Postharvest Conservation of ‘BRS Nubia’ Hybrid Table Grape Subjected to Field Ultra-Fast SO2-Generating Pads before Packaging
, Maíra Tiaki Higuchi, Aline Cristina de Aguiar, Bruna Evelise Bosso and Sergio Ruffo Roberto *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of “Postharvest conservation of ‘BRS Nubia’ hybrid table grape 2 subjected to the field ultra-fast SO2-generating pad before 3 packaging”
Basic reporting
This article agrees with Horticulturae journal scope.
The control of fungal decay (mainly due to B. cinerea) in table grape remains been a pendant issue, even more if we take into account the legally restriction with SO2 fumigation practices. So, I consider the objective of this research to be widely justified and necessary.
Introduction is compact and aligned with the substance of work. Background and cited literature are sufficient and appropriate to frame the research.
The research has been conducted rigorously and methods are extensive and detailed described. Including packaging pictures has been useful in the comprehension of method and final package.
The structure of the article is well organized according to the journal standard sections.
The manuscript is self-contained, and results are coherent with initial hypothesis. The structure guide properly to conclusions but is missing a more determinant and accurate conclusion itself. Recommendation of minor changes in text are suggested below.
General comments for the author
Below are some specific suggestions to improve manuscript:
- In the introduction, is missed some allusion to SO2 traditional treatments and the restrictions associated.
- Despite of the short duration of the treatment, the author has corroborated that is not any residue on the fruit? No legal problems in any trade? Any off flavors?
- In 2.3. Assessments: why authors decided to perform physical chemicals measures just in 45 day? Was also performed in day 30 and, as is expected, no differences were founded?
- In line 200, Results and discussion, authors select FUFR as the greatest treatment based on gray mold incidence. It seems to be a good conclusion for the manuscript, but specifically in this section, FURF treatment shows the most fungus incidence. It is true that no significant differences are indicated, but it is due to the statistic comparison includes control results. In a more restrictive comparation covers just the three treatments, it is very likely to find significant differences between FURF and the other two.
- The typology is different from 251-256 line
- Conclusion section seems to be a synthesis of results. As indicated previously, is missed a personal conclusion of the authors. Actually, in line 200, is included a conclusion that could be moved to this section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, first of all, we would like to thank for your comments and suggestions. In this new version, we have incorporated all your suggestions.
As requested by the reviewer: ("In 2.3. Assessments: why authors decided to perform physical chemicals measures just in 45 day? Was also performed in day 30 and, as is expected, no differences were founded?"), we would like to inform that we had performed the physicochemical measures in 30 and 45 days, but as there were no differences founded, we decided to present only the measurements in 45 days of cold storage.
We agree with the reviewer that FURF treatment shows the most fungus incidence, even though no difference among SO2 treatments were detected, only with the control, but this incidence at 45 days is considered very low (0.2%). Thus, we followed the statistical results to support our statements.
My best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My revisions are reported in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, first of all, we would like to thank for your comments and suggestions. In this new version, we have incorporated all your suggestions.
Conclusion were expanded and we considered the percentage of shattered berries, which was significantly more low to support the main conclusion.
In addition, we would like to inform that for field ultra fast pad, we used an SO2 dosimeter to measure and confirm the fast release of the gas, and this information was incorporated to the Material and Methods section.
My best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
