Next Article in Journal
Effects of Water Removal from Palm Oil Reactant by Electrolysis on the Fuel Properties of Biodiesel
Next Article in Special Issue
Reassessment of Thin-Layer Drying Models for Foods: A Critical Short Communication
Previous Article in Journal
Flow Physics of Profile Control Fluids in Porous Media and Implications for Enhanced Oil Recovery: A Microfluidic Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Study and Mathematical Modeling of Convective Thin-Layer Drying of Apple Slices
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Short- and Medium-Wave Infrared Drying of Cantaloupe (Cucumis melon L.) Slices: Drying Kinetics and Process Parameter Optimization

Processes 2022, 10(1), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10010114
by Antai Chang 1,2, Xia Zheng 1,2,*, Hongwei Xiao 3, Xuedong Yao 1,2, Decheng Liu 1,2, Xiangyu Li 1,2 and Yican Li 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Processes 2022, 10(1), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10010114
Submission received: 26 November 2021 / Revised: 26 December 2021 / Accepted: 31 December 2021 / Published: 6 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Drying Kinetics and Quality Control in Food Processing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major comments:

  1. Line 134: Why did you use second-order polynomial, not first or third-order?
  2. How do you calculate eqs. 2 and 3 from eq 1?
  3. This paper presents the experimental results; however, this is not at all clear that what is the use of this study? What is the overall merit? I am not convinced that if we know this result, so what? What would be the benefit of doing this study? If these points are included in the conclusion or the introduction part, it would make more sense. 

Minor comments:

  1. Lines128 and 129: comma between 55 and 60...
  2. Line 150: t1 and t2 are drying times I guess where t2>t1 should be clear
  3. Table 4: X1X4 = Y1, p-value ** check it
  4. Figures 4-7: The plot shaded color (deep grey) should change, as the red point is not clear.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Here are some important points have to be clarified or fixed:

  1. Abstract : The author should also point out that this work focuses on drying kinetics prior to optimization.
  2. Line 54: "Thicker agricultural material": It's not clear what the author referring to when use this terminology.
  3. The objectives should be organised in a sequence, beginning with drying kinetics and follow with the optimization.
  4. Use abbreviation SMIR for short-and medium-wave infrared radiation in the text ( eg. Line 94, 207, 353, 466, 472).
  5. The method should be organised in accordance with the flow of the study. Provide the method for drying kinetics before optimization.
  6. Line 127: “select three factors that have a ….” :  need to be rewrite
  7. Line 128 & 129: Just bracket the level range of each factor.
  8. Line 227: “drying time required of cantaloupe samples from the initial moisture content to 0.14 227 kg/kg (dry basis) was 390, 300 and 240 min” : Is this drying technique reduces the drying time compared to other methods reported for cantaloupe?
  9. Line 113 & 246: Repetition on equilibrium moisture content 0.14 kg/kg (dry basis)”: How the equilibrium MC was obtained?
  10. Line 192 : Rewrite.
  11. Line 361: “Δ? value, namely the quantity of color changes between dried and fresh samples” : There is no need to write this sentence because this parameter should be known as the difference between the two samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version looks good. 

Back to TopTop