All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. Therefore I consider that now the manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
For instance, the abstract has the same sentence repeated twice.
Please, check the reviewer comment and provide a revision for evaluation.
The authors have made substantial revision to improve the quality of the manuscript. However there a few more additions would improve the readability and clarity.
Abstract: line 30 Add overall goal of paper should be given. Authors could use similar statement as given in line 97-99
Line 61 The ‘discrepancy’ of drying technology would be more meaningful if stated as: Due to the wide variation of drying technologies, rehydration conditions………
Line 107 please provide the ‘natural environment’ conditions such as average temperature and average humidity during the 14hr drying period.
Line 109 as recommended in the original review the fresh daylily moisture content of 10.13 g H2O/g DW (Ding et al 2012) be included in the manuscript. Since the focus of this paper is on the rehydration of dried daylilies, the original moisture content will provide the reader very important insight into the irreversibility of the rehydration process.
Even though the fresh daylily moisture content was not measured, the reference by Ding et al 2012 provides data on fresh daylily initial moisture content of 10.13g H2O/g DW that could be used to suggest the degree of rehydration under different rehydration conditions. With an initial moisture of 0.1 – 0.2 g H2O/g DW and an approximate initial weight in Fig 3 of 0.45gr, the initial DW is approximately 0.4 g DM. Therefore, if the daylily would be totally hydrated the final lily weight would be approximately 4.4g (4 g H2O plus 0.4g DW) as compared with the result of 2.05 g for 4hr at 70C soaking. To obtain the rehydration equivalent to a fresh daylily the rehydration ratio can be calculated to reach approximately 9.7
acceptable
acceptable
No comments
No comments
No comments
No comments
Authors can verify that reviewers have recommended a revision of the manuscript. Please, review the comments and respond to the points raised.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The overall goal of this paper is to determine the effect of temperature and time on nutrient retention during the water soak rehydration of dried daylily. After dried daylilies were soaked in water at various times and temperatures several rehydration properties and nutrient contents were determined. Except for lignin and cellulose, the results indicate that significant losses occurred for water soluble nutrients under all experimental conditions. Maximum water retention occurred at the highest temperature for the longest period. Few published works have studied water-soaked rehydration of dried daylilies, and the results of this work correlate well with other food rehydration research that has been done.
All material properties and analytical procedures should be documented and referenced
Line 99 What specifically is drying naturally mean? The drying process has a major influence on the rehydration process. Was the fresh product blanched to deactivate enzymes and toxins. Please include the dried sample average moisture content. Ding et all 2012 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03147.x suggests 0.18 g H2O/g DW
Line 101 Was the water in the 2L beaker` stirred or not stirred.
Line 109 Please include approximate moisture content of the fresh samples.
Ding et all 2012 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012. 03147.x suggests 10.13g H2O/gr DW
Line 115 Microstructure observation and all other analysis methods Please include pertinent procedural references. Are the methods developed specifically for this work by the authors, are original (not used before)? How were the methods calibrated? If so please indicate. Or are the procedures widely accepted, have been used before, can be referenced? If so please provide procedural reference. Have the reference methods been modified. What is the modification.
Main concerns about this work center around the manuscript presentation which includes the lack of accuracy and completeness of the references, lack of clarity of the text and figures, and lack of inclusion of critical data all of which should be corrected. The authors also should consider as a comparison to their results, the publication Chu Q. et.al. 2023 LWT which also discusses the evaluation of drying and rehydration of daylilies using several drying techniques
Lines 305- 306 and 310 - 311 The statements made are not totally correct since not only is controlling the rehydration water temperature important but even more important is that the drying procedures control the ability of a dried food product to maintain its initial structure. The fresh food product generally needs to be dried below its glass transition temperature to reduce shrinkage. One example of a drying method operating below glass transition that helps maintain product structure is freeze drying. (see Chu 2023 LWT)
Effect mechanism of different drying methods on the quality and browning for daylily
Q Chu, L Li, X Duan, M Zhao, Z Wang, Z Wang, X Ren, C Li, G Ren
Lwt, 2023•Elsevier
Specific comments:
Line 33 Please define ‘foaming efficiency’ and line 330 foaming time
Line 34 destruction of the texture of the daylily. (texture not measured, microstructure was determined) should replace the word texture
Line 51 citation incorrect Zhang et al. 2017 contains little or no discussion regarding food poisoning
Line 52 Dried vegetables need to be rehydrated before eating. Not true, many foods are eaten dry. Suggest changing ‘need to be’ to ‘are usually’
Citation incorrect: Shende D, Datta AK. 2019. Contain little or no discussion of rehydration since only discussion in paper focused on different drying methods
lines 87 - 95 Consider modifying to: The main goal of this work is to determine dried daylily water rehydration properties and sugar, lignin, cellulose, carotenoid, flavonoid and polyphenol retention properties under different temperatures and time periods.
Line 198 Fig 2 please label time and temp. Please comment on the specific differences of each observation in Fig 2
Line199 Please rewrite the next two sentences to increase clarity.
Line 239 Fig 4B is totally black. Please correct.
Line 305 As already mentioned that a dry food does not need to be rehydrated, dry foods can be eaten dry.
Line 312 Zielinska, Ropelewska. Should be Ropelewski
Line 326 Wang et al., 2023b citation incorrect. The Wang 2023b paper focuses on cell wall structural changes not on the loss of internal nutrients. Please change the reference or the statement.
no comments
no comments
no comments
See attached PDF
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.