Potential of Debaryomyces hansenii Strains on the Inhibition of Botrytis cinerea in Blueberry Fruits (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

It was a pleasure to read and review the paper. I have just a few comments:

1. Line 12, 42,47,170,172 - i think it would be good to use pathognes instead of phytopathogens. In general the paper is about the plants and pathogens occuring in these plants. No need to add phyto.

2. I think You can add sentence about the status of chlorothalonil a.i. in Europe. As You know according to the EU 2019/677 directive this a.i. is banned and can not be use no more in Europe. This could be usefull for european readers and could be a sign that the legislation is changing all over the world in case of this a.i.

3.Line 132 - What was the time of washing the fruits? How long the disinfection last? Few seconds?2 minutes? Colud You please add this information in the text.

4. Line 176 looks like double space between word that and D. hanseii.

5. I think in general point of view it is better to use word "untreated" rather than control. (Line 187 table, 262, and some another in the text).

6. Did You try to compare the yeasts vs different plant extracts? I think this could be good way for the next steps in this area.

Author Response

I send the corrections in the manuscript according to your comments and indications. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer report for paper entitled "Potential of Debaryomyces hansenii strains on the inhibition of Botrytis cinerea in blueberry fruits (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)"

The paper is focuses on using a safe yeast strain as bio-preservative against post harvest fungal contamination of blueberry fruits. Using antagonestic yeasts in postharvest is very promising and growing trend, nowadays, for safe preservation. The results clearly showed the direct positive effect of this treatment which can reduce 50% of fungal contamination and keeping the fruit quality parameter. In principal this research is of high interest for research society and food industry as well. However, many points need to be considered before accepting this work for publication as follows: 

- The introduction part needs improvement to focus more on the application of yeast as antifungal agent in food preservation. This need also to highlight the potential mechanisms of action. How yeasts act against fungal cells?. 

- In materials and methods more details need to be provided for the source of yeast strains. Full molecular characterization and identification need to be provided (or a reference with gene bank deposition number) if it obtained from local laboratory culture collection as written. This is very critical and MUST be given. 

- For all equipment used, need to provide (Model, Company, City, Country). 

- For all chemical used need to provide (Grade, Company, City, Country). 

- The data of mycelial growth inhibition of different yeast stains against B. cinerea  (table 1) is clear however, photos of the petri-dishes showing this inhibition need to be provided. The same for Figure 1 the growth inhibition due to VOC need to show the photos of this experiment. 

- In this type of experiment, showing the photos of the fruit during storage is very important to show the preservation effect of yeast during fruit storage (these photos are very important and MUST be provided) 

- The physiological weight loss experiment needs more in depth discussion to make it clear why the weight losses in control is higher then treated one. If ripening is the reason as written, how the yeast delay fruit ripening, is there a specific mechanism to support this result. 

All in all the manuscript is of interest but need to do major revision of the manuscript and provide the missed data as mentioned in the reviewer report above. 

Author Response

I send the corrections in the manuscript according to your comments and indications. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did significant changes according to the previous report which significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. All raised issues in the previous report have been addressed. Therefore, I recommend to accept the manuscript in the current form.