Ultrasound-Assisted Cold Pasteurization in Liquid or SC-CO2
, Livio Stevanato 2 and Giancarlo Cravotto 2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
At the end of the article are not the conclusions of the study but only a series of discussions regarding the analyzes performed. I recommend drawing clear conclusions about what was found.Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
We glad to see that you paid attention to our article and we’ll try to answer at your comments and suggestions with Point/ Response format:
Point: At the end of the article are not the conclusions of the study but only a series of discussions regarding the analyzes performed. I recommend drawing clear conclusions about what was found.
Response: The conclusions were added. Now it is more global and clear.
With respect,
Authors team.
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend that the paper mention the methods of analysis used to establish the results in Tables 1 and 2.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
We glad to see that you paid attention to our article and we’ll try to answer at your comments and suggestions with Point/ Response format:
Point: I recommend that the paper mention the methods of analysis used to establish the results in Tables 1 and 2
Response: The information was added at the "materials and methods" section. We tried to explain process of data acquisition with more detail.
With respect,
Authors team.
Reviewer 3 Report
Best regards,
Reviewer
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The manuscript has no lines which makes revision difficult.
In the abstract or in the keywords not appearing the word dates makes no sense and even in the title it is questionable.
Throughout the manuscript: CO2? It will be CO2?
2.Materials and Methods: microbial genera and species are written in italics. Aspergillus sp.? spp.?
How many dates? Fresh? Frozen? Pitted?
how were the micro-organisms determined? can the authors describe the procedures in more detail?
Table1: Control 270000 E. coli, 1.2 kW, 1 min of processing, 3200 represents a reduction of 98.81 % and not 98.91. Review the entire table.
In the analysis and discussion of results the authors should present some results from other authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
We glad to see that you paid attention to our article and we’ll try to answer at your comments and suggestions with Point/ Response format:
Point 1: The manuscript has no lines which makes revision difficult.
Response 1: The lines were added.
Point 2: In the abstract or in the keywords not appearing the word dates makes no sense and even in the title it is questionable.
Response 2: The references were added
Point 3: 2.Materials and Methods: microbial genera and species are written in italics. Aspergillus sp.? spp.?
Response 3: Corrected.
Point 4: Throughout the manuscript: CO2? It will be CO2?
Response 4: The formatting was missed while editing. “CO2” has been replaced by “CO2”
Point 5: Table1: Control 270000 E. coli, 1.2 kW, 1 min of processing, 3200 represents a reduction of 98.81 % and not 98.91. Review the entire table.
Response 5: That was a mistype after calculation. The real value is about 98,815 (table was corrected). Other values were double-checked.
Point 6: How many dates? Fresh? Frozen? Pitted?
Response 6: Information was added at the "materials and methods" section. These were dried dates with a bone only (more convenient to load into tight space without breaking before starting experiments).
Point 7: How were the micro-organisms determined? can the authors describe the procedures in more detail?
Response 7: The information about procedures was added at the "materials and methods" section.
Point 8: In the analysis and discussion of results the authors should present some results from other authors.
Response 8: Some results were presented during analysis data from other authors
With respect,
Authors team.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Line 185 and Table 2: spp. No italics.
Lines 199-214: Add the City and Country of production of the equipment.
Line 209: thermostat at 37 ° C. within 2 days? correct this sentence.
Best Regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for fast reply at our submission. As a previous time we will try to answer at your comments and suggestions with point / respond format.
Point 1: Line 185 and Table 2: spp. No italics.
Respond 1: Corrected.
Point 2: Lines 199-214: Add the City and Country of production of the equipment.
Respond 2: Information was added (official name of company and place)
Point 3: Line 209: thermostat at 37 ° C. within 2 days? correct this sentence.
Respond 3: Corrected.
With respect,
Authors team.
