Inclusion of Antifungal and Probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Strains in Edible Alginate Coating as a Promising Strategy to Produce Probiotic Table Grapes and Exploit Biocontrol Activity
, Angela Scauro 1, Danial Fatchurrahman 1, Pasquale Russo 3, Vittorio Capozzi 2, Giuseppe Spano 1,* and Mariagiovanna Fragasso 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Inclusion of Antifungal and Probiotic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strains in Edible Alginate Coating as a Promising Strategy to Produce Probiotic Table Grapes and Exploit Biocontrol Activity" is interesting and original, and I believe it could be accepted after major review.
Please include some quantitative results in the abstract.
Line 78: Please cite which post-harvest fruit fungi have already been controlled by L. plantarum.
Has L. plantarum been used in fruit coating material for preservation previously? If so, mention this information in the introduction.
Line 96: Mention the identification of the 5 species: L. plantarum 10A, L. plantarum 11A, L. plantarum CB56...
Why were the physicochemical parameters (such as mass loss, titratable acidity, pH...) not evaluated?
Topic 3.1. Probiotic viability on table grapes berries during shelf life: Explain the mechanism of how coatings enhance probiotic adhesion and viability.
Topic 3.2. Fruit decay assay: Explain the mechanism of how L. plantarum can control fungal growth
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present reseach evaluates the impact of Lactiplantibacillu innoculation and coating in fruits on the evolution of the contamination by Aspergillus.
The introduction gives a good overview of the litterature on the topic and presents clearly the research question.
The material and method section is clear and complete
The results and discussion section is complete with enough references, is a little strage start by the discussion rather than starting with the results but it fits well.
Minor correction in the legend of figure 3, you need to change blu to blue, and add "green" color identification.
Conclusion are in line with the results obtained.
Abstract is ok
Author Response
The authors thank the referee for the constructive comments and suggestions. We corrected the mistake in the resubmitted version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
This is an example of a very well-planned work with clear information. However, to further improve this work's quality, I recommend implementing some changes. Overall, this is excellent work, and with some minor revisions, this work has the potential to be even more impactful. Please consider the following:
Line 30. "with a crucial impact on the potential functional attributes of the final product." What functional attributes? Were the attributes quantified? Do the authors have figures to support the statement?
Line 32. The authors must provide numerical results, such as lesion diameter values or the reduction percentage.
Line 76. The authors should mention the existence or absence of previous work that adds L. plantarum to an edible coating formulation.
Weight loss is a parameter that is commonly evaluated in the evaluation of fruit coatings. Did the authors not evaluate this parameter?
Line 102. Please mention the brand and country of the autoclave and the ambient temperature in °C.
In Figure 2 the authors present a diameter, but the methodology does not explain how it was measured.
Line 265. Please put L. plantarum in italics
In my opinion, the conclusion is very extensive.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe article can be accepted.
Author Response
The authors thank the referee for the constructive suggestions and comments.
