Research Progress on Post-Harvest Preservation Technology of Capsicum L.: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The importance of Capsicum L. should be more described in the Introduction (globally production, market importance, economic balance...). 
• The section 2 (Nutritional & chemical composition) must be improved by elucidating the main physicochemical properties as well as the functional compounds. Adding a table summarizing this will be appreciable. 
• Mapping the main cultivars and illustrate this by a few photos. 
• Please introduce figures before their presentation in the manuscript. The same for tables.
• Table 5 is poorly presented. 
• Color and Hardness are good predictors of post-harvest value-chain but no numerical data is exhibited in the review.  
• A typical post-harvest handling circuit should be added and described in the review.
• The content of table 5 is unclear.
• Is there any non-destructive technologies that could be suggested to assess the quality of Capsicum L.
• Conclusion must be summarized. 

Author Response

1. The importance of Capsicum L. should be more described in the Introduction (globally production, market importance, economic balance...).

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the Introduction section has been expanded to better emphasize the global importance of Capsicum fruits. Furthermore, the substantial economic impact of postharvest losses and the necessity of effective preservation technologies were further highlighted to strengthen the scientific and practical significance of this review. See lines 37-59.

 

2. The section 2 (Nutritional & chemical composition) must be improved by elucidating the main physicochemical properties as well as the functional compounds. Adding a table summarizing this will be appreciable.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that if the physical and chemical quality characteristics can be more clearly integrated, it will help improve the readability of the paper. The parameters related to nutrition and chemistry have been systematically discussed in Section 2. To avoid repetition of the content in the main text and the tables and to maintain the coherence of the structure, we are sorry that we did not add a separate summary table. However, in the beginning of Section 3, we have included a comprehensive summary paragraph to better integrate the physical chemical properties of chili peppers and the relationship between nutrition and chemical components. See lines 202-212.

 

3. Mapping the main cultivars and illustrate this by a few photos.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, a new figure (Figure. 1) has been added to illustrate the global major cultivars and production regions of Capsicum L. See line 93.

 

4. Please introduce figures before their presentation in the manuscript. The same for tables.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have reviewed the entire text and adjusted the positions of the pictures and tables to ensure that they are introduced before they are presented.

 

5. Table 5 is poorly presented.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. They play a very important role in improving the clarity of the article content. We admit that Table 5 in the previous version was indeed quite poor. In the new manuscript, we have made modifications, simplified the expression of the processing methods, and standardized the format of the processed chili varieties. See lines 767.

 

6. Color and Hardness are good predictors of post-harvest value-chain but no numerical data is exhibited in the review.

Response: We are grateful for the valuable suggestion made by the reviewers. We agree that providing information on color and hardness is an important factor in evaluating the post-harvest quality of peppers. Quantitative descriptions can further enhance the credibility of the review. The new discussion content has been added to the revised manuscript. See lines 231-234, 253-258.

 

7. A typical post-harvest handling circuit should be added and described in the review.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, more explanatory content has been added to describe in greater detail the typical post-harvest processing procedures of chili fruits. Additionally, the relationship between these processing stages and post-harvest physiological deterioration has been further emphasized to enhance the practicality and structural coherence of the review. See lines 396-403.

 

8. The content of table 5 is unclear.

Response: Thank you very much for your feedback. We have revised the expression of the content in Table 5, consistently using concise gerund phrases to describe the changes. We believe this modification will make Table 5 appear more concise and intuitive. See line 768.

 

9. Is there any non-destructive technologies that could be suggested to assess the quality of Capsicum L.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that non-destructive quality assessment is an emerging and valuable field. Just as you mentioned, during the initial manuscript writing stage, we did incorporate non-destructive testing methods such as infrared and visual inspections. However, given that the focus of this review is clearly on direct preservation techniques for extending shelf life, we ultimately decided not to delve into non-destructive technologies in detail, as this would expand the scope of the review. Nevertheless, we have added a brief sentence in the conclusion to response your suggestion and propose it as a potential research opportunity for the future. See lines 809-811.

 

10. Conclusion must be summarized.

Response: We greatly appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have substantially streamlined and reworded the Conclusion section while preserving its original intended meaning. See lines 800-809.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and presents a solid and clear logical sequence; however, there is a noticeable tendency toward a descriptive rather than a critical approach. The manuscript effectively describes what occurs, but to a lesser extent explains why these findings are scientifically relevant.

Losses of 30–40% are mentioned; nevertheless, regional and methodological variations, as well as the uncertainty associated with these estimates, are not discussed. I recommend integrating this information to strengthen the analysis.

In the biochemical section, there is a lack of integration among metabolites. For instance, how do phenolics and carotenoids interact under stress conditions? Is there any metabolic competition between them? Additionally, the discussion is not sufficiently linked to specific preservation strategies or to integrated physiological responses. I recommend integrating this information to strengthen the analysis.

It would be valuable to include a critical analysis of contradictions among studies, methodological limitations, and their direct implications for the industry.

There is inconsistent use of scientific versus common terminology (e.g., “capsicum,” “capsicums,” and “peppers”). It is recommended to use “Capsicum fruits” as a more formal term, or to define the terminology at the beginning and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.

Although technologies such as MAP, plasma, and ozone are described, the manuscript does not specify which are more efficient, under what conditions they are applied, or for which market segments they are most suitable. I recommend incorporating this information into the corresponding section.

The article mentions various technologies; however, it does not discuss their scalability, cost–benefit relationships, or practical applicability. I suggest that the authors include a more detailed discussion on these aspects.

Finally, it is recommended to explicitly address whether these technologies can be scaled up, as well as their cost–benefit and applicability in real production and commercialization contexts.

     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The manuscript is well written and presents a solid and clear logical sequence; however, there is a noticeable tendency toward a descriptive rather than a critical approach. The manuscript effectively describes what occurs, but to a lesser extent explains why these findings are scientifically relevant.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, substantial efforts were made to strengthen the critical and analytical perspective throughout the review. Beyond summarizing previous findings, we further discussed the contradictions among studies, technological limitations, cultivar-dependent responses, and industrial implications of different preservation strategies. In addition, more comparative and integrative analyses were incorporated to improve the scientific depth and critical value of the manuscript.

 

2. Losses of 30–40% are mentioned; nevertheless, regional and methodological variations, as well as the uncertainty associated with these estimates, are not discussed. I recommend integrating this information to strengthen the analysis.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The issue of the overly general estimation of the loss rate of peppers that we previously pointed out does indeed exist. In the revised manuscript, the discussion on the post-harvest loss rate has been improved to better reflect regional differences and methodological uncertainties. The reported loss estimates vary significantly depending on the post-harvest processing methods and the cold chain infrastructure. Additionally, more discussion content has been added, including the market and planting scale of peppers. See lines 38-60.

 

3. In the biochemical section, there is a lack of integration among metabolites. For instance, how do phenolics and carotenoids interact under stress conditions? Is there any metabolic competition between them? Additionally, the discussion is not sufficiently linked to specific preservation strategies or to integrated physiological responses. I recommend integrating this information to strengthen the analysis.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We concur that the discussion on the integration of metabolites and their relationship with preservation strategies is inadequate. Consequently, we have incorporated a discussion on the competition among metabolites under stress conditions. See lines 195-201.  Moreover, we have included a discussion on the role of preservation technology in the protective mechanisms of metabolites. We trust that our efforts can alleviate your concerns. See lines 118-126, 148-153, 189-194.

 

4. It would be valuable to include a critical analysis of contradictions among studies, methodological limitations, and their direct implications for the industry.

Response: We greatly appreciate your constructive comments. We have integrated critical analysis of preservation techniques into the full manuscript, highlighting their limitations such as mere laboratory-scale application, along with commercialization constraints in terms of cost and safety.

 

5. There is inconsistent use of scientific versus common terminology (e.g., “capsicum,” “capsicums,” and “peppers”). It is recommended to use “Capsicum fruits” as a more formal term, or to define the terminology at the beginning and maintain consistency throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this careful observation. In the revised manuscript, the terminology has been thoroughly standardized throughout the text to improve clarity and scientific consistency. Specifically, “Capsicum fruits” is now used as the primary term, while “sweet peppers” and “chili peppers” are employed only when referring to specific fruit types or physiological characteristics. In addition, spelling and terminology inconsistencies throughout the manuscript were carefully revised and unified.

 

6. Although technologies such as MAP, plasma, and ozone are described, the manuscript does not specify which are more efficient, under what conditions they are applied, or for which market segments they are most suitable. I recommend incorporating this information into the corresponding section.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, additional discussion has been incorporated regarding the practical applicability of different preservation technologies. See lines 769-786.

 

7. The article mentions various technologies; however, it does not discuss their scalability, cost–benefit relationships, or practical applicability. I suggest that the authors include a more detailed discussion on these aspects.

Response : Thank you for this insightful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added further discussion on the scalability, cost-effectiveness, and practical applicability of different preservation technologies.

 

8. Finally, it is recommended to explicitly address whether these technologies can be scaled up, as well as their cost–benefit and applicability in real production and commercialization contexts.

Response : Thank you very much for this important suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included more discussions on the practical feasibility, application scope and commercial potential of different preservation techniques. See lines 769-786.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors satisfied our comments in the revised version of the manuscript.