The Effect of Selected Fruit (Apple, Bitter Orange and Grape) Juice Concentrates Used as Osmotic Agents on the Osmotic-Dehydration Kinetics and Physico-Chemical Properties of Pomegranate Seeds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is very interesting that osmodehydration was performed using fruit juices as osmotic solutions. This manuscript proved that this method is feasible.

Comments to the Author

Abstract – “The equilibrium time was…” should be “The equilibrium time of osmodehydration was…”

Section 2.2 “and three types of concentrated juice” should be “and three tested concentrated juices”.

Section 2.4 Eq (2) GS?

Section 2.5 “5 g sample”-It is not good to start a sentence with an Arabic number.

Antioxidant activity- (DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) should be move to the next sentence. “The test is based on the reduction of DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) ….”.

Section 2.5 “Exponent” texture software”. Please provide the producer of software.

Section 2.7 lease provide the producer of viscometer

Section 2.9 lease provide the producer of SPSS20.

Section 3.1 - This choice was justified by the importance of the molecular mass of sucrose (342.29 g / mol) compared to Xylose (150.12 g / mol), Erythritol (122.11 g / mol) and Sorbitol (182.17 g / mol). Please provide further information to support this.

Figure 1- please explain the four panels in the caption.

Section 3.2 The dry matter values were shown in percentages but not in Table 1.

Section 3.3 The hardness values are different from those in Table 1. Why?

Section 3.4 - The decrease of pH of osmotic solutions could be attributed to the diffusion of certain organic solutes and acids from PS to the aqueous solution. -I also noticed an increase for Bitter orange juice.

Section 3.5 Decreased by 15 mPa.s? by 20 mPa.s? by 30 mPa.s? I don’t think these values are in consistence with those in Table 2.

Section 3.6 - An hedonic test was applied. The number of tasters was 60 people who we can qual-ify them as “naive”. Participants have no specific information about the product. The age of the tasters is between 15 and 65, of which 68% are women and 32% are men.-please move these sentences into the method section.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER

Thank you for your valued and meticulous comments.  All modifications are marked in red in this revised MS.

Comments and Responses

Reviewer 1

It is very interesting that osmodehydration was performed using fruit juices as osmotic solutions. This manuscript proved that this method is feasible.

Comments to the Author

Abstract – “The equilibrium time was…” should be “The equilibrium time of osmodehydration was…”

The expression was modified as you recommended

Section 2.2 “and three types of concentrated juice” should be “and three tested concentrated juices”.

The expression was changed as you recommended

Section 2.4 Eq (2) GS?

You have completely reason, it was a spelling mistake. GS was replaced by SG (Solute Gain).

Section 2.5 “5 g sample”-It is not good to start a sentence with an Arabic number.

You have completely reason. 5 was replaced by Five…

Antioxidant activity- (DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) should be move to the next sentence. “The test is based on the reduction of DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) ….”.

(2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) was moved to the next sentence following your comment.

Section 2.5 “Exponent” texture software”. Please provide the producer of software.

The producer of texture software was provided and added in the revised manuscript.

Section 2.7 lease provide the producer of viscometer

The producer of the viscometer software was provided and added in the manuscript.

Section 2.9 lease provide the producer of SPSS20.

The producer of SPSS 20 was added in the section.

Section 3.1 - This choice was justified by the importance of the molecular mass of sucrose (342.29 g / mol) compared to Xylose (150.12 g / mol), Erythritol (122.11 g / mol) and Sorbitol (182.17 g / mol). Please provide further information to support this.

Similar conclusion was obtained by Masmoudi et al., 2007, which showed that lemon by-products needed more time to reach the final Brix in the sucrose solution than in glucose solution. Authors attributed this result to the fact that glucose had a lower molecular weight, allowing it to diffuse easily. In fact, the speed of the diffusion of sugar molecules in the fruit membrane cells is negatively correlated with their molecular size (Briois et al., 1998).

Figure 1- please explain the four panels in the caption.

The four panels were presented in the figure caption.

Section 3.2 The dry matter values were shown in percentages but not in Table 1.

The discussed values in the paragraph were changed as presented in table 1.

Section 3.3 The hardness values are different from those in Table 1. Why?

You have completely reason, the hardness values in the paragraph are correct. There was a confusion with values of another study. Hardness values were corrected in the table 1.

Section 3.4 - The decrease of pH of osmotic solutions could be attributed to the diffusion of certain organic solutes and acids from PS to the aqueous solution. -I also noticed an increase for Bitter orange juice.

The statistical analysis of the pH value of the bitter orange juice concentrate did not show a significant increase after the OD process. Values before and after OD had the same subscripted letter. However, the fact that the value did not decrease could be attributed to the highest acidity and the lowest sugar content of the bitter orange compared to apple and grape. Then, after 60 min of OD, the exchange of organic acid and solute, including sugars, between PS and the osmotic solution, did not affect the equilibrium between sugars and organic acids in the bitter orange osmotic solution.

Section 3.5 Decreased by 15 mPa.s? by 20 mPa.s? by 30 mPa.s? I don’t think these values are in consistence with those in Table 2.

You have completely reason, there was a confusion with values of another study. Viscosity values were corrected in the table 2 and discussion was improved based on the correct values.

Section 3.6 - An hedonic test was applied. The number of tasters was 60 people who we can qualify them as “naive”. Participants have no specific information about the product. The age of the tasters is between 15 and 65, of which 68% are women and 32% are men

Please move these sentences into the method section.

The paragraph was moved as you recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some corrections in the manuscript. All Latin names are written in italic. Please revise it. The spider web is started from 1, not 0.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valued and meticulous comments. All modifications are marked in red in this revised MS.

• Capital letters were used in the title as you recommended.
• ‘aims’ was replaced by ‘aimed’ and ‘four’ was replaced by ‘three’ in the abstract.
• Punica granatum was put between parenthesis in section 2.1.
• ‘5’ was replaced by ‘five’ in section 2.5.
• ‘extraction’ was replaced by ‘process’.
• The unit (%) was added in the Scavenging activity formula.
• The four panels of figure 1 were presented in the figure caption.
• ‘browing’ was corrected in table 1.
• ‘meqAG’ was replaced by ‘meqGA’ all over the manuscript as you recommended
• ‘0’ was deleted from figure 2.
• References were checked in the manuscript and in the references list as you recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manscript is  suitable for publication.