linear analysis. Otherwise, please change the word ‘correlation analysis’.

Figure 7 please add the percentages of each component in this figure and the discrimination plot.

Author Response

Reviewer 1#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

 General comment:  This work reported a gum arabic-based coating method combined with different plant extracts to prolong the shelf life of guava fruits during storage. Several parameters have been characterized and analyzed. A separated part of the discussion should be praised. However, several expressions in this manuscript have to be improved before publication. Thank you.

 Response: Thank you so much for your comments and your efforts, for reviewing our MS. We take all your comments and suggestions in our consideration, and it helps us to improve all MS parts.

Abstract

Comment: Line 34-36, please rewrite this sentence to be more clear. What are ‘the most studied parameters’? and ‘exhibited the highest values for keeping the firmness’ is confusing…

 Response: thank you for your suggestion, we are modify it, please refer lines 34 to 37.

Introduction

Comment: Generally, this part is quite complex and confusing. The authors have to improve the framework of the introduction to be more logical and easy to understand. For example, maybe i) the advantages of coating on fruits using GA and what’s the recent drawbacks; ii) three extracts have to be presented in individual graphs and their recent applications combined GA on fruits and guava; iii) what’s the objective and innovative points in this study?

 Response: Thank you for your comments, we rewritten this part and it became more clearly .

Some other questions in these parts

Comment: Line 42-49, lack of previous references, for example, the authors said the stability of guava could be influenced by several factors, however without the citation of reference in this sentence. Besides, in Line 47, ‘these packaging materials’ presents for what, maybe ‘paper and plastic materials? If so, paper materials can be recycled.

Response: thank you for your comments, we added some newer references references about these respects, and we mean here is that traditional materials may cause damage to consumers' unlike the edible coatings

Comment: Line 49, please replace a more suitable reference.

 Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we replaced this reference

Line 65, although numerous studies reported the advantages of coating on fruits, however, the authors should give a summary of the previous works on the coating applications on the guava?

 Response: thank you for your suggestion, we added some sentences about this respects, please refer to lines 53 to 57 in the modified version of MS.

Comment:Line 115-116, I did not get the information about previous works regarding these natural extracts combined GA on Guava? Are no any similar reports? If so, please add to your introduction to highlight your work.

 Response: thank you for your  nots and suggestions, we  explained this point in the end of introduction section, please refer to lines 101 to 104 in the modified version of MS.

Results

Comment: Part 3.1 please add the ANOVA results in your whole discussion, for example ‘the higher fruit percent’ is significant for not? I think or not no for not

Response: thanks for this suggestion, we did it.  

Comment: Part 3.2, 3.3 the firmness and the pectin contents of fruits treated by GA 10% and GA 10% + MOR10% and would be significantly higher than other treatments. Are there any possible reasons in previous works to explain these results?

 Response:  Thank you, we have explained them in discussion part 4. Please refer lines 352 to 359

Comment:Part 3.7 PCA is not a tool to analyze correlations of studied parameters. It just reveals the major contributors of your samples variations. Thus, if the authors want to describe the correlations, they have to perform linear or non-linear analysis. Otherwise, please change the word ‘correlation analyses.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article "The effects of a gum Arabic-based edible coating on guava fruit characteristics during storage" is well written and contains interesting results. The article title and abstract are appropriate. However, there are some remarks that should be added to enhance the quality of the paper.

- Please go through the manuscript for grammatical mistakes.

- The structure of introduction is not good. some dramatic errors are seen.

-Some of references in "Introduction" and "Materials & Methods" are very old. They should be updated by checking the recent papers (For example following papers).

Anjum, M. A., Akram, H., Zaidi, M., & Ali, S. (2020). Effect of gum arabic and Aloe vera gel based edible coatings in combination with plant extracts on postharvest quality and storability of ‘Gola’guava fruits. Scientia Horticulturae, 271, 109506.

Salehi, F. (2020). Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using natural gums: A review. International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(sup2), S570-S589.

Tahir, H. E., Zhihua, L., Mahunu, G. K., Xiaobo, Z., Arslan, M., Xiaowei, H., ... & Mariod, A. A. (2020). Effect of gum arabic edible coating incorporated with African baobab pulp extract on postharvest quality of cold stored blueberries. Food science and biotechnology, 29(2), 217-226.

Gurjar, P. S., Killadi, B., Lenka, J., & Shukla, D. K. (2018). Effect of gum arabic coatings on physico-chemical and sensory qualities of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Shweta. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7, 3769-3775.

- Please add few lines on how your work is filling up the research gap and its novelty in Introduction section.

- The aim of the paper should be clearly mentioned in the end of Introduction.

- Conclusion- It should be more crisp and should discuss the important findings.

- References should be corrected according to guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Reviewer 2#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comment: The article "The effects of a gum Arabic-based edible coating on guava fruit characteristics during storage" is well written and contains interesting results. The article title and abstract are appropriate. However, there are some remarks that should be added to enhance the quality of the paper.

Response: Thank you so much for your comments and we are appreciate your efforts, for reviewing our MS. We take all your comments and suggestions in our consideration, and it helps us to improve all MS parts

Comment:  Please go through the manuscript for grammatical mistakes.

Response: thank you for your notes, we were checked and corrected them.

Comment: The structure of introduction is not good. some dramatic errors are seen.

Response: thanks for your comment, we were rewritten this part and it became more logical and clearly.

Comment: Some of references in "Introduction" and "Materials & Methods" are very old. They should be updated by checking the recent papers (For example following papers).

Anjum, M. A., Akram, H., Zaidi, M., & Ali, S. (2020). Effect of gum arabic and Aloe vera gel based edible coatings in combination with plant extracts on postharvest quality and storability of ‘Gola’guava fruits. Scientia Horticulturae, 271, 109506.

Salehi, F. (2020). Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using natural gums: A review. International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(sup2), S570-S589.

Tahir, H. E., Zhihua, L., Mahunu, G. K., Xiaobo, Z., Arslan, M., Xiaowei, H., & Mariod, A. A. (2020). Effect of gum arabic edible coating incorporated with African baobab pulp extract on postharvest quality of cold stored blueberries. Food science and biotechnology, 29(2), 217-226.

Gurjar, P. S., Killadi, B., Lenka, J., & Shukla, D. K. (2018). Effect of gum arabic coatings on physico-chemical and sensory qualities of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Shweta. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7, 3769-3775.

Response: thank you for your suggestion, we added these newer references in our MS  and we replaced the older references by them

Comment - Please add few lines on how your work is filling up the research gap and its novelty in Introduction section.

Response: we explained this point in the end of introduction section, please refer to lines 101 to 104 in the modified version of MS.

Comment: The aim of the paper should be clearly mentioned in the end of Introduction.

Response: Thanks for your comment, we explained and declared it.

Comment: Conclusion- It should be more crisp and should discuss the important findings.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we did

Comment: References should be corrected according to guidelines for authors

Response: thank you, we did.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article shows interesting results and it is very extensive. It is a good research.

Author Response

Reviewer 3#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment: The article shows interesting results and it is very extensive. It is a good research

Response: Thank you very much for your comments and encourage for us,  and we are appreciate your efforts, for reviewing our MS.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have gone through the paper and found that the paper is well-written. All the experiments have been carefully conducted and the results well-explained. I have no hesitation in accepting the manuscript in its present form. I wish the best of luck to the authors and congratulate them to come up with such an interesting study.

Author Response

Reviewer 4#

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment: I have gone through the paper and found that the paper is well-written. All the experiments have been carefully conducted and the results well-explained. I have no hesitation in accepting the manuscript in its present form. I wish the best of luck to the authors and congratulate them to come up with such an interesting study.

 Response: Thank you very much for your comments and encouragement for us, and we appreciate your efforts, in reviewing our MS.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 41 please delete the word ‘keeping' or 'maintaining'.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising the manuscript satisfactorily. It can be now accepted.