You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Chandni Upadhyaya1,
  • Hiren Patel1,2,* and
  • Ishita Patel3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Chang Shu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research paper ‘Development and Evaluation of a Bioactive Halophilic Bacterial Exopolysaccharide-Based Coating Material to Extend Shelf Life and Mitigate Citrus Canker Disease in Citrus limon L. needs major revision to improve its quality and readability. Many modifications are recommended for the paper before it can be reconsidered for publication in the Coatings journal.

Please check the comments below:

 

  1. In the abstract, the information of the isolated origin is given, but not mention on material and methods.

 

  1. ‘The isolation of halophiles was previously carried out using various samples of sea-water, lake water, and soil from India.’ Was it described in another paper? If yes, add citation.

 

  1. Zobell or Zobel? Make it uniform along the manuscript.

 

  1. Section 2.1. Please indicate what is ‘OD’.

 

  1. How much is room temperature (RT)? Be more clearer.

 

  1. 5 section. ‘ 70 mL of distilled water was vortexed for 10 minutes’ Why vortex only water? Not clear text.

 

  1. 6 section. Add location of the ‘local farm’, for example (state, country).

 

  1. Section 2.7 is currently titled ‘Effects of EPS coating on shelf life and quality of lemon fruits’. However, this section includes three different treatments—EPS, paraffin, and uncoated. Please revise the title to more accurately reflect the methodology and treatments described in the manuscript.

 

  1. Shelf life assessment was made by visual and texture analysis. Was the sensory panel trained? How many sensory analysts were used? Analysis was done in a standard environment? How was the browning, sogginess and mold presence evaluated (sensory scale)?

 

  1. In section 2.7.3 the temperatures adopted in the experiments were 30 and 4°C. However, in section 2.6 it is mentioned 28 and 4°C. Please make it uniform.

 

  1. A total of 500 fruits was used for each treatment? If yes, please add this info in the methodology section.

 

  1. When describing how the statistical analysis was done, please make a new section, for example 2.9.

 

  1. Was the water holding capacity measured for the EPS material or for the final edible coating (EC) formulation? If it was done for EPS alone, it might be more relevant to assess the water holding capacity of the EC, since this is the formulation that was actually applied to the fruit. Additionally, EPS was used in combination with other materials rather than on its own.

 

  1. Figure 6c is not clear and text inside the graphic can not be read.

 

  1. Figure 6e. Is it necessary to add logo in the graphic?

 

  1. Figure 7 identification is not uniform, for example there is a mixed information with capital and lower letters. Suggestion: use letters and numbers

 

  1. Figure 8. Please use a consistent scale on the y-axis across all graphs to facilitate comparison of changes over time. Additionally, include the storage temperature directly on the graph to avoid the need to refer to the figure caption for this information.

 

  1. Figure 9. Why mentioning * for p<0.05, ** for p<0.01, *** for p<0.001], if only ** was used.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Upadhyaya et al. developed and evaluated a bioactive halophilic bacterial exopolysaccharide-based coating and applied it to extend the shelf life of citrus fruit. In my opinion, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, it should undergo major revisions before publication. Please see my comments to improve the manuscript.
-In the introduction, as the exopolysaccharide investigated here was produced by halophilic microorganisms, a more comprehensive elaboration of halophiles is warranted, covering their typical growth conditions and the molecular or physiological adaptations they employ to cope with osmotic stress, ionic toxicity, and other extremes. 
-Part 2.3, it would be helpful to introduce brief subheadings within the EPS recovery and purification procedure, so that each stage is presented more intuitively. For instance, the workflow could be structured into the following stages: EPS biosynthesis, crude-EPS recovery, column chromatography refinement, and yield calculation. 
-Part 2.8, the title of 2.8 is unnecessarily wordy and could be condensed. Additionally, please move the “Statistical analysis” content to a new Section 2.9.
-Figure 1, Gram-positive or negative could be labeled in the figure, and a more comprehensive description of the content illustrated in Figure 1 is recommended for its caption. Also, there is an inconsistency in the scale labels on the right y-axis of (a) and (b).
-Part 3.1, since the values of OD600 and dry cell mass differ significantly among the various strains according to Figure 1, please clarify the relationship between cell density and EPS production in the first paragraph of this section.
-Figure 2(c), the symbol key for “pH 10” does not match the actual column shown in the figure.
-Figure 3(a), the X axis lacks the label "isolate", in line with the previous figures, and there is a mismatch between the isolate and the inhibition-zone photographs in Figure 3(b). 
-Figure 5(a), lack of legend.
-Part 3.4.3, the figure that corresponds to this section is Figure 6(e), not 6(d); Figure 6(d) pertains to the rheological analysis and should be cited in the context 3.4.4.
-Part 3.4.4, when determining the rheological behavior, you mentioned "EPS samples at concentrations of 0.05%, 1.0%, and 2.0% (W/V)" in part 2.4.3, and the concentration described in part 3.4.4 was "0.25, 0.5, and 1 g/L", and the label in figure 6(d) was "0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50% EPS". Please ensure consistent values, units, and formats for all concentrations throughout the manuscript.
-Figure 7, there is a case inconsistency (uppercase/lowercase) between the text labels in the caption and those in Figure 7.
-Part 3.5.3.2, please elaborate on how variations in phenolic compound levels correlate with fruit-quality attributes. Also in the sentence “it increased up to 30 days”, please specify whether "it" refers to the "decline in phenolic content" or the "phenolic content", since the phenolic content of UC did not increase at 30 days as shown in the figure, and you mentioned the increased phenolic content of some other fruits at the end of this paragraph. The phrasing here is somewhat confusing.
-Part 3.5.4, "citrus cancer disease" in the title, please correct the spelling mistakes.
-Figure 11, wrong spelling of "incidence", and please label the different images with distinct letters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have made the corrections as proposed by the reviewer. However, some additional changes are required:

  1. Introduction: ‘Citrus limon‘ should be italic since it is the specific name. Check along the text for all specific names.
  2. Equations should be numbered and along the text, reference to the equation number is recommended for better readability.
  3. How do the authors distinguish whether the observed reduction in post-harvest losses is primarily due to the physical barrier properties of the EPS coating (e.g., reduced moisture loss, gas exchange) versus its specific antimicrobial activity? Could these effects be quantitatively separated to better clarify the mechanism of action?

  4. Which is the correct form: Himedia or HiMedia? Both are used in 2.3.2 and 2. sections.

     

  5. Figure 4. Is it necessary to add the sequencing DATA? Please indicate other articles that have done the same or follow standard results analysis.

     

  6. Figure 4. SLS Research Pvt. Ltd. Can be removed from this figure. If necessary, it should be added in the M&M section.

     

  7. Figure 5. Why have authors chosen a blue color behind graphic (b)? Please remove it.

     

  8. In section 2.4.1. HPTLC is mentioned with no information about the brand or model. Give more details.

     

  9. Figure 6. Remove grey background. Remove logo. Make graphic d without horizontal lines (see how was done for graphic in b).  

     

  10. Values are presented sometimes as 26.6 ± 1.14 days, why not use it as 27 ± 1 days? Or other cases, 73.4 ± 2.43%, why not 73.4 ± 2.4%?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript, I'm satisfied with the revisions.

Author Response

The authors would like to gracefully acknowledge the comment of acceptance.