Chitosan and GRAS Substances: An Alternative for the Control of Neofusicoccum parvum In Vitro, Elicitor and Maintenance of the Postharvest Quality of Avocado Fruits
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research aimed to evaluate the antifungal effect of chitosan and GRAS substances treatments on in vitro growth of N. parvum, as well as their effect as an inducer of enzymatic activity that activates defence mechanisms in avocado fruit and maintains the quality until consumption.
The title is well crafted.
The Introduction part provides a sufficient knowledge base in the field and includes all references mentioned in the bibliography, which is of recent date.
The research experiments are detailed, and the methods used are adequately described.
The manuscript is correctly drafted and presents the correct methods and methodology for this type of study. The results were performed from triplicate and are presented graphically after statistical analysis.
The conclusions support the obtained results.
The references are current, suggestive, and inserted in the manuscript.
Minor revision:
L 97. Replace the title of subchapter 2.3.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Letter of presentation of changes
The changes suggested by the reviewers are summarized below:
- The changes suggested by Reviewer 1 were made and were marked with yellow in the document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorspls. take note of the comments and suggestions. Be consistent with all the data presented or else it will affect the validity of the results that were gathered.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
minor editing of English is needed.
Author Response
Letter of presentation of changes
The changes suggested by the reviewers are summarized below:
- Suggestions by Reviewer 2 were marked in teal. Comments A1-A3, the suggested changes were made, it was cited appropriately, and the wording was modified, so the order of the literature changed. Comment A4-A6, the symptoms of damage to the fruit were indicated. Comments A7, the sentence was modified to indicate what was done with the samples. Comment A9-A11, the suggested modifications were made. Comment A13, N. parvum filled the box completely after 3 days and began to change color, from white to black. Comment A15, the paragraph was properly cited. Comment A17-A19, the heading was changed and new sections were made. Comment A21, information suggested by the reviewer was included. Comment A23, the first column was changed to numbers. Comment A25-A27, the legend of Table 1 was modified to indicate that an ANOVA was performed and the level of significance. Comment A29, the figure indicates the effects of only 8 treatments on mycelial growth, the other 4 remaining are not shown, but the inhibition value is shown in table 2. Comment A31, the same change was made as in comment A17-A19. A33-A37, the methodology included the criterion that only 6 treatments were included in the in vivo part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript by Herrera-González studied chitosan and GARS substances on the direct antifungal and induced resistance of avocado fruit to inhibit postharvest decay and maintain fruit quality. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions. Please see my comments to improve the manuscript.
Line 26, I recommend the authors provide some details of the best group, such as concentration and formulation.
Line 45, please provide the commercial fungicides in the industry.
Line 89, how was the volume of vinegar?
Line 93-94, was the percentage v/v or m/v?
Line 123, each fruit was sprayed/immersed by how much volume of the treatment solutions?
Figure 1D, please provide the scales.
Line 272+310+328+353, please provide the analysis method of standard errors in the method section.
-The induced resistance measurement needs to control the same pathogen population. How did the authors control the pathogen population in the fruit consistent with each group?
Author Response
Letter of presentation of changes
The changes suggested by the reviewers are summarized below:
- Suggestions by Reviewer 3 were marked in turquoise. In line 26, the wording of the sentence was modified, in line 45 the name of the fungicides was added, in line 89, the percentage of vinegar added, in line 93-94 m/v was indicated, in line 123 mL were added, in Figure 1D the number of the objective used in the microscope was indicated and in line 272+310+328+353 the methodology to determine the standard error was indicated.
- The manuscript was reviewed by an English language expert.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
