ARIMAX Modelling: Response of Hass Avocado Respiration Rate to Environmental Factors
, Artemio Pérez-López 1,*, Martha Elva Ramírez-Guzmán 2, Teodoro Espinosa-Solares 1 and Irán Alia-Tejacal 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explored the impact of temperature, relative humidity, and ambient illumination on the respiration rate of Hass avocado fruits using ARIMAX modeling. Demonstrated the reliability of ARIMAX models in explaining the physiological response of fruits to external factors, aiding in postharvest operations. The topic of the manuscript provides interesting insights for journal readers. However, the manuscript requires improvement in the following aspects:
1- Abstract section should be with adequate presentation, considering the explanation of the hypothesis and objectives. And highlighted the description of the main findings and potential application for the proposed purpose. Please revised this section.
2-Introduction: relevant presentation on the topic and the importance of the proposed study. Considering I recommend:
2.1 line 43: the “&” should not appear in the main text.
2.2 line 52: There should be punctuation at the end of the sentence.
3-Materials and Methods section
3.1 Harvest time of avocado Hass fruits should be added in this section.
3.2 What do the symbols (“𝑦𝑡” “𝑦𝑡−1”) of Equation 3 represent? Please explained in the manuscript.
4. There should be two empty cases before the beginning of the sentence, such as line 195, 203, 233, 227, 233, 243, 254, 263 281 et al. Please checked the entire manuscript and corrected them.
5. The research did not consider the potential interactions between different external factors, could it the respiration rate differently when combined?
6. The ARIMAX modeling approach used in the study may have inherent assumptions and simplifications that could affect the accuracy of the model predictions in real-world scenarios.
7. The study did not explore the long-term effects of environmental factors on fruit respiration, which could be crucial for understanding the overall shelf life and quality maintenance of avocados, why chose 12 hours for acclimatization before measurements were taken?
8. The research did not address the practical implementation challenges that may arise when applying the findings to commercial fruit storage and transportation practices. I think the authors could added the related discussion in the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of English Language need further improvment.
Author Response
The authors kindly submit the attached document containing the indicated corrections to the manuscript, along with explanations where necessary. These changes are reflected in the manuscript_revised. Thank you very much, and we remain attentive to your recommendations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper dealing with a statistical modelling of the dependence of avocado respiration (and the rate of deterioration of the fruit) on external factors is very clearly written. I could not find any major fault with the presentation. The paper was a pleasure to read. I do, however, have a few requests for minor changes that I believe would improve the manuscript's clarity.
1. In Eq 1, the second line has a string of terms involving a sum of products of beta parameters and x_t values. The equation does not differentiate the x_t between the terms (that is, there is no additional index on x_t to suggest a coupling to the individual beta values. From a mathematical point of view this means that all p terms could be lumped into a single (beta) X (x_t) term. If there is an error in notation please amend, otherwise some further explanation is required as to why the individual terms need to be displayed and used.
2. There is a typographical error in Eq 3, where the second term on the right hand side of the equality sign has y with a misplaced subscript. It should read y_{t-1}.
3. In line 215 the variable d and value (=1) appears. This variable has not been defined as far as I can see. It is clearly related to Eq 3, but the connection remains obscure. A similar occurrence, but in the opposite direction ("integration") appears in line 228.
4. The vertical axis in Figure 4 refers to Respiration rate (same as in Fig 2). However, this is no longer actually respiration rate. In taking differences between successive values of respiration rate, where time differences are constant, one is effectively evaluating the time derivative of respiration rate. In mathematical terms what is effectively shown is d/dt (RR) \Delta t. This means that while the dimensions/units may be correct the quantity displayed is not respiration rate. I wont suggest an alternative name, I will leave that to the authors, but it isn't respiration rate.
Author Response
The authors kindly submit the attached document containing the indicated corrections to the manuscript, along with explanations where necessary. These changes are reflected in the manuscript_revised. Thank you very much, and we remain attentive to your recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is relatively well written,ARIMAX was used to simulate the respiration rate of Hass avocado (Hass avocado) in response to environmental factors (temperature, relative humidity, and ambient light) and to be able to reliably explain the physiological responses of Hass avocado fruit due to external factors.However, to enhance the clarity and depth of these findings, it is important to address the following considerations and suggestions:
1. In line 332, 0.48%, 1.40%, and 2.12% are the proportional increases in temperature, ambient light, and relative humidity, respectively? Why is the percentage of increase different?
2. In line 213,what might be the cause of the variability of the data around the mean?
3. In line 312，why are there no multivariate effects (gains) for the input variables found by the ARIMAX (1, 1, 3) model in Table 7?
Author Response
The authors kindly submit the attached document containing the indicated corrections to the manuscript, along with explanations where necessary. These changes are reflected in the manuscript_revised. Thank you very much, and we remain attentive to your recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has completed the modifications as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done
