The Effect of ULO and NA Storage on Changes in the Quality of Apple Fruit (Malus domestica Borkh.) during Shelf Life

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “The effect of ULO and NA storage on changes in quality of apple during shelf life’ has new experimental data that are worth considering. However, important revision need to be made in the Discussion section, in order to be more comprehensive, clear, avoid repetitions and include relevant references.

Below are some specific recommendations

Line 87 SSC was expressed as ? ⁰Brix?

Line 95 TA need to be expressed as in the International Scientific Indexing (ISI) system and not as percentage, ps as g mallic acid/100 g juice?

P values need to be in italics

Line 117 what was the brand name of the blender.

It would be useful that when a greater or lower effect is mentioned to indicate the % changes

Discussion

It would be beneficial to give an introductory sentence-paragraph indicating what was made and what were the overall results found, as done in conclusion.

Lines 221-225 are confusing compared with the relevant Result section. Why total sugars were measured and what means that results are similar to SSC?

Lines 235-240 are repetitions from the Introduction section

Lines 241. What were the correlations between total phenols and antioxidant capacity for apple in other studies? Why only a reference on plum was reported?

Line 295 is not clear.

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for constructive criticism which enabled us to improve our manuscript. Please see the attachment for detailed point-to-point response to reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I recommend that the authors change the word fruits per fruit in the text:
fruits is the plural of fruit for various fruits of different species for examples pear, apples, pear than is fruits
however fruit is the plural of fruits of the same species, for example in the paper is only apple.

in line 74 and 75 I sugest to put for until 20days (because the paper are for 0, 10 and 20 days)

I also suggest to the authors to describe in the material and methods in the statistical analysis parts that the work was developed in a bifactorial design (I find this, if I see the Tables) (A = two storage conditions AN and ULO as well as B = three evaluation times, T1 chamber removal, T2 after 10 days and T3 after 20 days of shelf life at 20 ° C). Please put if the desing was entirely randomized or in blocks!

I recommend that the authors put a dashed line between the two cultivars, it will help the reader

when the author writes that "had statistically significant higher" for exemple line 204 and 264). I think authors can remove the "statistically significant" term from the sentence.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for constructive criticism which enabled us to improve our manuscript. Please see the attachment for detailed point-by-point response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was improved and I suggest to be accepted for publication in the Agronomy journal.