Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the paper is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

Title:  the title of the work is too long, it should be shortened.

Abstract:  instead of the concluding sentence, the aim is written at the end of the abstract.

Material and methods: the methods as well as the design of the experiment are well described.

Statistical analysis: The statistical processing of the data is not done well. Only the interaction of the examined factors was performed, but not the individual factors' influence on the parameters of plum fruit quality.

Results: results are extensively commented on, and the same results as those found in the table are repeated in the text.

In addition, there are a large number of technical errors.

I gave all my suggestions in the attachment, in the pdf version of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for the useful comments and recommendations which enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. The changes introduced within the manuscript are highlighted in the manuscript in red.

 

Dear authors,

the paper is not acceptable for publication in its present form.

Comments 1: Title:  the title of the work is too long, it should be shortened.

Response 1: We revised the title according to your suggestions.

Comments 2: Abstract:  instead of the concluding sentence, the aim is written at the end of the abstract.

Response 2: The abstract section was modified.

Comments 3: Material and methods: the methods as well as the design of the experiment are well described.

Response 3: Many thanks. We modified and added new paragraphs based on the other comments and suggestions.

Comments 4: Statistical analysis: The statistical processing of the data is not done well. Only the interaction of the examined factors was performed, but not the individual factors' influence on the parameters of plum fruit quality.

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. The statistical analysis was revised.

Comments 5: Results: results are extensively commented on, and the same results as those found in the table are repeated in the text.

Response 5: The results section was revised.

In addition, there are a large number of technical errors.

I gave all my suggestions in the attachment, in the pdf version of the paper.

We have made all the corrections based on the specific suggestions from the pdf file.

 

Thank you again for your suggestions.

Kind regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments on the article:

1. The summary provides information about the analyzes performed on three plum varieties, but no conclusions from the tests performed.

2. The paper presents the characteristics of the research area, its location and climatic conditions. However, there is no description of the research material: how old were the plum trees, what type of fertilization was used in the conventional and organic orchard, there is no information on the protection of trees against pests in the organic and conventional orchard, whether and what chemical spraying was used in the conventional or organic orchard were e.g. pheromone traps used?

3. Another note concerns the cultivation method. The authors assume that the orchard was managed in an organic system, but was it certified and by which company? Has anyone confirmed this?

4. How does the information about the content of heavy metals in avocados and lemons in Zambia relate to the article about the quality of plums from different cultivation systems?

5. I do not agree with the authors' conclusion: "The variations in the elemental chemical composition and antioxidant capacity of plum selections were attributed to genetic variability, growing seasons, geographic origin, cultivars and other horticultural techniques."

Unfortunately, the influence of these factors, apart from varieties, has not been studied. So on what basis were these conclusions drawn?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the useful comments and recommendations which enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. The changes introduced within the manuscript are highlighted in the manuscript in red.

 

 

My comments on the article:

Comments 1. The summary provides information about the analyzes performed on three plum varieties, but no conclusions from the tests performed.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this.

Comments 2. The paper presents the characteristics of the research area, its location and climatic conditions. However, there is no description of the research material: how old were the plum trees, what type of fertilization was used in the conventional and organic orchard, there is no information on the protection of trees against pests in the organic and conventional orchard, whether and what chemical spraying was used in the conventional or organic orchard were e.g. pheromone traps used?

Response 2: A new section related to the field experiment, fertilization, pest and doses were introduced within the manuscript. Section 2.2, pag. 4.

 

Comments 3. Another note concerns the cultivation method. The authors assume that the orchard was managed in an organic system, but was it certified and by which company? Has anyone confirmed this?

Response 3: We can certify based on the fact that we use only organic and no chemical compounds.

 

Comments 4. How does the information about the content of heavy metals in avocados and lemons in Zambia relate to the article about the quality of plums from different cultivation systems?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. We tried only to compare and highlight the same management system. To avoid any confusion, the paragraph was deleted.

 

Comments 5. I do not agree with the authors' conclusion: "The variations in the elemental chemical composition and antioxidant capacity of plum selections were attributed to genetic variability, growing seasons, geographic origin, cultivars and other horticultural techniques."

Unfortunately, the influence of these factors, apart from varieties, has not been studied. So on what basis were these conclusions drawn?

Response 5: We deleted the paragraph.

 

 

Thank you again for your suggestions

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reports the physicochemical, phytochemical characteristics, antioxidant potential, and health risk evaluation related to heavy metals for three plum varieties cultivated in conventional and ecological systems. However, the manuscript's organization and presentation of the results must be improved. Some sentences throughout the whole manuscript must sound more scientific. The total number of references is too high for the original article.

Specific points:

§  The title of the manuscript should be retitled to be more understandable and reflect the manuscript content.

§  The Abstract should cover all structural parts common to the original research article, including the main findings, results, and conclusion.

§  Line 18: Abbreviations within the Abstract should be avoided or explained them

§  Line 19: What does „essential parameters “mean?

§  The Introduction should be reorganized to logically introduce the reader to the study aim(s). First, content related to plums' nutritional and sensory characteristics will be presented, followed by bioactive contents and antioxidant activities, and then safety aspects (heavy metals).

§  LInes 56-58: Add reference(s). Consider avoiding speculations on health effects that are not supported by scientific evidence. Additionally, bioactive compounds from plums could exert antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, and other protective effects.

§  LInes 83-86: This paragraph should be deleted

§  There is no information on cultivation and the possible effects of the cultivation system on plum quality and safety parameters. Also, the Introduction should address some of the similar previous studies and highlight the novelty of this manuscript.

§  LInes 89-90: This sentence belongs to the Conclusion, not the Introduction.

§  Within the Methodology, detailed explanations for common food analysis, like titratable acidity and total sugar content, are unnecessary. Instead of the literature data, add original references related to analytical methods, e.g., AOAC methods. The same suggestions apply to the Folin-Ciocalteu method, pH differential method, and determination of the flavonoid content.

§  Some parameters are expressed on dry weight, but no determination of moisture contents was mentioned.

§  The presentation of the Results should be in line with the order in the Methodology section.

§  There is no need to repeat the results presented in the Tables in the main text.

§  In addition to the Table, consider providing a graphical presentation of results, making differences between cultivation systems and among varieties more visible.

§  Tables 5, 8, and 9 should be simplified. There is no need to combine an asterisk symbol with p-values.

§  Why are all results not expressed on dry weight?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would have benefited from professional English editing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the useful comments and recommendations which enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. The changes introduced within the manuscript are highlighted in the manuscript in red.

 

The manuscript reports the physicochemical, phytochemical characteristics, antioxidant potential, and health risk evaluation related to heavy metals for three plum varieties cultivated in conventional and ecological systems. However, the manuscript's organization and presentation of the results must be improved. Some sentences throughout the whole manuscript must sound more scientific. The total number of references is too high for the original article.

Specific points:

Comments 1§  The title of the manuscript should be retitled to be more understandable and reflect the manuscript content.

Response 1 Thank you for your suggestion. The title was revised.

Comments 2§  The Abstract should cover all structural parts common to the original research article, including the main findings, results, and conclusion.

Response 2 The abstract section was revised and modified according to your suggestions.

Comments 3§  Line 18: Abbreviations within the Abstract should be avoided or explained them

Response 3 Thank you. No abbreviation in the abstract.

Comments 4§  Line 19: What does „essential parameters “mean?

Response 4 The introduction was revised.

Comments 5§  The Introduction should be reorganized to logically introduce the reader to the study aim(s). First, content related to plums' nutritional and sensory characteristics will be presented, followed by bioactive contents and antioxidant activities, and then safety aspects (heavy metals).

Response 5 The introduction sections was modified  based on your suggestions and new paragraphs were introduced in the begining.

Comments 6§  LInes 56-58: Add reference(s). Consider avoiding speculations on health effects that are not supported by scientific evidence. Additionally, bioactive compounds from plums could exert antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, and other protective effects.

Response 6 New references were added.

Comments 7§  LInes 83-86: This paragraph should be deleted

Response 7 The paragraph was deleted. The introduction was revised.

Comments 8§  There is no information on cultivation and the possible effects of the cultivation system on plum quality and safety parameters. Also, the Introduction should address some of the similar previous studies and highlight the novelty of this manuscript.

Response 8 A new section in the material and method about the cultivation system was introduced. New references similar to our study were introduced in the introduction.

Comments 9§  LInes 89-90: This sentence belongs to the Conclusion, not the Introduction.

Response 9 The sentence was added to the conclusion.

Comments 10§  Within the Methodology, detailed explanations for common food analysis, like titratable acidity and total sugar content, are unnecessary. Instead of the literature data, add original references related to analytical methods, e.g., AOAC methods. The same suggestions apply to the Folin-Ciocalteu method, pH differential method, and determination of the flavonoid content.

Response 10 The methodology section was simplified.

Comments 11§  Some parameters are expressed on dry weight, but no determination of moisture contents was mentioned.

Response 11 The moisture content was mentioned in section 2.4.1.2, pag. 5.

Comments 12§  The presentation of the Results should be in line with the order in the Methodology section.

Response 12 The methodology and results section was reorganized.

Comments 13§  There is no need to repeat the results presented in the Tables in the main text.

Response 13 The discussion section was revised.

Comments 14§  In addition to the Table, consider providing a graphical presentation of results, making differences between cultivation systems and among varieties more visible.

Response 14 New figures and graphical representation were provided.

Comments 15§  Tables 5, 8, and 9 should be simplified. There is no need to combine an asterisk symbol with p-values.

Response 15 The table were revised.

Comments 16§  Why are all results not expressed on dry weight?

Response 16 For some of the analyzes carried out, the results on dry weight are not suitable for this expression in dry weight.

 

 

Thank you again for your suggestions

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the feedback provided. I reviewed the manuscript again and think it is suitable for publication in its present form.