Predictive modeling of apple slice drying: Integrating temperature, thickness, and shrinkage dynamics

Mehdi Moradi; Reza Raeesi; Sadegh Rashidi; Mahdi Keramat-Jahromi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341428

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 7, 2025
3 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Andrey Nagdalian, Editor Dear Dr. Moradi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrey Nagdalian Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [the data may be available after journal request.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. We note that Figures 1, 2, and 3 in your submission may contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have undertaken a rigorous experimental and modeling approach to investigate the complex interplay between drying temperature, apple slice thickness, and the resulting kinetics, shrinkage, and color changes. However, the manuscript currently suffers from a perceived lack of innovation. While the study is technically sound, it does not sufficiently articulate its unique contribution to the field. Many studies have explored the effects of temperature and thickness on apple drying. The authors should work on more clearly showing the innovation of their work compared with existing studies in the literature. Is it the specific combination of models? Highlighting this novelty is critical. While the findings are valuable, their impact is diminished without a clear statement of what this work achieves that previous studies have not. The following detailed comments are provided to assist the authors in strengthening the paper, with a particular focus on better contextualizing its innovative aspects, to elevate it for publication. Comment 1: On page 11 (line 113), the text states the experiments were conducted in the "summer of 2024." Please correct this expression. Comment 2: On page 12 (line 146), the text refers to "Equation 5," but the corresponding equation is numbered as (4) (line 155). Please ensure all in-text citations to equations, figures, and tables are accurate. Comment 3: The Introduction mentions the use of the "Golden Delicious" apple variety but does not explain why this specific cultivar was chosen. Providing this context strengthens the experimental design. Please add a sentence in the Introduction or Materials and Methods section explaining the rationale for selecting Golden Delicious apples and what make this varietyan ideal model for this study. Comment 4: Please perform an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the total color difference (ΔE) values presented in Figure 14. This will statistically validate whether the differences in color change across the various drying treatments are significant, adding a quantitative layer to your qualitative discussion. Comment 5: In the discussion of the multivariate regression model for moisture diffusivity (page 22, lines 339-344), the interpretation could be clearer and more direct. Please rephrase the analysis of the T² and T terms to be more intuitive. Comment 6: The explanation for why thinner slices have higher activation energy (page 23, lines 361-364) is slightly counter-intuitive and could be clarified. The current text states that thinner slices lose moisture quickly, meaning "more energy is needed for moisture to diffuse." Please refine this explanation and clarify the discussion on Activation Energy. Comment 7: The manuscript briefly mentions the assumption of isotropic shrinkage as a limitation (page 27). This section could be expanded to provide more specific directions for future research. In the final paragraph of the "Statistical Analysis" section or in the "Conclusion," please elaborate on this and suggest specific future work. Comment 8: Several figures and tables are difficult to read due to small font sizes, which will be a problem in the final publication. Please increase the font size for axis titles, labels, and legends in all graphs, especially Figures 15 and 16. Ensure that all text within tables is legible and that the table titles (e.g., Table 2) clearly describe the contents, including the statistical test used (e.g., "ANOVA results for the effect...").. Consider improving Readability! Comment 9: Please structure the abstract to clearly separate the key findings from their implications. For instance, explicitly state the main quantitative results and conclude with a clear statement on the optimal conditions found. Comment 10: Please carefully proofread the entire manuscript to correct minor typos and grammatical errors. For example, on page 9 (line 70), there is a stray "y" at the start of a sentence. A thorough check will ensure the final version is polished. Reviewer #2: The manuscript titled “Predictive Modeling of Apple Slice Drying: Integrating Temperature, Thickness, and Shrinkage Dynamics” presents valuable experimental and modeling insights, but several technical clarifications and refinements are needed for strengthening the scientific quality. Kindly check attachment for comments. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: Yes: MERIEM ADNOUNIMERIEM ADNOUNI Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments on PONE-D-25-36704.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Comments- PONE-D-25-36704.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r001
Revision 1
21 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We sincerely thank you for your careful assessment of our manuscript and for the valuable comments and suggestions provided. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with all recommendations. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response outlining the changes made and clarifying how each comment has been addressed. We appreciate your time and consideration and believe that the revisions have substantially improved the quality and clarity of our work. Please find our detailed responses below. Editor comment: We note that Figures 1, 2, and 3 in your submission may contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. Response: Thank you for the notification. We have replaced Figure 1 with an original schematic illustration and have removed Figures 2 and 3 to ensure that all figures comply with CC BY 4.0 licensing requirements. Reviewer 1: Predictive Modeling of Apple Slice Drying: Integrating Temperature, Thickness, and Shrinkage Dynamics The authors have undertaken a rigorous experimental and modeling approach to investigate the complex interplay between drying temperature, apple slice thickness, and the resulting kinetics, shrinkage, and color changes. However, the manuscript currently suffers from a perceived lack of innovation. While the study is technically sound, it does not sufficiently articulate its unique contribution to the field. Many studies have explored the effects of temperature and thickness on apple drying. The authors should work on more clearly showing the innovation of their work compared with existing studies in the literature. Is it the specific combination of models? Highlighting this novelty is critical. While the findings are valuable, their impact is diminished without a clear statement of what this work achieves that previous studies have not. The following detailed comments are provided to assist the authors in strengthening the paper, with a particular focus on better contextualizing its innovative aspects, to elevate it for publication. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Introduction has been revised to clearly highlight the novelty of this work. The revised text emphasizes that this study uniquely integrates experimental measurements with predictive modeling, combining multivariate regression and Finite Element Modeling (FEM) to simultaneously quantify drying kinetics, shrinkage, moisture diffusivity, and color changes. Predictive models were developed to express shrinkage and moisture diffusivity explicitly as functions of slice thickness and temperature, providing a reliable, quantitative tool for optimizing drying parameters. This integrated approach enables accurate prediction of both physical and quality-related changes under varying conditions, offering actionable guidance for designing energy-efficient drying systems—a contribution that has not been addressed in previous studies. Comment 1: On page 11 (line 113), the text states the experiments were conducted in the "summer of 2024." Please correct this expression. Response: Thank you for your comment. The experiments were indeed performed in June 2024, before the manuscript was submitted. The sentence has been revised to: ‘After setting up the system, the drying experiments were carried out in June 2024 at the Department of Biosystems Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University. Comment 2: On page 12 (line 146), the text refers to "Equation 5," but the corresponding equation is numbered as (4) (line 155). Please ensure all in-text citations to equations, figures, and tables are accurate. Response: Thank you for your comment. All equation, figure, and table numbers have been checked and updated as appropriate. Comment 3: The Introduction mentions the use of the "Golden Delicious" apple variety but does not explain why this specific cultivar was chosen. Providing this context strengthens the experimental design. Please add a sentence in the Introduction or Materials and Methods section explaining the rationale for selecting Golden Delicious apples and what make this varietyan ideal model for this study. Response: Thank you for your comment. A sentence has been added to the Materials and Methods explaining the rationale for selecting the ‘Golden Delicious’ cultivar. “The Golden Delicious apple was chosen due to its global commercial relevance, uniform morphology, and stable chemical composition, which minimize variability and make it a suitable model cultivar for evaluating drying performance and quality changes.” Comment 4: Please perform an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the total color difference (ΔE) values presented in Figure 14. This will statistically validate whether the differences in color change across the various drying treatments are significant, adding a quantitative layer to your qualitative discussion. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effects of drying temperature, slice thickness, and their interaction on the total color difference (ΔE). The analysis revealed that temperature, thickness, and their interaction all significantly affected ΔE (p < 0.0001). These results have been included in Table 4 and discussed in the revised manuscript to provide a quantitative assessment of color change across the drying treatments. Comment 5: In the discussion of the multivariate regression model for moisture diffusivity (page 22, lines 339-344), the interpretation could be clearer and more direct. Please rephrase the analysis of the T² and T terms to be more intuitive. Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The paragraph discussing the regression model has been revised to provide a clearer and more intuitive interpretation of the temperature terms (T² and T). The updated text explains that these terms together describe a non-linear effect of temperature on moisture diffusivity, with Deff generally increasing at higher temperatures. Slice thickness effects have also been clarified, emphasizing that thicker slices lead to higher Deff. The revised paragraph improves readability while maintaining the technical accuracy of the model. Comment 6: The explanation for why thinner slices have higher activation energy (page 23, lines 361-364) is slightly counter-intuitive and could be clarified. The current text states that thinner slices lose moisture quickly, meaning "more energy is needed for moisture to diffuse." Please refine this explanation and clarify the discussion on Activation Energy. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. The paragraph discussing activation energy has been revised to provide a clearer and more intuitive explanation. The revised text clarifies that thinner slices have a larger surface-to-volume ratio, which leads to faster initial moisture loss at the surface. As a result, maintaining effective moisture transport in thinner slices requires more energy, which is reflected in their higher activation energy values. In contrast, thicker slices dry more slowly and uniformly, making their moisture diffusion less sensitive to temperature changes. The revised paragraph also highlights supporting findings from previous studies to contextualize these observations. Comment 7: The manuscript briefly mentions the assumption of isotropic shrinkage as a limitation (page 27). This section could be expanded to provide more specific directions for future research. In the final paragraph of the "Statistical Analysis" section or in the "Conclusion," please elaborate on this and suggest specific future work. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Conclusion has been revised to provide a more detailed discussion of the limitations related to isotropic shrinkage and directions for future research. The updated text now highlights the potential for incorporating anisotropic shrinkage effects and variable tissue properties, extending the model to three dimensions, and performing experimental validation using non-destructive imaging or real-time moisture sensors. These additions provide specific and actionable directions for future studies and enhance the clarity and applicability of the conclusions. Comment 8: Several figures and tables are difficult to read due to small font sizes, which will be a problem in the final publication. Please increase the font size for axis titles, labels, and legends in all graphs, especially Figures 15 and 16. Ensure that all text within tables is legible and that the table titles (e.g., Table 2) clearly describe the contents, including the statistical test used (e.g., "ANOVA results for the effect...").. Consider improving Readability! Response: Thank you. The font size of the figures has been increased, and the titles of the related tables have been revised. Comment 9: Please structure the abstract to clearly separate the key findings from their implications. For instance, explicitly state the main quantitative results and conclude with a clear statement on the optimal conditions found. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The abstract has been revised to clearly highlight the key findings and their implications in a single, coherent paragraph. Quantitative results such as the effects of temperature and slice thickness on drying time, shrinkage, and moisture diffusivity are explicitly stated. The optimal drying conditions (70°C and 4 mm slice thickness) are also clearly indicated, along with recommendations for future research, including anisotropic shrinkage modeling, energy analysis, and hybrid drying techniques. This revision improves clarity and ensures that both the main results and their significance are immediately understandable to the reader. Comment 10: Please carefully proofread the entire manuscript to correct minor typos and grammatical errors. For example, on page 9 (line 70), there is a stray "y" at the start of a sentence. A thorough check will ensure the final version is polished. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The entire manuscript has been thoroughly proofread, and all identified typographical and grammatical errors, including the stray “y” on page 9, line 70, have been corrected. Additional revisions were made to improve clarity, readability, and consistency throughout the text. Reviewer 2 Comment 1 The abstract is informative, but it would benefit from explicitly mentioning the experimental replication and statistical approach used for validation. Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. The abstract has been revised to include a clear statement that all drying experiments were performed in triplicate and that statistical validation, including Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), was used to assess the significance of the effects of temperature and slice thickness. This addition strengthens the methodological clarity of the abstract and highlights the rigor of the study’s experimental and analytical approach. Commnet2: The conclusion on “optimal visual quality at higher temperatures” seems counterintuitive; please justify with supporting data or revise the phrasing. Response: Thank you for this observation. We agree that stating “optimal visual quality at higher temperatures” in the abstract may appear counterintuitive without context. We have revised the abstract to clarify that the improved visual quality was specifically associated with the combination of 70°C and a 4 mm slice thickness, which resulted in the lowest color change (ΔE) among all treatments. This combination reduced overall drying time enough to limit enzymatic browning, despite the high temperature. The revised phrasing now clearly reflects this interaction and avoids any misleading generalization about high-temperature drying. Comment3: The introduction provides background, but it should briefly highlight gaps in existing FEM-based drying studies for apples to justify novelty. Response: Thanks for your comment. In this regard, we developed the last section of introduction to highlight the novelty of the research, in use of FEM to simultaneously quantify multiple aspects of the drying process. The revised section is as following: “This study investigates the effects of slice thickness and drying temperature on the drying kinetics, moisture diffusivity, shrinkage, and color of apple slices. A key innovation of this work lies in the integration of experimental measurements with predictive modeling, combining multivariate regression and Finite Element Modeling (FEM) to simultaneously quantify multiple aspects of the drying process. Predictive models were developed to express shrinkage and moisture diffusivity explicitly as functions of slice thickness and temperature, providing a reliable, quantitative tool for optimizing drying parameters and improving both efficiency and product quality. Unlike previous studies, which often focus on individual factors or qualitative trends, this integrated approach enables accurate prediction of physical and quality-related changes under varying operational conditions, offering actionable insights for designing energy-efficient drying systems tailored to specific product characteristics.” Comment4: The statement that thickness has a greater effect than temperature needs citations of at least two prior studies to reinforce the claim. Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have now added supporting literature that directly demonstrates the comparatively stronger influence of slice thickness on drying time. Studies on melon and G. erubescens fruits show that increasing slice thickness results in a substantially greater increase in drying duration than the reductions achieved by increasing temperature. In this regard, following paragraph was added: “Evidence from previous drying studies supports the greater influence of slice thickness compared to temperature on drying time. For instance, in the drying of melon slices, increasing thickness from 3 mm to 5 mm led to increases of 38–87% in drying time across temperatures of 60, 70, 80, and 90°C, whereas raising the air temperature within a constant thickness reduced drying time by only 40–53% [18]. Similarly, in studies on other fruit matrices such as G. erubescens, thicker slices consistently required substantially longer drying periods due to the increased moisture diffusion path [19]. These findings collectively demonstrate that slice thickness exerts a stronger limiting effect on moisture removal than temperature, reinforcing our observation that thickness has a more pronounced impact on drying time.” Comment 5 The detailed hardware description (brands, model numbers) is good, but airflow distribution uniformity inside the cabinet should be validated, as it significantly affects results. Response: We appreciate this valuable observation. In response, we have added a clarification in the Materials and Methods section describing how airflow uniformity was checked prior to experiments. Specifically, airflow velocity was measured at multiple points across the tray area using an anemometer to confirm spatial uniformity. These measurements confirmed that the airflow variation across the drying chamber remained within ±5%, indicating sufficient uniform airflow for reliable drying experiments. This information has been incorporated into the revised manuscript to address the reviewer’s concern. Comment6 Replication strategy (triplicate runs) is mentioned; however, error bars or confidence intervals should be presented in figures to reflect variability. Response: Thank you. Error bars have been added to the figures. Comment7 The assumption of constant diffusivity in FEM needs a stronger justification; real food tissues often show variable diffusivity during drying. Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We would like to clarify that the FEM simulations in this study did not assume constant moisture diffusivity. The discussion of constant diffusivity in the theoretical modeling section was included only to explain why analytical solutions tr Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Respond letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r002
21 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Andrey Nagdalian, Editor Dear Dr. Mehdi Moradi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrey Nagdalian Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, I am pleased to inform you that both reviewers now recommend publication of the revised manuscript. However, the Reviewer 1 left some additional minor comments that will help to further improve the text of the manuscript. Please consider them and make revision thoroughly. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: For a journal like PLOS ONE, which does not perform copy-editing, clarity and correctness in English are essential. By addressing the following points, the authors can significantly improve the quality of the English prose, making the manuscript more professional, easier to read, and more suitable for publication: 1. The phrase "(is for slice thickness of 2 mm)" is grammatically incorrect and awkwardly inserted. It breaks the flow of the sentence. Rephrase for clarity. For example: "As shown in Figure 15 for a slice thickness of 2 mm, the solution stabilized..." or "Figure 15 shows the results for a 2 mm slice thickness, where the solution stabilized...". 2. Throughout the manuscript: There are minor inconsistencies, such as the use of "et al" versus "et al." (the latter, with a period, is standard). Also, check for consistent capitalization in titles and headings. 3. "The theoretical model exhibited a high correlation coefficient (R²) ranging from 0.99 to 0.97, with a MAE between 0.063 and 0.186, and a RMSE ranging from 0.092 to 0.275." The sentence is long and lists many statistics. While grammatically correct, it could be clearer. Correction (for better readability): "The theoretical model demonstrated a high correlation with experimental data, achieving R² values between 0.97 and 0.99. The model's accuracy was further confirmed by low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values (0.063–0.186) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values (0.092–0.275)." Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been thoroughly and carefully revised according to the comments and is now suitable for acceptance in its current form. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: Yes: MERIEM ADNOUNIMERIEM ADNOUNI Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r003
Revision 2
30 Dec 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers We sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly to improve clarity, consistency, and overall quality. All changes have been incorporated into the revised version. Our detailed responses are provided below. Reviewer #1: For a journal like PLOS ONE, which does not perform copy-editing, clarity and correctness in English are essential. By addressing the following points, the authors can significantly improve the quality of the English prose, making the manuscript more professional, easier to read, and more suitable for publication: Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on clarity and correctness in English, which is particularly important for PLOS ONE. The manuscript has been carefully revised to address all the points raised. Comment 1. The phrase "(is for slice thickness of 2 mm)" is grammatically incorrect and awkwardly inserted. It breaks the flow of the sentence. Rephrase for clarity. For example: "As shown in Figure 15 for a slice thickness of 2 mm, the solution stabilized..." or "Figure 15 shows the results for a 2 mm slice thickness, where the solution stabilized...". Response: Thanks. We agree with the reviewer and have revised the sentence to improve grammatical correctness and readability. The phrase has been reworded and smoothly integrated into the sentence. Revision made: The sentence now reads: “As shown in Figure 13 for a slice thickness of 2 mm, the solution stabilized..." or "Figure 15 shows the results for a 2 mm slice thickness, where the solution stabilized...” Comment 2. Throughout the manuscript: There are minor inconsistencies, such as the use of "et al" versus "et al." (the latter, with a period, is standard). Also, check for consistent capitalization in titles and headings. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected all instances to ensure consistency. Comment 3. "The theoretical model exhibited a high correlation coefficient (R²) ranging from 0.99 to 0.97, with a MAE between 0.063 and 0.186, and a RMSE ranging from 0.092 to 0.275." The sentence is long and lists many statistics. While grammatically correct, it could be clearer. Correction (for better readability): "The theoretical model demonstrated a high correlation with experimental data, achieving R² values between 0.97 and 0.99. The model's accuracy was further confirmed by low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values (0.063–0.186) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values (0.092–0.275)." Response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion and have adopted the revised wording to improve clarity and readability. Revision made: The sentence has been revised to: “The theoretical model demonstrated a high correlation with experimental data, achieving R² values between 0.97 and 0.99. The model’s accuracy was further confirmed by low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) values (0.063–0.186) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values (0.092–0.275).” Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been thoroughly and carefully revised according to the comments and is now suitable for acceptance in its current form. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and support. We appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our work. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r004
7 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Andrey Nagdalian, Editor Predictive Modeling of Apple Slice Drying: Integrating Temperature, Thickness, and Shrinkage Dynamics PONE-D-25-36704R2 Dear Dr. Moradi, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Andrey Nagdalian Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Andrey Nagdalian, Editor PONE-D-25-36704R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Moradi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Andrey Nagdalian Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341428.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .