Effect of Drying Temperature on the Physicochemical, Functional, and Microstructural Properties of Powders from Agave angustifolia Haw and Agave rhodacantha Trel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript 'Effect of drying temperature on the physicochemical, functional, and microstructural properties of powders from Agave angustifolia Haw and Agave rhodacantha' refers to the significant problem of waste and environment. The obtained results have a high application potential.

General comment:

Mansucript needs improvement of English, in terms of scientific style and grammar. Please unify the tense - either past or present. I also recommend to remove the additives such as 'As shown in Table 3' [...] ' Table 3 shows' and again 'As shown in Table 3' in the same paragraph.

All abbreviations in the tables should be explain for non-specialist.

Detailed comments are marked in the PDF file. Highlighted lines without comments should be rewrite.

After minor revision I recommend to publish this paper.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, according to your instructions, we present the revised version of the research article with ID "horticulturae-2016940", with the answers to each of the comments, suggestions or questions made.
All answers have been concentrated in a file in PDF format and are identified with a consecutive number.
Additionally, in the corrected manuscript, the changes made based on the clarifications made have been indicated in red letters, for a better identification of them. Also in the figures and their texts when appropriate.
We thank you for the rigor of your comments and suggestions to improve the presentation of the results.
We look forward to your kind comments and final decision on our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and brings new interesting insights applicable in practice. Unfortunately, the current version of the manuscript is very carelessly compiled and it is very difficult to navigate the text.

Here is a list of the main comments:

1. full scientific names are: Agave angustifolia Haw. and Agave rhodacantha Trel., these names should appear in the methodology, they are not needed in other parts of the text (Agave angustifolia and A. rhodacantha are enough)

2. in the Abstract and Introduction, it would be good to mix up common names as well

3. Abstract: there is no reason to introduce the abbreviation DF

4. Abstract: release SD (and elsewhere in the following text)

5. you have 2.1. Agave leaf drying + 2.2. Agave leaf drying ???

6. the excessive and sometimes unsystematic introduction of many abbreviations makes the text unintelligible

7. equations 3, 4, 6 express the parameters in percentages, but each time in a different way (WSI (%), CI, % Hygroscopicity)

8. wrong is 3. Results, because you print data and also discuss

9. Where is the Discussion chapter?

10. Table 2-4: parameters are not explained. It is necessary for the tables to be clearly described and explained.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, according to your instructions, we present the revised version of the research article with ID "horticulturae-2016940", with the answers to each of the comments, suggestions or questions made.
All answers have been concentrated in a file in PDF format and are identified with a consecutive number.
Additionally, in the corrected manuscript, the changes made based on the clarifications made have been indicated in red letters, for a better identification of them. Also in the figures and their texts when appropriate.
We thank you for the rigor of your comments and suggestions to improve the presentation of the results.
We look forward to your kind comments and final decision on our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

In my opinion, the article is quite interesting; however, there are some parts that need to be improved.

Specific comments:

Materials and Methods:

2.1. Agave leaf drying

2.2. Agave leaf drying. Is a mistake?

As indicated in tables 1-4. The number of samples used was three (n=3). In my opinion, I think there should be at least 5 or 10 samples.

Results: Is a mistake?. Because then you present results and discussion together.

For example: Lines 212-214, 231-233, 234-236, 243-244, 247-251, 279-281.

I recommend that you separate results and discussion into two sections

Discussion:

Discussion needs to be improved

Conclusions:

The conclusions needs rewriting

Bibliography and references in text should be checked.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, according to your instructions, we present the revised version of the research article with ID "horticulturae-2016940", with the answers to each of the comments, suggestions or questions made.
All answers have been concentrated in a file in PDF format and are identified with a consecutive number.
Additionally, in the corrected manuscript, the changes made based on the clarifications made have been indicated in red letters, for a better identification of them. Also in the figures and their texts when appropriate.
We thank you for the rigor of your comments and suggestions to improve the presentation of the results.
We look forward to your kind comments and final decision on our article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version of the manuscript is at a better level and I recommend this scientific work for publication in Holticulturae journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

All proposed changes have been made