The Influence of Biopolymer Coating Based on Pumpkin Oil Cake Activated with Mentha piperita Essential Oil on the Quality and Shelf-Life of Grape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

 

Your article is very interesting according to the topic that is covered in it.

It is well organized in suitable parts (Headings and subheadings). 

The abstract and Introduction part could be revised in terms of improving the English.

The experimental part and Results are suitably explained according to the work performed for this study. In addition, also Conclusion part is a consequent and follows the results.

Please, find the attached version of your work with suggestions in it. I hope that they will improve your manuscript.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Your article is very interesting according to the topic that is covered in it.

It is well organized in suitable parts (Headings and subheadings). 

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that the Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to the better quality of the submitted paper. We decided to revise the Manuscript according to the Reviewer’s remarks, highlighting the changes directly in the revised Manuscript. All remarks are accepted, and the paper is changed according to these comments.

The abstract and Introduction part could be revised in terms of improving the English.

AUTHORS: Thank you very much for comment. The English is corrected througthout the whole article.

The experimental part and Results are suitably explained according to the work performed for this study. In addition, also Conclusion part is a consequent and follows the results.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to express their gratitude for the positive attitude of the Reviewer and a set of helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our article.

Please, find the attached version of your work with suggestions in it. I hope that they will improve your manuscript.

AUTHORS: Thank you very much for the specific observations. The corrections were made according to the Reviewers comments.

Thank you.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the heplfult comments and taking time to revise our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript written well. However, I have few question which needs to be answered. 

What is the effect of Mentha piperita on the polymer based packing? Basically what are those compounds which help in increasing the self like of the grapes?

Author Response

The manuscript written well. However, I have few question which needs to be answered. 

AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that the Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s suggestions contribute to the better quality of the submitted paper. We decided to revise the Manuscript according to the Reviewer’s remarks, highlighting the changes directly in the revised Manuscript. All remarks are accepted, and the paper is changed according to these comments.

What is the effect of Mentha piperita on the polymer based packing? Basically what are those compounds which help in increasing the self like of the grapes?

AUTHORS: Thank you for the heplful questions and taking time to revise our article. We highlighted main components responsible for the activity of the Mentha piperita essential oil, which is most notable in the microbiological assay. Also, underlying mechanism was also given in the manuscript confirmed with available literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewers' comments:

Manuscript ID: coatings-2164899

Title: The influence of biopolymer coating based on pumpkin oil cake activated with Mentha piperita on grape quality and shelf-life.

Manuscript Type: Article.

 

Reviewers' comments:

The manuscript describes the “The influence of biopolymer coating based on pumpkin oil cake activated with Mentha piperita on grape quality and shelf-life”. The manuscript needs a detailed editing. Some markings are made to just illustrate the extent of editing needed. A thorough revision addressing all the concerns is needed and if the authors are prepared to do that it can be considered for a review of the revised manuscript.

 

The authors need to consider the following comments

- In the Abstract, the authors need to improve with more specific short results and conclusions, i.e. academic novelty or technical advantages.

- Keywords: add more keywords.

- Introduction is lacking of novelty statement. Please revise and add some recent papers in order to improve the introduction.

- 2.2. Synthesis of a biopolymer coating based on pumpkin seed oil cake (PuOC) - must be detailed.

- 2.4.2. Dry matter content, 2.4.4. Total acidity and 2.6. Ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy (UV/VIS) – should be improve.

- 3.1. Dry matter content - part must be detailed.

- Authors must but reference for each equation used.

- 3.7.1. Global Sensitivity Analysis—Yoon’s Interpretation Method – should be improve.

- Conclusion should be concise.

- Make all references in same format for volume number, page number and journal name, because it is difficult to searching and reading.

 

Based on these, I advise the authors to rectify the above mentioned errors and we hope to re-evaluate the revised manuscript.

Author Response

The manuscript describes the “The influence of biopolymer coating based on pumpkin oil cake activated with Mentha piperita on grape quality and shelf-life”. The manuscript needs a detailed editing. Some markings are made to just illustrate the extent of editing needed. A thorough revision addressing all the concerns is needed and if the authors are prepared to do that it can be considered for a review of the revised manuscript.

 AUTHORS: The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that the Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to the better quality of the submitted paper. We decided to revise the Manuscript according to the Reviewer’s remarks, highlighting the changes directly in the revised Manuscript. All remarks are accepted, and the paper is changed according to these comments.

The authors need to consider the following comments

- In the Abstract, the authors need to improve with more specific short results and conclusions, i.e. academic novelty or technical advantages.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the suggestion. The abstract is expanded and supported by the obtained results.

- Keywords: add more keywords.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the suggestion. More keyords are added.

- Introduction is lacking of novelty statement. Please revise and add some recent papers in order to improve the introduction.

AUTHORS: The introduction is expanded and compared with recent literature, highlighting the novelty of our research.

- 2.2. Synthesis of a biopolymer coating based on pumpkin seed oil cake (PuOC) - must be detailed.

AUTHORS: Synthesis of a biopolymer coating based on pumpkin seed oil cake (PuOC) has been completed.

- 2.4.2. Dry matter content, 2.4.4. Total acidity and 2.6. Ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy (UV/VIS) – should be improve.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the suggestion. The specified methods have been supplemented and clarified. The section 2.6. has been removed and incorporated in methods where spectrophotometry was used.

- 3.1. Dry matter content - part must be detailed.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the suggestion. This section is detailed with the obtained results.

- Authors must but reference for each equation used.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the suggestion. The proper references are added to each equation.

- 3.7.1. Global Sensitivity Analysis—Yoon’s Interpretation Method – should be improve.

AUTHORS:T hank you for noticig, Global Sensitivity Analysis is improved; The Figure 6 is better explained.

- Conclusion should be concise.

AUTHORS: Thank you for the comment. The conclusion section is sumarized.

- Make all references in same format for volume number, page number and journal name, because it is difficult to searching and reading.

AUTHORS: Thak you for the observation. The references are revised.

Based on these, I advise the authors to rectify the above mentioned errors and we hope to re-evaluate the revised manuscript.

AUTHORS: The authors would like to express their gratitude for the positive attitude of the Reviewer and a set of helpful comments aimed at improving the quality of our article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

 

The second version of your article is an improved and well-written story.

Please find the attached version of the manuscript with some comments that will contribute to the final improvement of the manuscript. I hope that after considering these comments it will be a much better version.

 

Regards.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer on professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to better quality of the paper that was submitted. All remarks are accepted and paper is changed according to these comments.

Thank you for your time and effort to improve our manuscript. In this revision round we also accepted all your suggestions. We just wanted to mention that we kept the term „variety” over type or sort because it is the most adequate term.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer on professional and helpful comments. It is obvious that Reviewer is an expert in this field. The Reviewer`s comments contribute to better quality of the paper that was submitted. All remarks are accepted and paper is changed according to these comments.

Thank you very much for positive attitude for our manuscript.