Modeling of Coffee Fruit: An Approach to Simulate the Effects of Compression
, Ricardo Rodrigues Magalhães, Fábio Lúcio Santos, Ednilton Tavares de Andrade and Leomar Santos Marques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsModeling of coffee fruit: an approach to simulate the effects of compression (agriengineering-2584734)
Dear authors:
Arrange references correctly throughout the manuscript.
Better to add some more information on Mechanical damage In Introduction section
Merge introduction literature section- Also remove unnecessary information from literature section (from line 77)
Rewrite section on Finite element modelling
Reference:
Tinoco, Hector A., and Fabio M. Peña. "Mechanical and geometrical characterization of fruits Coffea arabica L. var. Colombia to simulate the ripening process by finite element analysis." Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food 12.3 (2019): 367-377.
Rashvand, Mahdi, Ali Hajizadeh, Abbas Akbarnia, Rouzbeh Abbaszadeh, Mehrad Nikzadfar, and Pankaj B. Pathare. "Effect of dielectric barrier discharge cold plasma on the bruise susceptibility of plum fruit." Journal of Food Process Engineering 45, no. 12 (2022): e14182.
Result and discussion –
Section is quite weak, authors applied force on the coffee samples and stress, strain and deformation reported. Critical analysis and finding is missing.
Refer : Tinoco, Hector A., and Fabio M. Peña. "Mechanical and geometrical characterization of fruits Coffea arabica L. var. Colombia to simulate the ripening process by finite element analysis." Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food 12.3 (2019): 367-377
Author Response
Response Letter to the Editorial AgriEngineering
Title: Modeling of Coffee Fruit: An Approach to Simulate the Effects of Compression
The authors appreciate all the suggestions provided. We really believe that all comments will contribute for improving the paper quality. The revised version was submitted with changes suggested by the reviewers. All the changes are marked in blue color in the manuscript. In addition, answers to the reviewers’ questions were provided below.
Reviewer 1
- Arrange references correctly throughout the manuscript.
The references have been organized according to the request and the journal's guidelines.
- Better to add some more information on Mechanical damage In Introduction section
More information about mechanical damage has been added.
- Merge introduction literature section- Also remove unnecessary information from literature section (from line 77)
Information has been removed from line 77, and we have merged the introduction and the literature review according to reviewer suggestion.
- Rewrite section on Finite element modelling
The section has been rewritten using the suggested reference.
- Result and discussion – Section is quite weak, authors applied force on the coffee samples and stress, strain and deformation reported. Critical analysis and finding is missing.
Result section was rewritten according to reviewer considerations.
The updated version of the manuscript was prepared in the way to attend all the comments addressed by the external reviewers. We are available for any further action that might be necessary to improve the quality of this contribution.
We look forward for your positive response. Sincerely yours,
M.Sc. Janielle Souza Pereira
Engineering School - Federal University of Lavras Lavras, MG, Brazil
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for the invitation to review a study from your relevant journal. The study presents interesting analyzes with practical applications in agricultural systems engineering. However, some observations must be made. The study contains some spelling errors, as well as poor exploration of the results. I kindly ask that the authors observe my notes and make the necessary corrections.
Line 16: Please review the sentence. Does the idea of the sentence have an end, or is it continued? Note that there is a “The”, it would be “. The” or just “the”?
Line 18: Are your results in millijoules or megajoules? Please review your results.
Line 21: A conclusion that catches the reader's attention is missing. Please add a conclusion to the text!
Line 32: Which coffee? Which species? What's the family?
Line 39-42: Information like this is relevant. Please add more information. In 2022 there is no information?
Line 49: This point (.) is wrong (computer simulation. mechanical). Please review the idea of the sentence.
Line 63: What motivated the research? Is there any hypothesis at work?
Line 69: The objective text is too long, please break up the idea.
Line 71: The “L.” is not italicized.
Line 72: The scientific name of the coffee must be in italics.
Line 73: The genus Coffea must be written in italics!
Line 76: Should be [15,16]. If you have any questions regarding citations, please consult the journal's guidelines for authors.
Line 77: The species Coffea arabica should be written in italics. Additionally, join the paragraph on line 76 with 77.
Line 82: “extreme air temperatures”
Line 98: Is it “arabica coffee” or “Arabica coffee”?
Line 133-137: The paragraph has very long sentences, which becomes confusing. Please break down the idea and add some connectives.
Line 151: Again the scientific name is not in italics, whenever you mention the scientific name, please put it correctly.
Line 185: The decimal separator of the units is wrong!
Line 192: In Equation 1, are the elements multipliable?
Line 210: Your citation (Coelho et al., 2015) is outside the journal standard.
Line 227: No statistical analysis was applied? If so, what method was applied?
Line 311-313: How many % was greater?
General comment from the Results section:
- Where is the Work Discussion? The results are poor!
- Please add comparisons between maturities showing the percentage degree of difference between them.
Line 378: Add some innovation in the conclusion. The findings are very focused on results. What was the biggest news?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAn English review is required.
Author Response
Response Letter to the Editorial AgriEngineering
Title: Modeling of Coffee Fruit: An Approach to Simulate the Effects of Compression
The authors appreciate all the suggestions provided. We really believe that all comments will contribute for improving the paper quality. The revised version was submitted with changes suggested by the reviewers. All the changes are marked in blue color in the manuscript. In addition, answers to the reviewers’ questions were provided below.
Reviewer 2
- Line 16: Please review the sentence. Does the idea of the sentence have an end, or is it continued? Note that there is a “The”, it would be “The” or just “the”?
The sentence was reviewed and adjusted to enhance comprehension.
- Line 18: Are your results in millijoules or megajoules? Please review your results.
The result is in millijoules indeed, that's why it's written with a lowercase 'm'.
- Line 21: A conclusion that catches the reader's attention is missing. Please add a conclusion to the text!
Conclusion section was rewritten according to reviewer considerations.
- Line 32: Which coffee? Which species? What's the family?
Information is specified in the Materials and Methods section about the coffee species and family.
- Line 39-42: Information like this is relevant. Please add more information. In 2022 there is no information?
The data has been updated to 2022, and some additional information has been added.
- Line 49: This point (.) is wrong (computer simulation. mechanical). Please review the idea of the sentence.
It was removed according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 63: What motivated the research? Is there any hypothesis at work?
Section was rewritten in order to attempt the reviewer recommendation.
- Line 69: The objective text is too long, please break up the idea.
Section was rewritten according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 71: The “L.” is not italicized.
Text was italicized according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 72: The scientific name of the coffee must be in italics.
Text modified to italics according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 73: The genus Coffea must be written in italics!
Text modified to italics according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 76: Should be [15,16]. If you have any questions regarding citations, please consult the journal's guidelines for authors.
Modified according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 77: The species Coffea arabica should be written in italics. Additionally, join the paragraph on line 76 with 77.
Text modified to italics according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 82: “extreme air temperatures”
This sentence was removed from the text.
- Line 98: Is it “arabica coffee” or “Arabica coffee”?
The correct form is “Arabica coffee”.
- Line 133-137: The paragraph has very long sentences, which becomes confusing. Please break down the idea and add some connectives.
Section was rewritten according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 151: Again the scientific name is not in italics, whenever you mention the scientific name, please put it correctly.
Text modified to italics according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 185: The decimal separator of the units is wrong!
It was modified according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 192: In Equation 1, are the elements multipliable?
The elements are not multipliable, they denote a vector.
- Line 210: Your citation (Coelho et al., 2015) is outside the journal standard.
The reference has been modified to comply with the journal's guidelines.
- Line 227: No statistical analysis was applied? If so, what method was applied?
Authors did not use statistics for this analysis.
- Line 311-313: How many % was greater?
The sentence was rewritten according to reviewer recommendation.
- General comment from the Results section:
- Where is the Work Discussion? The results are poor!
- Please add comparisons between maturities showing the percentage degree of difference between them.
Comparisons were performed and additional considerations were added according to reviewer recommendation.
- Line 378: Add some innovation in the conclusion. The findings are very focused on results. What was the biggest news?
Considerations about the research findings have been added to the conclusion.
- Comments on the Quality of English Language: An English review is required.
Manuscript has been translated and revised by AJE according to certified attached. After modifications, it was revised again in order to achieve the Quality of English Language.
The updated version of the manuscript was prepared in the way to attend all the comments addressed by the external reviewers. We are available for any further action that might be necessary to improve the quality of this contribution.
We look forward for your positive response. Sincerely yours,
M.Sc. Janielle Souza Pereira
Engineering School - Federal University of Lavras Lavras, MG, Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors included reviewers comments in the revised manusript.
Author Response
Response Letter to the Editorial AgriEngineering
Title: Modeling of Coffee Fruit: An Approach to Simulate the Effects of Compression
Authors would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers once more for the paper
considerations. We are now sending the revised manuscript (changes in red color) with
English Language checked by a colleague fluent in English.
The updated version of the manuscript was prepared in the way to attend all the comments
addressed by the external reviewers. We are available for any further action that might
be necessary to improve the quality of this contribution.
We look forward for your positive response. Sincerely yours,
M.Sc. Janielle Souza Pereira
Engineering School - Federal University of Lavras Lavras, MG, Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for providing a revised version of this manuscript. I am happy to see that the authors worked hard on the manuscript and that my suggestions were accepted.
Below are some more observations.
Line 40: The genus Coffea must be written in italics.
Line 62: Should be: characteristics [15].
Line 254: The unit of measurement should be written as (mm mm−1)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease review your English.
Author Response
Response Letter to the Editorial AgriEngineering
Title: Modeling of Coffee Fruit: An Approach to Simulate the Effects of Compression
Authors would like to thank the Editor and Reviewers once more for the paper
considerations. We are now sending the revised manuscript (changes in red color) with
English Language checked by a colleague fluent in English writing and also minor
corrections pointed below:
Reviewer 2
1. Line 40: The genus Coffea must be written in italics.
The genus Coffea is now written in italics.
2. Line 62: Should be: characteristics [15].
Dot was added after citation [15].
3. Line 254: The unit of measurement should be written as (mm mm−1)
The unit of measurement is now written as (mm mm-1).
4. Please review your English.
English Language checked by a colleague fluent in English writing.
The updated version of the manuscript was prepared in the way to attend all the comments
addressed by the external reviewers. We are available for any further action that might
be necessary to improve the quality of this contribution.
We look forward for your positive response. Sincerely yours,
M.Sc. Janielle Souza Pereira
Engineering School - Federal University of Lavras Lavras, MG, Brazil
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor-in-Chief,
Thanks for the corrected version.
I am satisfied with the work corrections. The authors did a good job.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor adjustments.
