Physicochemical, Volatile, and Sensory Characterization of Promising Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars: Fresh Market Aptitudes of Pear and Round Fruits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presents a comparison between cherry tomato varieties with a particular reference to sensory analysis. It can be considered a good work, but It must be improved in some parts.

The introduction and the part of materials and methods are well structured and explained.

The scope of work needs to be better explained. Generally, the aim is to identify a material better than the available one. In this case the authors aim to identify which varieties are similar to Angelle and Katalyna for replacing them. The varietal assortment of tomatoes (and cherry tomatoes) is very large so why Angelle and Katalyna should be considered the "reference" cultivar"? Why there is a need to replace them? and how do the authors think they can be replaced? These varieties are competing in the market. Other comments on this issue are reported in the attached pdf. A clarification on this point is necessary.

From this it follows that the title should also be revised limiting it to something like “Physicochemical, volatile and sensory characterization of round and pear cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) cultivars.

Regarding the results, in some cases their presentation is repetitive, and it is a little hard to follow. The authors should make a synthesis effort to help the reader in identifying the key point related to what was observed.

A major flaw in the work is the lack of discussions that are almost absent. In the pdf some points about this issue are marked.

Further comments can be found in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors greatly appreciate the effort and time spent by the Reviewer to revise and improve our article. We firmly believe that after your review, the article has improved enormously. Thanks a lot.

Below, we respond individually to all the comments you have made:

• Line 3. Solanum lycopersicum

Changed as suggested. Please, see lines 3, 19, 41, 57, and 81.

• I found the aim of the work a little bit peculiar. Generally, the aim is to identify a material better than the available one. In this case you want to identify what can replace the available varieties. This gives rise to two observations: (i) This is the first time Angelle and Katalina have been mentioned. But there is no previous reference to their commercial importance, on which market they are most popular, why they are the "reference" cultivar", why there is a need to replace them (and how do the authors think they can be replaced?) (ii) if there is a better one in the materials being compared, is it taken into account or not?

The work was developed with the support of one of the most important companies in Europe in terms of production of this type of fruit, cherry tomatoes. The companies that are dedicated to the production of cherry tomatoes, mainly sell the Katalina and Angelle cultivars, because they are the most demanded by consumers (there are no scientific studies on this, but we have data on the sale of different cultivars in several countries although this information is confidential). To safeguard production over time, it is necessary to identify cultivars similar in their quality traits and that if the production of one specific cultivar is jeopardized, there is another cultivar with similar characteristics and with potential similar consumer acceptance. In this way, farmers and producers can decide to make a cultivar change without a drastic quality change (similar chemical and sensory profiles) being perceived by consumers.

Thanks to your comment, we have incorporated part of this information in the introduction of the article, so that the reader can have a better orientation about the reason for the research carried out. In lines 59-61 we have added a sentence explaining that these varieties are the most consumed.

• Please, check the spelling of Santiplum (Santyplum?) and Katalyna (Katalina?)

Reviewer is absolutely right; these two names have been changed throughout the manuscript, as suggested.

• Following the previous comment, the authors should give further information about the cvs. It seems to me they are commercialized (maybe the company should be specified).

Yes, reviewer is right. Cultivars were provided by company. The information of this company is now in the manuscript. Please, see lines 86-87.

 Ripening stage and orchard.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 84-86.

• The same day in both the years?

Yes. Harvest was the same day in both years to perfectly reproduce the experiment. The plots were treated the same and that day the fruits that were in a state of optimum commercial ripening were harvested.

• no difference about which traits? all?

Please, see lines 89-90.

• Years?

Yes, sorry about the mistake. Changed as suggested.

• Is it the same for all cvs? And which ripening stage is?

Yes, it is the same for all cultivars. Samples were harvested at the commercial optimal ripening stage according to the company indications.

• Dendrogram…

Reviewer is right. This word has been changed throughout the manuscript. Please, see line 185 and Figure 2.

• The word appears redundant

Reviewer is right. Word has been deleted. Please, see line 194.

• The discussion about the cited components should be more deepen

Done as suggested. Please, see lines 199-201.

 Round?

Yes, reviewer is right. Changed as suggested. Please, see line 216.

• Perhaps this citation, which is focused on a specific ecotype of an Italian region, should be complemented by other more general ones.

The reference only intended to emphasize the fact that the results obtained are normal for this fruit. The cultivars studied by this researcher, despite being Italian cultivars, are like those studied here as well as the cultivation conditions, so we consider that the comparison is valid.

• The comment on Flores et al. is valid also concerning the aspect of the "ripening stage". Probably Flores et al. is not the right work to consider. The period is a little bit contorted. Please, reformulate.

The reviewer is right. We have removed that comment as it could confuse the reader instead of clarifying the statement. Thank you very much for your kind comment. Please, see lines 236-237.

• Such statement is difficult to appreciate analysing Table 3. Maybe it would be more useful a pie graph

A comment has been added to clarify this point; please, see lines 285-286.

• Although the code is reported in table 2, its repetition near the compound [e.g., Hexanal (V5)] could help in reading table 3

To make Table 3 more understandable, the volatile codes have been removed and replaced by the name of the compounds. Please, check table 3.

• But the ANOVA were significant for all the volatiles

Reviewer is absolutely right. This paragraph has been rewritten, as suggested; please, see lines 296-298.

• The discussion about the cited components should be more deepen

Discussion have been modified. Please, see lines 311-313.

• Such a statement reports to the observation about the aim of the work: Dolcetini present some interesting features, thus if there is a better one in the materials being compared, is it taken into account or not? That is, can it also be a goal of the work to highlight a better genotype?

We agree with your comment. We have incorporated a short sentence indicating that Dolcetini may be an option if the replacement of varieties is not sought, but rather a variety with a different profile. Please, see lines 316-318.

• I would suggest: Fifteen attributes were evaluated: one was related to appearance, six related to the product flavor, and eight about its texture.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 321-322.

• Delete: for that reason…

Done as suggested; please, see line 342.

• Was Katalina expected to be associated with other varieties? unclear, please rephrase

Since the study focused on being able to find which cultivar most closely resembles Katalina, it was expected that some of the cultivars would be grouped with it based on their sensory attributes. That is why the paragraph was written that way. Please, see lines 351-355.

• It doesn't sound much clear, please, reformulate

To a better understanding, this section has been rewritten and information reorganized. Please, see section 3.5, lines 321-355.

• It should be specified to what it refers the evidencing of the lines.

Lines have been removed. Please, see Table 3.

• Perhaps, in table 4 and 5 it could be useful to insert a column assigning the attribute to the three classes: appearance, flavor, texture

Done as suggested; please, see Tables 4 and 5.

• Usually the components are indicated as PC1 and PC2

Currently, more and more, these types of axes are labeled as what they are, factors. In this type of representations, the variables are compared according to the 2 factors that best explain them and are labeled F1 and F2. We think it is well labeled the way it is.

• unclear, please reformulate

Done as suggested. Please, see lines 399-400.

• The period is too long.

Reviewer is right. Phrase has been rewritten and broken into two sentences. Please, see lines 401-404.

• When the authors state that it "must be corrected" what exactly are they referring to? To the set up of a breeding program? By whom?

The authors intended to indicate that this attribute seems to be the one that decides the decision of consumers. But, thanks to your comment, we have detected that the phrase is very confusing and can be misleading, which is why it has been removed. Please, see line 416.

• The letter is lacking

Reviewer is right. Letter has been added.

• Delete “both”

Done as suggested.  

• The statement is based just on sensory analysis because almost of the traits of table 1 are different between Angelle and Seychelles

Phrase has been rewritten. Please, see line 457.

• Italics on references.

Done as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting from both an horticultural and methodological point of view. Extensive analysis of 8 tomato varieties and  data processing  has been performed. 

Some suggestions for improving the manuscript:

• Line 54 - Replace minerals with mineral elements.
• Line 185.  Unclear text. The software used was 184 XLSTAT (2016.02.27444 version, Addinsoft) was used. 
• Line 362   - Unclear (p>< 0.05).

Throughout the manuscript:

• the use of brackets ( ) and [ ] is unclear (for example, lines 72, 73, 74)
• notation of ordinal numbers (for example, 10th or 10^th) 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your words. Thanks to your invaluable collaboration, this article has improved.

• Line 54 - Replace minerals with mineral elements.

Done as suggested. 

• Line 185.  Unclear text. The software used was 184 XLSTAT (2016.02.27444 version, Addinsoft) was used. 

Authors want to apologize for this mistake. Sentence has been corrected. 

• Line 362   - Unclear (p>< 0.05).

Reviewer is right. Sentence has been changed.

• the use of brackets ( ) and [ ] is unclear (for example, lines 72, 73, 74)

Reviewer is right. The use of parentheses has been standardized. Please, see lines 72 and 434.

• notation of ordinal numbers (for example, 10th or 10^th) 

Done as suggested