Estimation of the Shelf Life of Specialty Coffee in Different Types of Packaging Through Accelerated Testing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript titled "Estimation of the shelf life of specialty coffee in different types of packaging through accelerated testing" proposes alternatives to conventional packaging materials used for specialty coffee assessed through sensory based-analysis and accelerated testing.

The following are my suggestions/comments :

-The abbreviations in the abstract aren't self explanatory.For clarity, each abbreviation should be defined at its first occurrence in the text.

-While the focus of the manuscript is on testing different packaging materials, the introduction provides only a brief mention of currently used options (“The most prevalent packaging methods include paper bags and double-laminated aluminum foil bags. However, these materials do not guarantee an extended shelf life for the product under various presentations”). To strengthen the rationale for the study, the authors should elaborate on the limitations of existing packaging methods in more detail. In particular, what specific shortcomings of current solutions (e.g., permeability, barrier properties, sustainability, cost, or performance under different storage conditions) motivate the testing of alternative materials?

-The introduction refers to the use of “accelerated tests” in the evaluation of coffee storage stability. To improve clarity, I recommend briefly defining what is meant by “accelerated testing” in the context of coffee analysis, and outlining the principles underlying the chosen approach. This would help readers better understand the methodology and its applicability.

-In lines 52-54, the logical flow in the passage is unclear. The text suggests that employing diverse packaging types enables the assessment of preservation parameters, whereas in reality the identification of the most suitable packaging option occurs through the evaluation of these parameters. Please clarify the causal direction to avoid confusion.

-In line 115, the authors state that "The coffee samples were processed... ", I would suggest the authors be more specific to ensure the repeatability of the study.

-Can the authors provide pictures of the packaging material for better illustration of the experimental setup.

-The section title “2.2. The following is a sample of the conditioning and accelerated testing” reads more like a sentence than a proper heading. For clarity and consistency with academic writing conventions, the title should be rephrased into a concise noun phrase that accurately reflects the content of the section. Same comment applies to section 2.3.

-The authors should clarify how they obtained 45 units of packaging alternative (line 123).

-I would suggest changing "Roasting coffee beans" to Roasted coffee beans in tables 3 to 8 .

-The study evaluates coffee cup quality at elevated temperatures (40, 50, and 60 °C). While accelerated testing is a common approach to estimate shelf life, the rationale for choosing these specific temperatures is not discussed. Please clarify in the manuscript how these conditions relate to practical storage scenarios, and whether the results can be reasonably extrapolated to typical storage conditions.

-In line 237, the following is stated "Coffee is classified as a specialty coffee if its cup score value is less than 80 [30] or has reached a value of 79.99.". This appears to be a typographical error, as according to SCA standards, coffee is classified as specialty only if it scores 80 points or above. Please review and correct this statement for accuracy.

-In line 255, the temperatures indicated in the text are inconsistent with the actual temperatures in the table 8, please modify accordingly.

-Table footnotes not consistent with the packaging labels/abbreviations indicated in the actual table, please correct accordingly, the same applies to  figure 1. It would also be better if the coffee format (beans or ground coffee) is indicated with its corresponding packaging material.

-In line 322, the authors should correct the typo ("Funding: Please add: ")

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The abbreviations in the abstract aren't self explanatory.For clarity, each abbreviation should be defined at its first occurrence in the text.

Response 1: The authors agree with the reviewer's assessment. The clarification was made by including the full names and abbreviations of the packaging materials evaluated.

Comments 2: While the focus of the manuscript is on testing different packaging materials, the introduction provides only a brief mention of currently used options (“The most prevalent packaging methods include paper bags and double-laminated aluminum foil bags. However, these materials do not guarantee an extended shelf life for the product under various presentations”). To strengthen the rationale for the study, the authors should elaborate on the limitations of existing packaging methods in more detail. In particular, what specific shortcomings of current solutions (e.g., permeability, barrier properties, sustainability, cost, or performance under different storage conditions) motivate the testing of alternative materials?

Response 2: Information on the effects of different types of packaging was included with the respective citations.

Comments 3: -The introduction refers to the use of “accelerated tests” in the evaluation of coffee storage stability. To improve clarity, I recommend briefly defining what is meant by “accelerated testing” in the context of coffee analysis, and outlining the principles underlying the chosen approach. This would help readers better understand the methodology and its applicability.

Response 3: The relevant clarification was added in the same sentence that mentions the “accelerated test” thermal test.

Comments 4: -In lines 52-54, the logical flow in the passage is unclear. The text suggests that employing diverse packaging types enables the assessment of preservation parameters, whereas in reality the identification of the most suitable packaging option occurs through the evaluation of these parameters. Please clarify the causal direction to avoid confusion.

Response 4: The typing error was corrected. The most appropriate term is evaluation of various packaging types.

Comments 5: -In line 115, the authors state that "The coffee samples were processed... ", I would suggest the authors be more specific to ensure the repeatability of the study.

Response 5: The clarification was made and the respective citation was included.

Comments 6: -Can the authors provide pictures of the packaging material for better illustration of the experimental setup.

Response 6: Figure 1 was created using images of the packaging used.

Comments 7: -The section title “2.2. The following is a sample of the conditioning and accelerated testing” reads more like a sentence than a proper heading. For clarity and consistency with academic writing conventions, the title should be rephrased into a concise noun phrase that accurately reflects the content of the section. Same comment applies to section 2.3.

Response: The modification was made as suggested.

Comments 8: -The authors should clarify how they obtained 45 units of packaging alternative (line 123).

Response 8: The wording of the paragraph was modified for greater clarity.

Comments 9: -I would suggest changing "Roasting coffee beans" to Roasted coffee beans in tables 3 to 8 .

Response 9: The modification was made as suggested.

Comments 10: -The study evaluates coffee cup quality at elevated temperatures (40, 50, and 60 °C). While accelerated testing is a common approach to estimate shelf life, the rationale for choosing these specific temperatures is not discussed. Please clarify in the manuscript how these conditions relate to practical storage scenarios, and whether the results can be reasonably extrapolated to typical storage conditions.

Response 10: Although the temperatures seem high, it should be noted that they are used to obtain predictive models of service life. The range used has already been used in previous studies (Rosillo et al., 2023).

Comments 11: -In line 237, the following is stated "Coffee is classified as a specialty coffee if its cup score value is less than 80 [30] or has reached a value of 79.99.". This appears to be a typographical error, as according to SCA standards, coffee is classified as specialty only if it scores 80 points or above. Please review and correct this statement for accuracy.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing that out. Due to a typing error, it said “less than 80 points,” but according to SCA, the correct wording is “80 points or higher.”

Comments 12: -In line 255, the temperatures indicated in the text are inconsistent with the actual temperatures in the table 8, please modify accordingly.

Response 12: The correction was made as suggested.

Comments 13: -Table footnotes not consistent with the packaging labels/abbreviations indicated in the actual table, please correct accordingly, the same applies to  figure 1. It would also be better if the coffee format (beans or ground coffee) is indicated with its corresponding packaging material.

Response 13: The abbreviations were corrected to ensure that they match those observed by the reviewer.

Comments 14: -In line 322, the authors should correct the typo ("Funding: Please add: ")

Response 14: The error was corrected.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In general, the manuscript is good to read, although it requires some major corrections.

1. Please consider adding the phrase "coffee storage" to your keywords.
2. The structure of the text in the Introduction with spaces and blank lines makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to understand the content.
3. The Authors mention temperature and relative humidity twice in the Introduction: lines 46 and 47, and then 60 and 61.
4. Lines 102 and 103 in the Research Objective The authors should mention what packaging will be considered in the research.
5. Table 1. Why did the authors store different coffee samples in different packaging? It seems more appropriate to store each type of sample in the same packaging.
6. The paper lacks instrumental comparative analysis for the sensory panel. For example, a standard GC-MS approach would demonstrate how the compound profile changes. Please comment it.
7. The reader is confused about coffee storage time. The tables provide values for several days, but the vertical axis in Chart 1 shows a scale up to 600 days. The authors should clearly describe this in the methodology.
8. The authors conducted a series of tests at three temperatures: 40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C. However, the conclusions and graph indicate a temperature of 10 °C. Please comment it.

Author Response

Comments1: Please consider adding the phrase "coffee storage" to your keywords.

Response 1: The authors appreciate the suggestion. “Coffee storage” has been added to the keywords. 

Comments 2: The structure of the text in the Introduction with spaces and blank lines makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to understand the content

Response 2: The authors appreciate the suggestion. The blank lines in the introduction section have been removed to make it easier to read.

Comments 3: The Authors mention temperature and relative humidity twice in the Introduction: lines 46 and 47, and then 60 and 61.

Response 3: Redundancy has been eliminated and the text has been modified appropriately to improve readability.

Comments 4: Lines 102 and 103 in the Research Objective The authors should mention what packaging will be considered in the research.

Response 4: We included the suggested information in the objective paragraph of the introduction.

Comments 5: Table 1. Why did the authors store different coffee samples in different packaging? It seems more appropriate to store each type of sample in the same packaging.

Response 5: We understand the reviewer's assessment; however, we must point out that the association between coffee sample type and packaging type used is due to the different nature (different requirements) of the coffee sample and the uses of industrial applications. 

Comments 6: The paper lacks instrumental comparative analysis for the sensory panel. For example, a standard GC-MS approach would demonstrate how the compound profile changes. Please comment it.

Response 6: On this occasion, instrumental analysis was not considered for comparison purposes. We understand that its inclusion could increase the criteria for comparing packaging alternatives; however, the use of a panel of certified tasters (SCA) is the most common practice in the industry.

Comments 7: The reader is confused about coffee storage time. The tables provide values for several days, but the vertical axis in Chart 1 shows a scale up to 600 days. The authors should clearly describe this in the methodology.

Response 7: Figure 2 (formerly Figure 1) shows the shelf life of coffee subjected to the treatments using the predictive models obtained. For this reason, shelf lives of up to 600 days are achieved when the models are applied. A sentence specifying the strategy used was included in the methodology section.

Comments 8: The authors conducted a series of tests at three temperatures: 40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C. However, the conclusions and graph indicate a temperature of 10 °C. Please comment it.

Response 8: Temperatures of 40, 50, and 60 °C were used to obtain accelerated degradation models; then, using the models, predictions were sought for normal storage temperatures (e.g., 10 °C).

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the Authors for the corrections they made. I have no further comments.