Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to authors:

-The current study is interesting; however, the authors should address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript:

 

-The manuscript should be revised for English editing and grammar mistakes.

Abstract:

-The abstract should be revised as many sentences showed redundancy، for example the author mention that the results showed no significant difference for many tested parameters (please merge and add the p values)

- Add the full expression before the abbreviations EPA

- Line 18: please replace test diet to experimental diets or treated diets

-A graphical abstract is recommended (If possible).

 

-Introduction: (it needs to be more informative):

-Rephrase the aim of the work to be clear and better sound.

 

Material and methods: are missy and required further editing

- Support all methods with updated specific references.

- Add the company, city, and country of the used chemicals and reagents.

- Brief information about the ethical approval should be provided

- missing Growth performance methods and calculations

-  How many no of fishes per each tank (is it equally distributed 30 fish/ replicate) please clarify?

- Line 111: 43% crude protein is very high and exceed the normal range for fish diet, please mention why using this high value and what is the negative effect on water parameters?

- Line 112: please use hand fed until visual satiety

- Did the authors check the health status of the experimental fish before starting their own experiment? If yes, please provide the methods for that (microbiological and parasitological examinations)

- Did the authors monitor and measure water parameters meanwhile the experiment, please add full information?

- Line 120: please write ethical approval in a separate tittle

- Line 124: MS222 is highly irritant and should be used in a mixture with Na bicarbonate please revise

-  Line 138: please use standard abbreviation for units (minutes= min)

- Line 145: ml revised as mL also for the whole manuscript

- Please add references to Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) Derivatization and Sterol Derivatization

- Line 164: add °C to -20

- Add full description to GC-MS and GC- FID, AMPL

- Line 182: section 2.5 not 5

 

  -Results:

 

- Please add a starting paragraph to the results section to briefly introduce the topic, your goals and hypothesis and a short summary of what you did in this work.

-Increase the resolution of all figures (must be 600 dpi).

- Table 2: are you sure, there is no any significant difference in total lipid, free fatty acids between experimental diets.

- p should be italic

- Table 3: what about statistical variations?

 

-Discussion:

-  The authors are advised to illustrate the real impact of their findings without repetition of results, please consider.

 

-Conclusion

- Should be rephrased to be sounded. A real conclusion should focus on the question or claim you articulated in your study, which resolution has been the main objective of your paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the research article entitled ‘Effects of replacement of fish oil with microbial oil (Schizo- 2 chytrium sp. T18) on membrane lipid composition of Atlantic 3 salmon parr muscle and liver tissues’. Overall, I find this commentary very rich with plenty of interesting results which should be of interest for the readers of Sustainability. Therefore, I recommend it to accept in Sustainability after moderate revision.

-The English grammar all over the document must be carefully revised.

-The description of the research background and current status are not detailed enough. Please explain.

-Conclusion section should be more informative.

- Important references should be cited

Efficacy of chitosan films with basil essential oil: perspectives in food packaging DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-017-9601-7

A possible wound dressing material from marine food waste. DOI:10.5301/ijao.5000531

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all scientific points and suggestions. The current version has been significantly modified and looks more clear and correct compared to the previous version. It is recommended that it be published in its current form.