Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper provides additional knowledge to 1-MCP research on new apple varieties and the possibilities of double 1-MCP application to prolong shelf life. The paper is clear, well written and concise. I suggest several spell checks and few additional details on the 1-MCP application step.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to express sincere gratitude for your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript’s quality. We have now carefully revised the manuscript according to your advices. The modified portions are highlighted in yellow color throughout the manuscript. Our detail responses to your individual comments are in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

n this work Jung-Geun Kwon et al., showed that the effect of the application of the 1-MCP concentration and its application frequency during cold storage. They found that 0.5 μL L⁻¹ could be sufficient in maintaining fruit quality and double application of 1-MCP might be necessary for some quality attributes in ‘Picnic’ apple. But there was some minor suggestions should be taken before publication:

 

In total, I think your line chart is hard to read, I cannot figure out the difference between treatment group.

Line 19. "gated whether the 1-MPC concentrations...". Check it! What is "1-MPC"

Introduction. Line 95 "This study focused on..." and Line 99 " the main objective of this study was to...", this two words is redundancy, you need to streamline your research objectives.

Line 137. There is no full stop at the end of "...averaged"

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to express sincere gratitude for your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript’s quality. We have now carefully revised the manuscript according to your advices. The modified portions are highlighted in green color throughout the manuscript. Our detail responses to your individual comments are in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction is informative and argumentative, however, I would recommend being more concise.

Materials and Methods

L102 the used materials should be listed.

L104-105 the GPS coordinates of the apple orchard should be given.

L119. Table 1 should be moved and discussed to the Results section.

L120-124 What is the purpose of this sub-heading? The first sentence has no sense.

Results

L177 The legend is incomplete. Move the marks labels from Fig 1B to the figure's legend.

The same for all figures.

The Discussion and Conclusion parts are ok.

Good luck

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

            We would like to express sincere gratitude for your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript’s quality. We have now carefully revised the manuscript according to your advices. The followings are our responses to your comments and suggestions. All the corrections made are highlighted in blue color in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your efforts.

The manuscript is acceptable in this form.