Free Fatty Acid Formation Points in Palm Oil Processing and the Impact on Oil Quality
, Anusha Nair, Mohd Ibnur Syawal Zakaria, Jaime Yoke Sum Low, Shwu Fun Kua, Ka Loo Koo, Yick Ching Wong, Bee Keat Neoh, Chin Ming Lim and David Ross AppletonRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment. We have also subscribed to MDPI's English editing service for this revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The publication Free Fatty Acid Formation Points in Palm Oil Processing and the Impact to Oil Quality is interesting and well written, however, with some errors. The authors properly designed the experiment getting the answer to the stated purpose of the work. However, in the paper, the authors should show more strongly how the study was conducted and the expended methodology part.
Detailed suggestions
The authors should also use line numbering (template) because it would be much easier to write about the parts to be changed.
Methodology
1. The methodology part is not fully understood. Preparing a diagram at what points samples were collected and a separate paragraph about the planned experiment would have been useful. Especially since part of the experimental data is in the results. e.g. Section 3.1 - first sentence. The authors should improve this part.
2. 2.2. Oil extraction from FFB and LF Why do the authors cite two publications for extraction of oil? Was the oil obtained by 2 methods? Are the methods in the two publications the same? There is a very high coincidence of names in these publications with the names of the authors.
3. 2.3. Blending of high FFA CPO and standard CPO. This point, too, could be more clearly written. Shouldn't the formula in the paragraph have a fractional dash?
4. The authors should state in the methodology section the methods used in the paper and describe them (they are currently listed in the supplement). This should be changed.
Results and discussion
Page 7 last paragraph - the sentence is linked to the name of the table.
The authors could also develop a discussion of the results obtained. Currently, they mainly refer to comparing their results with others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. We have also subscribed to MDPI's English editing service for this revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Figure
Figure 1 should be now separated into:
Figure 1 - sample treatment scheme - linked to section 2.2
Figure 2. FFA level of bunches harvested from short and tall palms. (A); FFA level of FFBs collected 154 from the upper and lower contents of the 8-meter bin (B); ..... (as it was before).
2. Methodology
Point 2.1 Analysis of FFA should be 2.3 First the research model later the analysis.
If publications 13 and 14 describe the same method of oil pressing then why are they both cited? There is no need to cite both in one method. In general, it would be much easier if the description of pressing was included directly in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
