Pre- and Postharvest Determinants, Technological Innovations and By-Product Valorization in Berry Crops: A Comprehensive and Critical Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery good review paper also including a PRISMA chart so it is a systematic review? If yes please include systematic in the title.
I would like the section of postharvest technology to be enriched with a table and include other non thermal processes and technologies such as ultrasounds, irradiation and others. Please detect parameters in all these processes i.e. T, pressure, time and decrease in logs for microorganisms. Please also state if organoleptic characteristics are affected.
Author Response
C1 - Very good review paper also including a PRISMA chart so it is a systematic review? If yes please include systematic in the title.
Response (R)1 - We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment and for raising an important methodological clarification.
Although the manuscript includes a PRISMA-style flow diagram to transparently document the literature identification and screening process, the study was not designed as a full systematic review. Instead, it represents a comprehensive and critical narrative review that integrates heterogeneous evidence across postharvest physiology, preservation technologies, microbiology, genetics, and circular-economy valorization in berry crops. The breadth and multidisciplinary nature of the topic, together with the diversity of experimental designs and outcomes, precluded the application of strict systematic-review criteria such as formal risk-of-bias assessment or meta-analysis. The PRISMA framework was therefore adapted to enhance transparency and reproducibility in literature selection, in line with current recommendations for high-quality narrative and scoping reviews addressing complex research domains.
To avoid methodological ambiguity and to better reflect the true scope and intent of the manuscript, the title has been revised accordingly. The new title now reads:
“Pre- and Postharvest Determinants, Technological Innovations, and By-Product Valorization in Berry Crops: A Comprehensive and Critical Review.”
In addition, the methodological approach has been explicitly clarified in the Materials and Methods section, stating that PRISMA guidelines were applied in an adapted manner to support transparent reporting within a narrative synthesis framework (Lines 139-152).
C2 - I would like the section of postharvest technology to be enriched with a table and include other non thermal processes and technologies such as ultrasounds, irradiation and others. Please detect parameters in all these processes i.e. T, pressure, time and decrease in logs for microorganisms. Please also state if organoleptic characteristics are affected.
R2 - We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion, which has substantially improved the depth and clarity of the postharvest technology section.
In response, a comprehensive comparative table has been developed and included as Supplementary Material (Table S2) to systematically summarize non-thermal postharvest technologies applied to berries; accordingly, Section 5 has been revised to include an explicit introductory sentence directing readers to Supplementary Table S2 and highlighting its scope and content (Lines 574-577).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript reports the research progress on postharvest physiology, preservation technology and high value-added utilization of by-products of berries from 2010 to 2025. The topic has clear practical significance and academic value. However, the logic of some parts of the content is confusing. Although the structure is quite comprehensive, some parts are too general. The specific review content still needs to be analyzed in more detail. The specific points are as follows:
Abstract: It is necessary to add a future outlook of the review content and supplement the significance of the manuscript research.
Introduction: This part is divided into too many paragraphs. It is suggested that some parts be combined into one paragraph for analysis and description. For example, lines 77-82 can be added to the content of lines 42-53, and lines 69-76 can be merged. It is recommended to further improve the content of the Introduction, as some parts have confusing logic.
Berry Physiology, Microbiology, and Postharvest Determinants: It is suggested to list and analyze the content of different berry species. In addition, the content of Figure 2 is too simple, and it is recommended to further improve it.
Postharvest Technologies and Pretreatments: Summarize the review on endogenous technology processing and conduct a list analysis of different berry species.
Valorization of Berry By-Products and Circular Economy Approaches: It is necessary to add the retention technology of high value components of postharvest processing by-products. In addition, this part has little relevance to the review topic and can also be considered for deletion.
Conclusions: There is a lack of further outlook and analysis of the significance of the review. Additionally, the integrated pre- and post-extraction technologies or composite treatment techniques have not been studied. It is suggested to include such relevant content.
Author Response
C1 - This manuscript reports the research progress on postharvest physiology, preservation technology and high value-added utilization of by-products of berries from 2010 to 2025. The topic has clear practical significance and academic value.
Response (R)1 - We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the topic’s practical relevance and academic value, as well as for the constructive critique regarding logical flow, depth of analysis, and content specificity.
C2 - Abstract: It is necessary to add a future outlook of the review content and supplement the significance of the manuscript research.
R2 - We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, the Abstract has been revised to explicitly include a forward-looking perspective and to more clearly articulate the scientific and practical significance of the review. A concise future outlook has been added.
C3 - Introduction: This part is divided into too many paragraphs. It is suggested that some parts be combined into one paragraph for analysis and description. For example, lines 77-82 can be added to the content of lines 42-53, and lines 69-76 can be merged. It is recommended to further improve the content of the Introduction, as some parts have confusing logic.
R3 - We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation regarding the structure and logical flow of the Introduction. In response, the Introduction section has been carefully revised and streamlined to improve coherence, readability, and analytical clarity.
C4 - Berry Physiology, Microbiology, and Postharvest Determinants: It is suggested to list and analyze the content of different berry species. In addition, the content of Figure 2 is too simple, and it is recommended to further improve it.
R4 - We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment, which helped improve the clarity and analytical depth of Section 3 (Berry Physiology, Microbiology, and Postharvest Determinants).
In response, Section 3 has been revised to explicitly incorporate a species-oriented perspective (3.7 subsection), highlighting differences among major berry species in terms of intrinsic physiological traits, microbial susceptibility, and postharvest behavior. To support this comparative analysis, a new summary table has been developed and included as Supplementary Material (Table S1). This table consolidates species-specific information on key physiological characteristics, dominant spoilage microorganisms, typical postharvest sensitivity, and principal storage limitations.
In addition, Figure 2 has been substantially revised. The updated figure now presents a conceptual framework illustrating the interactions between intrinsic physiological traits, biochemical composition, microbial ecology, and postharvest deterioration pathways in berry fruits.
C5 – Postharvest Technologies and Pretreatments: Summarize the review on endogenous technology processing and conduct a list analysis of different berry species.
R5 - We thank the reviewer for this comment. This point has already been addressed in response to Reviewer 1, who raised a related issue. A comparative summary of postharvest technologies across different berry species is provided in Supplementary Table S2, which compiles key processing parameters, microbial reductions, and quality effects and is referenced in the revised postharvest technology section. We therefore consider this comment to be adequately addressed.
C6 – Valorization of Berry By-Products and Circular Economy Approaches: It is necessary to add the retention technology of high value components of postharvest processing by-products. In addition, this part has little relevance to the review topic and can also be considered for deletion.
R6 - We respectfully consider that the valorization of berry by-products is highly relevant to the scope of the present review, as it represents a direct extension of postharvest systems aimed at reducing losses, improving resource efficiency, and enhancing sustainability along the berry value chain. Postharvest deterioration does not end at fresh fruit spoilage; instead, significant quantities of berries enter processing streams, where the retention and stabilization of high-value bioactive compounds become critical determinants of overall postharvest efficiency.
We note that aspects related to the preservation and recovery of bioactive compounds from berry by-products were already discussed in the original manuscript, particularly in the context of green extraction, biorefinery approaches, and circular-economy integration. However, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, this section has been revised to more explicitly emphasize retention and stabilization technologies, thereby strengthening its technological focus and clearer alignment with postharvest processing (Lines 887-898).
C7 - Conclusions: There is a lack of further outlook and analysis of the significance of the review. Additionally, the integrated pre- and post-extraction technologies or composite treatment techniques have not been studied. It is suggested to include such relevant content.
R7 - We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In response, the Conclusions section has been revised to strengthen the forward-looking perspective and to more explicitly articulate the scientific and practical significance of this review.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsREVIEWER REPORT
Abstract
In the Abstract, the authors emphasize that, regardless of sensory quality and high content of bioactive ingredients, berries are prone to rapid deterioration after harvest. Therefore, they emphasize the importance of considering the impact of both conventional and modern non-thermal technologies on the quality of berries after harvest (content of phenolic compounds and microbiological status), with special emphasis on the variety and other pre-harvest factors. Also, the authors consider the use of by-products or individual parts of berry fruits for different purposes, taking into account the possibilities of a complex approach to the use of this fruit. Authors stated that the results of research on these topics in the last 15 years were presented.
Keywords
- Introduction
The authors indicate the most important types of berries, as well as those that are used less often, but note that they are highly perishable, and therefore annual losses that can be up to 25% can be overcome by using integrated technological and biological preservation strategies. The most important producing countries in the EU, the produced quantities and the value of trade are given, as well as a presentation of their growth in the last 10 years. Also, the importance of berries in the diet and their health value, as well as extrinsic and intrinsic factors that influence the quality reduction and their deterioration after harvesting, are mentioned. To preserve the quality of berries after harvest, the use of different new physical and biological treatments (non-thermal technologies, edible coatings, and microorganisms that suppress the development of mold) has been examined and proposed in recent years. The application of digital technologies, omics approach (both in cultivar development and in the cold chain) is also considered. The authors, however, point out the shortcomings of the application of some of these innovative postharvest strategies. As the authors say, this review seeks to identify the main technological and biological determinants of berry shelf life and to outline future research pathways that may bridge laboratory innovation with commercial feasibility.
We believe that the Introduction is sufficiently informative and indicates the main topics regarding the preservation of the post-harvest quality of berries.
In the Introduction section, authors should correct the following:
Lines 42-52: Latin names of species, genera and hybrids should be written in italics.
Line 46: Why do the authors use the word „emerging“, given that these are not new and unknown species, although they are used significantly less than those previously mentioned? Does it mean that they have only recently become interesting for international trade?
Line 57: „... Botrytis cinerea and Rhizopus stolonifer...“ should be written in italics.
Lines 124: „... Botrytis and Rhizopus...“ should be written in italics.
- Materials and Methods
The authors presented the criteria they used in order to select 300 relevant references published in the previous 15 years, which are of importance for the review of the topics given in the title of the paper. It remains unclear, however, whether that number is really 300, given that after subtracting 4 references that indicate the methodology used [84–87], the number of references is 299, and the Material and methods emphasize that this number is 300.
- Berry Physiology, Microbiology, and Postharvest Determinants
In this section, the physiological and microbiological changes that occur in berries after harvest are discussed; the impact of mechanical damage on the previously mentioned changes, as well as on the biochemical changes that occur, were also considered. The authors emphasize that only with an integrative approach, with a prior good understanding of the aforementioned changes, can technological procedures be successfully applied with the aim of preserving the quality of berries from harvest, through cold storage, to retail.
As the authors have already announced in the previous sections, only works published between 2010 and 2025 were used, and therefore some older works were omitted, which very nicely show the basis of the changes that this section deals with. We believe that it is sufficient for readers who are deep in the field to understand the text well without citing such older papers.
In this section, authors should correct the following:
Line 251: „...conversion of carbohydrates...“ Are carbohydrates considered the only substrate for respiration in berries, or are acids and other compounds present in the fruit also considered substrates?
Line 289: „...Botrytis cinerea...“ should be replaced by „...Botrytis cinerea...“
- Preharvest Factors and Cultural Improvements Influencing Postharvest Quality
In this section, the authors appropriately discussed modern approaches in the study of key preharvest factors (nutrient supply, irrigation strategy, canopy structure, pest and disease pressure, and the use of biostimulant) determine the physiological status of berries at harvest and therefore their firmness, antioxidant capacity, and microbial resilience. It is underlined that these factors determine the physiological state of fruits at harvest—a determinant that no postharvest technology can fully compensate for if neglected.
In this section, authors should correct the following:
Lines 459-461: Microorganisms (species) latin names should be written in italics.
Lines 485-486: Microorganisms (species) latin names should be written in italics.
- Postharvest Technologies and Pretreatments
In addition to low temperatures, which are the basic prerequisite for preserving the quality of fresh berries after harvest, in this part of the manuscript the authors describe new techniques that enable improves shelf-life extension, microbial safety, and nutritional retention in fresh berries. As the authors say, a combination of certain techniques can constitute a cohesive multi-barrier preservation system in which multiple mild preservation technologies act synergistically to suppress microbial spoilage, delay senescence, and maintain nutritional quality.
Also, in this section, authors should correct the following:
Line 555: „owever...“ should be replaced by „However....“.
Line 723: „...Penicillium expansum...“ should be replaced by „Penicillium expansum...“
Line 789: „...represFormiga#1844ent complementary...“ What does it mean? Please, check it.
Lines 755-792: The title mentions Pulsed Electric Field Processing, but in the following text there is not a single sentence describing this fruit preservation technique. I ask the authors to write something about Pulsed Electric Field Processing within this subsection.
- Valorization of Berry By-Products and Circular Economy Approaches
The authors provide a comprehensive and interesting overview of the importance and ways of using by-products that arise during different methods of processing berries.
- Conclusions
The conclusion is clearly and concisely written. All the problems faced by the production and processing of berries in recent years are underlined, as well as those factors that are important for the further development of the berry industry.
General remarks
Given the appropriate scientific value and impact this paper can have for all parties involved in production, storage and processing of berries, as well as considering rising demands of consumers and society, I suggest publishing of the Review after minor revisions.
Author Response
C1 - This manuscript reports the research progress on postharvest physiology, preservation
R1 - We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the manuscript. The Introduction has been revised accordingly, and all Latin names of species, genera, and hybrids— including Botrytis cinerea and Rhizopus stolonifer—have been corrected and written in italics in accordance with scientific conventions.
C2 – Line 46: Why do the authors use the word „emerging“, given that these are not new and unknown species, although they are used significantly less than those previously mentioned? Does it mean that they have only recently become interesting for international trad
R2 - We thank the reviewer for this clarification request. In this context, the term “emerging” was originally used to describe berry species that are not newly discovered but that have recently gained increased commercial relevance and research interest, particularly in international markets, functional foods, and niche value chains. To avoid ambiguity, the wording in the manuscript has been revised accordingly, emphasizing their growing economic and technological importance rather than novelty.
C3 - The authors presented the criteria they used in order to select 300 relevant references published in the previous 15 years. It remains unclear, however, whether that number is really 300, given that after subtracting 4 references that indicate the methodology used [84–87], the number of references is 299.
R3 - We thank the reviewer for this careful observation. The Materials and Methods section has been revised to clarify the reference count, specifying that approximately 300 publications were initially identified, including references related to methodology, and that the final number reflects minor adjustments during manuscript preparation (Lines 176-179).
C4 – Berry Physiology, Microbiology, and Postharvest Determinants
R4 - We thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation.
C5 - In this section, authors should correct the following: Line 251: „...conversion of carbohydrates...“ Are carbohydrates considered the only substrate for respiration in berries, or are acids and other compounds present in the fruit also considered substrates?
Line 289: „...Botrytis cinerea...“ should be replaced by „...Botrytis cinerea...“
R5 - We thank the reviewer for these observations. Regarding Line 251, the text has been revised to clarify that, in addition to carbohydrates, organic acids and other metabolic compounds also contribute as respiratory substrates in berries (Lines 232-235). Regarding Line 289, the scientific name Botrytis cinerea has been corrected and written in italics in accordance with nomenclature conventions.
C6 - Preharvest Factors and Cultural Improvements Influencing Postharvest Quality. In this section, authors should correct the following: Lines 459-461: Microorganisms (species) latin names should be written in italics; Lines 485-486: Microorganisms (species) latin names should be written in italics.
R6 - We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of this section. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, and all Latin names of microorganisms (species) all text have been revised and corrected and written in italics, in accordance with scientific nomenclature conventions.
C7 - Postharvest Technologies and Pretreatments.
R7 - We thank the reviewer for carefully identifying these issues.
Regarding Line 789, the term “represFormiga…complementary” resulted from a typographical error, which has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Regarding Lines 755–792, we acknowledge that although Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) processing was mentioned in the subsection title, it was not explicitly described in the corresponding text. In response, the subsection has been revised to include a concise description of PEF technology, its mechanism of action, and its relevance for berry preservation (Lines 799-809).
C8 - Valorization of Berry By-Products and Circular Economy Approaches
R8 - We thank the reviewer for this positive evaluation and for recognizing the relevance and comprehensiveness of the section on berry by-product valorization and circular-economy approaches.
C9 – Conclusions
R9 - We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment of the Conclusions and for acknowledging the clarity and relevance of the analysis presented.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsauthors have revised sufficiently and paper can be accepted. Please correct Fig. 1 it says full texto
and Fig. 5 valorization of berry byproducts
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carefully addressed the reviewers' comments and provided point-by-point responses to the suggestions. In my view, the manuscript now meets the journal's standards and is recommended for acceptance.
