Effect of Linseed (Linum usitatissimum) Mucilage and Chitosan Edible Coatings on Quality and Shelf-Life of Fresh-Cut Cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)
, Claudia T. Gallardo-Rivera 2 and Katiushka Arévalo Niño 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper submitted is of current scientific interest. The work presented is of high quality, well documented and written, and plenty of details. Authors detail the impact on fresh-cut cantaloupe quality of the use of edible coatings based in linseed mucilage and chitosan. Different parameters related with the quality of fresh cut fruits were evaluated, as microbiological grow of aerobic mesophilic microorganism, moulds and yeasts; physicochemical parameters as firmness and colour, acidity, total soluble solids and ascorbic acid; moreover, sensory analysis is included.
There is some editing to do, some details should be included, and other parts should be shortened, but generally the content of the paper is of interest to edible coating researchers and specially for new food packaging materials developments.
I do express my positive opinion on the acceptance of the article to be published by Coatings after minor revision.
I detail my comments:
Abstract:Review the last sentence. In my opinion it is a little bit contradictory: the sensory acceptance was similar to the control, but the EC modified texture and taste of fruit.
Section 2.4:It is important to have a reference value for all parameters evaluated previously to the treatment with the EC to minimize the variations due to the fruit itself. Do authors have these data? I mean day=0. These could explain or not some of the differences found during the first days.
Lines 166-167: I suggest to authors to review this sentence I mean, to put into context, because although the statistical analysis shows significant differences regarding the control,these differences are minimum during the las ten days, especially in the case of LN coating.
Lines 214-232:As a suggestion, to evaluate the changes in the color of the fruit, authors could also calculate the total color difference (ΔE) parameter and then compare the results obtained with the different EC applied.
Lines 244-246:How could authors explain the low pH achieved in the LMCH samples? If it is related with the metabolism of the fruit, can be this observed through other of the studied parameters?
Section 3.3:I suggest to authors to shorter this section, trying to highlight the main findings.
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewers regarding the manuscript entitled “Effect of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mucilage and chitosan edible coatings on quality and shelf-life of fresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)”. We worked in the word file downloaded from the link, and made the corresponding modifications using the "Track Changes”. However, we review the comments of the reviewers with the pdf file since the line numbers do not correspond. Moreover, for a better arrangement of the figures, we changed some paragraphs from their original place (Lines 220-226, 227-240, 243-249 and 287-295). In addition, we clarify that prior to submitting the manuscript, it was submitted to a revision of the English language by a professional English editing service. Finally, the answers in relation to the comments of the reviewers are shown below.
Reviewer 1
The paper submitted is of current scientific interest. The work presented is of high quality, well documented and written, and plenty of details. Authors detail the impact on fresh-cut cantaloupe quality of the use of edible coatings based in linseed mucilage and chitosan. Different parameters related with the quality of fresh cut fruits were evaluated, as microbiological grow of aerobic mesophilic microorganism, moulds and yeasts; physicochemical parameters as firmness and colour, acidity, total soluble solids and ascorbic acid; moreover, sensory analysis is included.
There is some editing to do, some details should be included, and other parts should be shortened, but generally the content of the paper is of interest to edible coating researchers and specially for new food packaging materials developments.
I do express my positive opinion on the acceptance of the article to be published by Coatings after minor revision.
We thank the comments and suggestions of the reviewer 1.
I detail my comments:
Abstract: Review the last sentence. In my opinion it is a little bit contradictory: the sensory acceptance was similar to the control, but the EC modified texture and taste of fruit. sentence We agree. It was modified (Lines 27-30).
Section 2.4: It is important to have a reference value for all parameters evaluated previously to the treatment with the EC to minimize the variations due to the fruit itself. Do authors have these data? I mean day=0. These could explain or not some of the differences found during the first days. In fact, there was a mistake, the data reported correspond to day 1 of analysis and day 0 of storage. It was modified. Tables, figures and writing (Lines 104,163, 171, 209, 227, 235-236, 258, 292, 301 and 383) were corrected.
Lines 166-167: I suggest to authors to review this sentence I mean, to put into context, because although the statistical analysis shows significant differences regarding the control, these differences are minimum during the las ten days, especially in the case of LN coating. We agree. It was modified. It was specified that for molds and yeasts only (Line 186).
Lines 214-232: As a suggestion, to evaluate the changes in the color of the fruit, authors could also calculate the total color difference (ΔE) parameter and then compare the results obtained with the different EC applied. It was modified. The total color difference (ΔE) was calculated and included in methodology (127-128), results (Fig. 2d) and discussion section (243-249).
Lines 244-246: How could authors explain the low pH achieved in the LMCH samples? If it is related with the metabolism of the fruit, can be this observed through other of the studied parameters? As mentioned in the pH section (Lines 258-260), in the first instance, this effect can be associated with the pH of the coating forming solution (pH = 3.93) which reduced pH and increased total acidity values (Table 2). It could also be associated to the microbial growth during storage (fermentation process; Lines 274-275) since LMCH coating was not as effective at reducing the microbial levels when compared to the CH coating that also modified the pH values from the beginning (Lines 191-194, Fig. 1). Finally, changes in this parameter during storage can be attributed to the accumulation of organic acids characteristic of the metabolism of fresh-cut cantaloupe (Lines 267-269; Table 2, acidity values). This is mentioned in the corresponding sections and was not included in pH section so as not to repeat information.
Section 3.3: I suggest to authors to shorter this section, trying to highlight the main findings.
We thank the suggestions. However, we consider that the information in this section provides relevant data regarding the sensory evaluation. Because this information will be helpful for the reader, only some slight modifications were made in sensory quality testing (Lines 301-303, 313, 333, 357 and 383).
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall the manuscript has been well conducted and open new horizons to enhance the shelf-life of these perishable fruits. Also the experimental design is well organised. I think that the introduction could be extended about the use of edible coatings For example by adding more references, such as : Abdalrazeq et al (2019). Coatings 2019, 9(5), 322; Sagnelli et al (2017) International Journal of Molecular Sciences, , 18, 2075-2087, 2017doi:10.3390/ijms18102075.
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewers regarding the manuscript entitled “Effect of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mucilage and chitosan edible coatings on quality and shelf-life of fresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)”. We worked in the word file downloaded from the link, and made the corresponding modifications using the "Track Changes”. However, we review the comments of the reviewers with the pdf file since the line numbers do not correspond. Moreover, for a better arrangement of the figures, we changed some paragraphs from their original place (Lines 220-226, 227-240, 243-249 and 287-295). In addition, we clarify that prior to submitting the manuscript, it was submitted to a revision of the English language by a professional English editing service. Finally, the answers in relation to the comments of the reviewers are shown below.
Reviewer 2
Overall the manuscript has been well conducted and open new horizons to enhance the shelf-life of these perishable fruits. Also, the experimental design is well organized. I think that the introduction could be extended about the use of edible coatings. For example by adding more references, such as: Abdalrazeq et al (2019). Coatings 2019, 9(5), 322; Sagnelli et al (2017) International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18, 2075-2087,2017doi:10.3390/ijms18102075. We thank the comments and suggestions of the reviewer 2. It was modified; the references Abdalrazeq et al., [20] and Sagnelli et al., [21] were included in the introduction section (Lines 58-59).
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Effect of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mucilage and 2 chitosan edible coatings on the quality and shelf life of 3 fresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)" is well written and describes an experiment made on fresh-cut yellow melon. An edible coating was applied using immersion and three different materials, namely Linseeds mucilage, chitosan and a combination of these two.
The abstract is well written with all the needed information.
The introduction is well written. There is a sufficient amount of literature cited. However, the reviewer recommends adding to line 32 the reference
DC Vodnar, OL Pop, FV Dulf, C Socaciu. Antimicrobial efficiency of edible films in food industry. Not Bot Horti Agrobo. 2015, 43, 302-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha43210048
Materials and Methods
Line 75-80: please specify what is the purpose of the treatment in the muffle and what technique was used for the pulverization.
Line 86 the line between 2 and cm is no needed
Results and Discussions
Line 176: is the year necessary?
Line 233-275: due to a large number of abbreviations is a little difficult to read.
References
Line 382, 385, 399, 402 space is needed before the year
Line 411 point after the Journal Name
Author Response
Dear Editors:
We appreciate the comments and suggestions of the reviewers regarding the manuscript entitled “Effect of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mucilage and chitosan edible coatings on quality and shelf-life of fresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)”. We worked in the word file downloaded from the link, and made the corresponding modifications using the "Track Changes”. However, we review the comments of the reviewers with the pdf file since the line numbers do not correspond. Moreover, for a better arrangement of the figures, we changed some paragraphs from their original place (Lines 220-226, 227-240, 243-249 and 287-295). In addition, we clarify that prior to submitting the manuscript, it was submitted to a revision of the English language by a professional English editing service. Finally, the answers in relation to the comments of the reviewers are shown below.
Reviewer 3
The manuscript entitled "Effect of linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mucilage and 2 chitosan edible coatings on the quality and shelf life of 3 fresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo)" is well written and describes an experiment made on fresh-cut yellow melon. An edible coating was applied using immersion and three different materials, namely Linseeds mucilage, chitosan and a combination of these two. We thank the comments and suggestions of the reviewer 3.
The abstract is well written with all the needed information. We appreciate the comment.
The introduction is well written. There is a sufficient amount of literature cited. However, the reviewer recommends adding to line 32 the reference DC Vodnar, OL Pop, FV Dulf, C Socaciu. Antimicrobial efficiency of edible films in food industry. Not Bot Horti Agrobo. 2015, 43, 302-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha43210048. It was modified. The reference Vodnar et al., 2015 [1] was included in the introduction section (Line 37).
Materials and Methods
Line 75-80: please specify what is the purpose of the treatment in the muffle and what technique was used for the pulverization. It was modified and clarified in the text. The mucilage was dried in a muffle (70 °C for 24 h) and mechanically pulverized to obtain a fine powder that was used for the development of the coating forming solutions (Lines 88-89).
Line 86 the line between 2 and cm is no needed. It was modified (Line 95-96).
Results and Discussions
Line 176: is the year necessary? It was deleted (Line 195).
Line 233-275: due to a large number of abbreviations is a little difficult to read. We appreciate the comments of the reviewer. However, due to the length names of the treatments, we chose to use acronyms to reduce the concepts of both edible coatings and physicochemical evaluations.
References
Line 382, 385, 399, 402 space is needed before the year. This part was not modified because the year corresponds to the doi.
Line 411 point after the Journal Name. It was modified (Line 448).
