Mathematical Description of Changes of Dried Apple Characteristics during Their Rehydration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present study is interesting and matches with the scope of the journal. However, similar studies are already available. The authors should highlight the novelty of this study in the introduction section. The scientific reason/justification is missing in the R & D section. I have mentioned my major comments.
Abstract
Write the background and importance of this study in the first sentence
Write the optimum condition for drying and rehydration
Add the statistical results in the abstract
Introduction
L54-64: Cite the following important papers. These papers clearly explain the importance of drying in food products
[https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13810] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111258]
[https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12643] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102541]
[https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13876] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.014] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.014] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111441]
L106-110: The applications of ANN are highlighted in the following articles. Cite the following articles
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105715] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105715] [https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10122975] [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meafoo.2021.100015]
There are numerous studies are available on the same concept. Please highlight the novelty of this study before the objectives.
Materials and methods
L125: 5.7% d.b.? it is wrong. Please check it
L127 to 128: How these drying methods were selected? Numerous advanced drying methods are available, that have better retention of quality parameters. The authors have to give a justification for the selection of these three drying methods.
L130: The reason behind the selection of temperature (50-70 oC) should be justified. Along with the drying temperature, it is important to mention the RH of the hot air.
The detailed specifications, company name, model, company locations, etc., of the dryers, should be included
The methods followed during drying can be briefly explained
Is it thin layer drying or deep bed drying technique?
The reason behind the selection of rehydration temperatures (20, 45, 70, and 95ï‚°C) should be explained.
The unit should be mentioned for equation 14 and 15
The number of replications for each test should be mentioned
Results and discussion
The authors have given detailed explanation on models. However, the scientific reason behind the results is missing. Please write the scientific reason behind the results
Conclusion
The conclusion section is very lengthy. Make it sharp.
References
Remove the old references (published before 2010) and update with recent references as suggested in the introduction section
The sample images should be provided (before drying, after drying and after rehydration).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The thin-layer models (Peleg, Lewis/Newton, Henderson/Pabis, Page, Modified Page) and the neural networks used in this work are well established but largely empirical in nature and are mainly used for curve fitting without having any fundamental value, and they give little insight into the basic physical situation.
The experimental work is good quality, and the data are worthwhile.
The statistical analysis rarely connects with any physical interpretation, which is disappointing, and there is no mention of any chemical reactions (except on pages 2, in the introduction) that may be causing the change in colour. The authors are invited to suggest what reaction processes may be causing the colour change.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is an interesting topic that has practical relevance as well. The authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly according to reviewers' comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript has a logical structure. The overall scientific quality of the manuscript has improved significantly due to the revision. The authors gave detailed answers to reviewers' questions. I accept all answers and modifications made by the authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is now acceptable for publication.
