Postharvest Application of Novel Bio-Based Antifungal Composite Edible Coatings to Reduce Sour Rot and Quality Losses of ‘Valencia’ Oranges
, Verònica Taberner 2, Laura Settier-Ramírez 2, Victoria Martínez-Blay 2 and Lluís Palou 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments for authors:
1. The text from line 417-432 should be inserted in the Introduction section with some modifications and elimination of some sentences.
2. The authors should check the text for typos.
4. Is there really a need for nine and eleven self-citations from co-authors María Bernardita Pérez-Gago and Lluís Palou, respectively? They should be revised and reduced.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript investigated novel antifungal edible coatings based on citrus pectin-beeswax enriched with natural extracts and essential oils. The results showed that ECs containing EG, GR and PR reduce weight loss and retained firmness of orange after 14 d at 20 ℃. The results are positive for the management of citrus postharvest sour rot. However, it need some minor revision before accept for publication in Coatings.
1. Line 261-262, Since CM EO was ineffective when evaluated as a volatile compound (soaked paper disc, data not shown), please check.
2. Line 148 and Line 156, the incubated condition are the same? In the dark condition?
3. Line 146- Line 147, the compounds of SA, CI ,LE, EG or GR were soaked with 10, 20 or 40 μL, what are the difference of the filter paper? Did the filter paper absorb differently? What about the dose?
4. Line 342-344, the results do not show in Figure 2？
5. Could the author provide some pictures of orange storage to supplement the effect of postharvest coating？
English language should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript exhibits a clear and coherent organization of its content. However, to make it suitable for publication, the following major concerns need to be addressed:
1. The Materials and Methods section appears excessively lengthy, and it is suggested to relocate some less critical details to supplementary materials.
2. The manuscript extensively relies on experimental data for discussion but lacks supporting visual evidence in the form of pictures or figures.
3. To enhance the readers' comprehension of the study's concept, the author should consider providing a schematic representation of the current research.
Minor English check-up is advised
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors provided the explanation of my comments and they are not convinced. If they have too much of visual data, that must be provided in the supplementary material. Additionally, schematic representation must be provided.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
