Next Article in Journal
Identification and Expression Analysis of C2H2-Type Zinc Finger Protein (C2H2-ZFP) Genes in Bougainvillea in Different Colored Bracts
Previous Article in Journal
Timing Matters, Not Just the Treatment: Phenological-Stage-Specific Effects of Seaweed and Ethanol Applications on Postharvest Quality of ‘Tarsus Beyazı’ Grapes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Non-Destructive Prediction of Rosmarinic Acid Content in Basil Plants Using a Portable Hyperspectral Imaging System and Ensemble Learning Algorithms
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessment of Melon Fruit Nutritional Composition Using VIS/NIR/SWIR Spectroscopy Coupled with Chemometrics

Horticulturae 2025, 11(6), 658; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11060658
by Dimitrios S. Kasampalis 1, Pavlos Tsouvaltzis 2,* and Anastasios S. Siomos 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Horticulturae 2025, 11(6), 658; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11060658
Submission received: 24 April 2025 / Revised: 20 May 2025 / Accepted: 4 June 2025 / Published: 10 June 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted by Kasampalis et al. reports a method for evaluating the nutritional components of sweet melon fruits using VIS/NIR/SWIR spectroscopy combined with chemometrics. However, from a methodological perspective, the innovation of the manuscript is insufficient. The following observations are proffered in relation to the manuscript under consideration.

1.The study endeavoured to utilise a combination of VIS/NIR/SWIR spectroscopic techniques in conjunction with chemometric methodologies for the non-destructive prediction of internal quality parameters in sweet melon fruits. The methods and techniques mentioned in the article have been applied and validated on various fruits, including, but not limited to, apples and tomatoes. The existence of precedents for their research has also been demonstrated. Consequently, the study yielded insufficient novel insights or substantial technological advancements.

2.Despite the author's selection of three distinct measurement points (namely, the fruit stalk, the equatorial region, and the flower tip), the experimental findings indicated that data from the equatorial region yielded comparatively high prediction accuracies.

3.Despite the utilisation of multiple regression models, such as PLSR, PCR, and MLR, for the analysis, the underlying reasons for the enhanced predictive capability of specific wavelength ranges (e.g., 680-720 nm, 900-1000 nm) in relation to various nutritional components remain insufficiently explored. In order to enhance the scientific value of the paper, further detailed exploration of the mechanisms is required.

4.Despite the evidence presented in various studies that VIS/NIR/SWIR spectroscopy technology possesses the capability to swiftly assess the quality of sweet melons, there remains a paucity of discourse concerning processing speed, cost-effectiveness, and its compatibility with prevailing agricultural practices.

In summary, should the author demonstrate an ability to address the aforementioned issues and enhance the novelty and practicality of the research to a significant degree, a revised version may be submitted for further review.

Author Response

Please see our attached point by point responses to the reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the feasibility of using visible/near-infrared/short-wave infrared (VIS/NIR/SWIR) spectroscopy coupled with chemometrics for non-destructive prediction of nutritional components in Galia-type melon fruit. The research topic is practical, and the experimental design is generally sound. However, the following issues should be addressed to improve the manuscript's rigor and clarity:

  1. Logical Flow and Data Rationality

The sample size (n=175) is reasonable, but the selection criteria (e.g., maturity, size uniformity) are not explicitly described, which may affect model generalizability. Please provide detailed sampling methodology.

The PLSR model performance (e.g., R=0.80 for SSC in Table 1) appears modest compared to cited studies (e.g., R²>0.90 in Sun et al., 2017, discussed in Section 4).     The manuscript should address potential limitations (e.g., rind thickness effects on spectral penetration) to contextualize these results.

  1. Methodology

The rationale for selecting three measurement locations (pedicel, equatorial, blossom end) lacks justification. While the equatorial zone showed superior performance, the underlying causes (e.g., tissue heterogeneity) remain unexplored.

The comparison of chemometric methods (PLSR, PCR, MLR) is superficial. Clarify why PLSR outperformed other methods (e.g., handling of collinearity in spectral data).

  1. Writing and Formatting

Some figures (e.g., Figure 5) require clearer captions, including error bars/confidence intervals.

Abbreviations (e.g., VIP, GA) should be defined at first use.

Author Response

Please see our attached point by point responses to the reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Since “There is evidence that capturing reflectance data at wave-lengths beyond 1700 nm- in the short-wave infrared region (SWIR)- also plays a crucial role in improving the accuracy of non-destructive quality assessments in horticultural products.” (lines 51-54), please provide further explanation of the reasons for its importance, based on the previously provided examples of its significance. However, the importance of "wavelengths beyond 1700 nm - in the short-wave infrared region " is not reflected in the abstract.

Comment 2: Were the melons frozen immediately after nondestructive measurements? What was the time interval between freezing and the analysis of their nutritional composition?

Comment 3: Lines 289-292: Please write out specific results from previous research.

Author Response

Please see our attached point by point responses to the reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept now.

Back to TopTop