Cold Plasma Technology for Tomato Processing By-Product Valorization: The Case of Tomato Peeling and Peel Drying
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please refer to the attachment for specific review comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors responce to the reviewer comments attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript considers the possibility of using cold plasma technology in tomato processing. Specifically, the effect of using cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) as a pre-treatment in the processes of whole tomato peeling and tomato peel drying was investigated.
The topic and research plan of the study are interesting. However, in reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript needs significant improvements as noted below.
First of all, tomato peel drying study should be extended to include some physicochemical and bioactive properties that determine the quality of the dried product. It is pointless to compare energy consumption in the process when the quality effects of the obtained dried product are not known.
Introduction - not entirely satisfactory.
- The hitherto application of cold plasma technology in the food industry was treated very concisely and with the use of a small number of references. There are quite a few publications on this subject in the literature, for example the most recent reviews: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112663, doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.13027.
- Pulsed electric fields (PEF) technology was mentioned very sparingly, no broader comparison was made, effects of process improvement were not given, etc.
Material and Methods
- The form of materials and equipment specification used in the study should be the same in each case (e.g. name-type, manufacturer, country).
- The source of the tomatoes, the type of texture analyzer, generator, wattmeter etc. were not specified.
- Line 79-80 - What industrial installation was used in your study ? Please clarify.
- The statistical methods used need to be described in more detail.
Results and discussion
- There is no need to repeat content in this section if it is already in another section. For example, the content in lines 176-181 was already presented in the 'Introduction' section.
- Line 192 – ‘… the authors [27] …’ - it will be better: ‘ … Andreou et al. [27] …’.
- Line 216 – ‘Figure 3’ - wrong figure number. Please correct.
- Line 223 – 224 - Protocols C and D are mixed up. Please correct.
As you can see, the authors themselves are wrong, so it's worth considering whether it makes sense to use the following designations: protocol A, B, C, D. In my opinion, it's more difficult to read. There are only two processes and each of them is: with or without CAP treatment. Using 'CAP treated' and 'Untreated' for example in text, tables and figures would be easier to read. But this is only my suggestion, the decision belongs to the authors.
- Please check carefully the names of physical quantities (force, specific force, energy) and their units, both in the 'Results and discussion' and 'Material and methods' sections. This must be consistent throughout the manuscript (text, figures and tables) and scientifically correct.
- Line 232-235 - Where did this data come from ? Any references ? Explanation ?
- There are few comparisons with other studies in the discussion. For example, you can compare the effects of CAP with PEF pre-treatment, which is also a promising enhancement technology (e.g. http://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2022-1-189-198, https://doi.org /10.3389/frst.2023.1152111).
- It would be good to give the percentage of energy savings in the tomato peel drying process after applying the CAP treatment.
Conclusions
- The section should be enriched with specific numerical values of the effects of the CAP treatment.
- When the scope of the study and the 'Results and Discussion' section will be expanded, the 'Conclusions' section should also be expanded with new insights.
Author Response
The authors response on reviewer comments attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all my comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In conclusion, I recommend the manuscript for publication in present form.
I would just ask the authors to carefully check the entire manuscript because I noticed a few typos (line 286 'gihg', 'qulity'; line 294 'experiemtns').
