Global Population, Carrying Capacity, and High-Quality, High-Pressure Processed Foods in the Industrial Revolution Era

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments
1. The '.' in the title of the manuscript should be deleted, and the "high-pressure preservation and processing" should be added to the title.
2. The novelty of this work should be emphasized in the Introduction.
3. The logic of this work should be reorganized, for example, the relationship between '3.2 High Pressure Preservation/Processing of food' and '3.1. Global population, carrying capacity, and Condorcet criterion' are not clearly defined.
4. The figures should be reviewed, and the quality improved. 

Author Response

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

Comments from the reviewers are supportive of the manuscript, with some suggestions.

Please note general corrections, which has been done to meet suggestions of some Reviewers, namely:

1. The former Figure 1 has been ‘splitted’ into the new Figure 1, without the inset an and the New Figure 2 presenting the results shown in the inset in the former Figure 1.
2. Consequently, the former Figure 2 is now numbered ‘Figure 3’. Following comments we introduced the new photo of the HPP facility, with higher resolution and better presentation of technical details. See also improved caption

• The former Figure 3 is now numbered Figure 4. Note some corrections, mainly the slight change of the ‘phase 1’ presentation which explicitly shows the adiabatic heating on compressing, previously omitted to simplify the concept-plot. It led to the corrected caption

4. Following the comments of 2 reviewers, the new section 4. Discussion has been introduced. It contains the majority of issues contained in the former ‘Conclusions’ section
5. The latter is followed by a short (as suggested by Reviewers) Conclusions section.
6. Note a ‘small’ change in title and Abstract, advised by a Reviewer

• A few supplementary references have been added, to meet suggestions of Rev. #3: [127-134]

All comments of Reviewers have been ‘positively’ taken into account within the text of the Report. Below, please also find supplementary precise responses to each question/comment. We also made the final language check/test & cleaning.

 

Reviewer #1

1. Reviewer#1:   The '.' in the title of the manuscript should be deleted, and the "high-pressure preservation and processing" should be added to the title.
   Response:  the current title is ‘Global population, carrying capacity, and high-quality, high-pressures processed foods in Industrial Revolutions era ‘‘

 

2. Reviewer#1: ‘The novelty of this work should be emphasized in the Introduction.

Response:        Please note the end of the Introduction in the basic version of the manuscript:‘…Original solutions for the next-generation HPP sterilization are also shown. The preliminary part of the report presents the conceptual background for the above issues through a new discussion on food needs and requirements in the Anthropocene. It focuses on the carrying capacity concept as its key metric, including some new interpretations, particularly the Condorcet equation, which links it to population growth.

We are not convinced that further emphasizing the report's novelty will not be considered excessive by some readers. Therefore, we ask the reviewer to acknowledge the emphasis in its current, more modest form.’

3. Reviewer#1: ‘ The logic of this work should be reorganized, for example, the relationship between '3.2 High Pressure Preservation/Processing of food' and '3.1. Global population, carrying capacity, and Condorcet criterion' are not clearly defined.
   Response:        Please note that the link between mentioned sections is extensively explained in the last part of section 3.1, starting from the sentence ‘Although the successive stages of the Industrial Revolution era opened up new ‘raw material’ resources or ‘carrying capacity’ ….’ (Page 10, 11^th line from the bottom) till the end of this Section (Page 11, 22^nd line from the top).

Particularly, see the rewritten & supplemented end of this section:  Page 11, from the 20^th line from the top, starting from the sentence: ‘The exceptional importance of high-pressure preservation/processing (HPP) of foods is stressed and discussed in the next Section….. Which explicating recalls the meaning of HPP and HPS technologies for the Carrying Capacity of nowadays ’sustainable’ societies.

 

4. Reviewer#1: ‘The figures should be reviewed, and the quality improved. ’

Response:   This comment was not clear to us. Nevertheless, we did the bets, namely:

• Figure 1 has been prepared according to standards employed in our numerous earlier reports, using ORIGIN software – so we only improved slightly the captions. See no inset, which has been removed.
• Figure 2 appears following on of Reviewer’s suggestion. It is related to the inset of the former Fig. 1.
• Figure 3 is the formereFig.2, related to the HPP apparatus (in the X-PressMatter Lab) – in oiur opinion significant for showing the readers the  looks og a semi-industrial scale facility. We decided to replace the previous photo with the new one, with higher resolution and showing more technical details to support the imagination of the complexity of this technology.
• Figure 4 is related to the former Fig.3. We've corrected the lettering and coloring of the description. The structure descriptions now read 'Native protein' and 'Denatured protein', instead of the previous 'native' and 'denaturated'. Perhaps you noticed that in the previous figure (for simplicity's sake) we omitted the effect of adiabatic heating due to the change in internal energy upon compression?

Now, we show this explicitly by tilting the arrow in step '1' through CBE and reversed CBE assisted HPP and HPS processing. We've also clarified the caption accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a thorough analysis of the relationship between world population, global food availability along humankind evolution and the role of innovative food preservation technologies nowadays. The authors highlight the feedback mechanism between science, technology, and socioeconomic factors, which is particularly relevant in the context of the Fifth Industrial Revolution. They emphasize that in an innovation-driven era, it is essential to develop methods that ensure food safety and extend shelf life while preserving the native qualities of food products.

 

Areas for improvement:

1. The paper offers large explanations and detailed calculations regarding carrying capacity and global population dynamics, providing a solid foundation for understanding the challenges facing global food systems. The concepts are clearly presented, particularly in Section 3.1, which includes an effective historical perspective on the Anthropocene era, supported by figure 1 that illustrates these complex relationships. I suggest simplifying the figure eliminating the inset, eventually create an additional plot.
2. The paper focuses exclusively on High-Pressure Preservation and Processing (HPP), positioning HPP sterilization as the next potential breakthrough. While this perspective is valuable, the analysis would benefit from a broader comparison with other emerging preservation technologies, so I suggest include brief explanations of breakthrough technologies in food safety and long-term preservation in 3.2 section. This expansion would provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse technological landscape, allowing for better contextualization of HPP’s advantages and limitations.

 

3. I suggest eliminating the Figure 2., considering it inadequate for the scope of the paper and journal..

 

4. In my opinion, the conclusions section would benefit from being shortened to focus more succinctly on the key findings and implications, thereby improving clarity and impact. There is too much historical data for conclusions.

 

5. Pay attention to the references, as part of them, for example 36 and 37 are not properly written, the authors’ surnames being considered their family names.

 

Author Response

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

Comments from the reviewers are supportive of the manuscript, with some suggestions.

Please note general corrections, which has been done to meet suggestions of some Reviewers, namely:

1. The former Figure 1 has been ‘splitted’ into the new Figure 1, without the inset an and the New Figure 2 presenting the results shown in the inset in the former Figure 1.
2. Consequently, the former Figure 2 is now numbered ‘Figure 3’. Following comments we introduced the new photo of the HPP facility, with higher resolution and better presentation of technical details. See also improved caption

• The former Figure 3 is now numbered Figure 4. Note some corrections, mainly the slight change of the ‘phase 1’ presentation which explicitly shows the adiabatic heating on compressing, previously omitted to simplify the concept-plot. It led to the corrected caption

4. Following comments of 2 reviewers the new section 4. Discussion has been introduced. It contains the majority of issues contained in the former ‘Conclusions’ section
5. The latter is followed by a short (as suggested by Reviewers) Conclusions section.
6. Note a ‘small’ change in title and Abstract, advised by a Reviewer

• A few supplementary references have been added, to meet suggestions of Rev. #3: [127-134]

All comments of Reviewers have been ‘positively’ taken into account within the text of the Report. Below, please also find supplementary precise responses to each question/comment. We also made the final language check/test & cleaning.

Reviewer #2

1. Reviewer#2: ….. The concepts are clearly presented, particularly in Section 3.1, which includes an effective historical perspective on the Anthropocene era, supported by Figure 1 that illustrates these complex relationships. I suggest simplifying the figure by eliminating the inset and eventually creating an additional plot.

Response: It has been done. Now there are Figure 1  and Figure 2 related to the former Figure 1. Consequently, the former Figure 2 is now Figure 3 and the former Figure 3 is now Figure 4.

 

2. Reviewer#2: ‘ The paper focuses exclusively on High-Pressure Preservation and Processing (HPP), positioning HPP sterilization as the next potential breakthrough. While this perspective is valuable, the analysis would benefit from a broader comparison with other emerging preservation technologies, so I suggest include brief explanations of breakthrough technologies in food safety and long-term preservation in 3.2 section. This expansion would provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse technological landscape, allowing for better contextualization of HPP’s advantages and limitations.

Response:  The paper includes a commentary on other innovative, next-generation preservation methods that combine "sustainable" features important for the recipient/consumer, the producer, and logistics—with some degree of market validation. Even more extensive references are also included. However, none of these methods seem to match the capabilities of HPP technology. In our opinion, this Reviewer’s suggestion is more of a recommendation for a subsequent publication, and in fact, we are preparing one at the special invitation of the editors. Nevertheless, we added and extensive part at the end of the Discussion section (page 19) starting from the 5^th line from the top ‘In recent decades, other innovative methods ……’

 

3. Reviewer#2: ‘ I suggest eliminating the Figure 2., considering it inadequate for the scope of the paper and journal.

Response:   Figure 2 is a photo of a pilot-pilot scale HPP system, i.e., on a semi-industrial scale. This allows the reader to visualize such a system, which is also an example of advanced innovation in its field. In our opinion discussing HPP technology without such a visualization can significantly limit the reader's understanding. To improve the visualization, we replaced the previous photo with a new one, higher resolution and better showing the details of the device.

 

4. Reviewer#2:                In my opinion, the conclusions section would benefit from being shortened to focus more succinctly on the key findings and implications, thereby improving clarity and impact. There is too much historical data for conclusions.

Response:   Note the new  4. Discussion  section, which the vast majority is related to the former ‘Conclusions’.    Consequently a new ‘5. Conclusions’ section’ was formulated.

 

5. Reviewer#2:    Pay attention to the references, as part of them, for example 36 and 37 are not properly written, the authors’ surnames being considered their family names.

Response:   These and other references have been tested and corrected.

Note also that some new references have been added to meet the requirements of Revieweres #1, #2 and #3.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and addresses issues of current relevance, such as the challenges of the Anthropocene, environmental impact, changes in eating habits and the adoption of emerging technologies, such as high-pressure preservation. Furthermore, the manuscript approach connects historical, cultural, demographic and scientific aspects, improving the discussion.

The use of mathematical models to describe population growth, as well as the reference to scales such as those of Malthus and Verhulst gives depth to the text. However, because these are complex models involving complex parameters, and since I am not from this area, it is strongly recommended that the manuscript be reviewed by an expert in the field of applied mathematics or physics.

With that said, dear authors, please find down my comments and suggestions for improvements.

Since the manuscript was sent to me already as a “paper”, there is no numbers in the lines what makes difficult to go through the revision.

Page 3/24: in the sentence “The pioneering works of Pierre Curie and Marie Curie-Skłodowska led to the use of ionic irradiation as a physical factor destructive for microorganisms,…. [35-37].“

Is there any typo in the tree points before the citation number?

In the same the sentence: “However, in recent decades, the dark side of IR-developed innovative food preservation methods has been revealed.“

What do you mean? Can you give real examples of this “dark-side”?

In the same page, the sentence: “Studies have shown that ultra-processed foods increase the risk of obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, anxiety disorders by 53%, type 2 diabetes by 40%, and depression and premature death by 20%. It also presents strong evidence of a 50% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.“

This is a scientific report, so please add all references accordingly! For each one of this studies mentioned! Those are very strong statements and need to have a scientific background!

“It is estimated that approximately 70% of all food in the United States is ultra-processed. Its consumption is responsible for ~6% in Brazil or Chile but around 14% in the US or England of total health problems [45,46]”

Add the references!! And Brazil OR Chile??? References, please!

And about the desigualty? Brazil and EUA are a great examples of this, who has money eat healthily.

Page 4/24: in the sentence “Below, high-pressure preservation and processing (HPP) for foods are presented. It is also called ’cold pasteurization‘ or ‘radicalization’“

I study HPP since 2015 and I never heard about the term radicalization to refer tot he technique. Revise this please.

Page 11/24: “This improved digestive properties but also reduced the impact of harmful mi-croorganisms or worms. It, therefore, had a pro-health effect.“ For clarification, I would recommend:

This not only improve food’s digestibility but also reduced the risk of contaminant and or/pathogen microorganisms, thus, having a positive impact on health. In addiction, increase the shelf life, allowing it to be consumed over a longer period of time, objectives that remain essential to food preservation methods even today.

Page 12: “ bioactive and nutritional properties maintenance”

double spacing in nutritional properties.

Page 12: in the topics about HPP: “

• environment-friendly technology: (i) limited requirements for electric energy- (ii) practical lack of waste during processing, (iii) reduction of ‘expired products’ amount, and then disposal problems”.

Please take a look in studies about HPP energy efficiency vs. Thermal treatment, HPP can use more energy than the traditional thermal treatments as well as higher costs.

Page 13. Figure 2:

This seems to be a very old HPP system, I would recommend showing modern technologies, as for example the ones in large scale (up to 500 L) constructed and sold by Hiperbaric.

Page 14. You may want also cite Bert Hite, a pioneer researcher from the University of West Virginia (USA), that published in 1899 the first study with HPP in milk, showing microorganisms inactivation’s using HPP for the first time.

“…parasitic microorganisms” this is not usual term, you may change for spoilage and/or pathogenic microorganism,

Page 15: “technological sterilization of food” just sterilization, food sterilization.

Page 15: For HPP sterilization the usual and more correct is Pressure Assisted Thermal Sterilization (PATS), in this case temperature levels must be equal or higher than 121°C at 600 MPa.

Conclusion:

The conclusion is really big and with references, it looks a bit like the discussion, just check if this format is compatible with the journal.

Author Response

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

Comments from the reviewers are supportive of the manuscript, with some suggestions.

Please note general corrections, which has been done to meet suggestions of some Reviewers, namely:

1. The former Figure 1 has been ‘splitted’ into the new Figure 1, without the inset an and the New Figure 2 presenting the results shown in the inset in the former Figure 1.
2. Consequently, the former Figure 2 is now numbered ‘Figure 3’. Following comments we introduced the new photo of the HPP facility, with higher resolution and better presentation of technical details. See also improved caption

• The former Figure 3 is now numbered Figure 4. Note some corrections, mainly the slight change of the ‘phase 1’ presentation which explicitly shows the adiabatic heating on compressing, previously omitted to simplify the concept-plot. It led to the corrected caption

4. Following comments of 2 reviewers the new section 4. Discussion has been introduced. It contains the majority of issues contained in the former ‘Conclusions’ section
5. The latter is followed by a short (as suggested by Reviewers) Conclusions section.
6. Note a ‘small’ change in title and Abstract, advised by a Reviewer

• A few supplementary references have been added, to meet suggestions of Rev. #3: [127-134]

All comments of Reviewers have been ‘positively’ taken into account within the text of the Report. Below, please also find supplementary precise responses to each question/comment. We also made the final language check/test & cleaning.

Reviewer #3

1. Reviewer#3: ‘The pioneering works of Pierre Curie and Marie Curie-Skłodowska led to the use of ionic irradiation as a physical factor destructive for microorganisms,…. [35-37]. Is there any typo in the tree points before the citation number?’

Response: “….’ was thought to indicate that this grand discovery meant much, much more. Nevertheless, following this comment we removed them.

2. Reviewer#3: “However, in recent decades, the dark side of IR-developed innovative food preservation methods has been revealed. What do you mean? Can you give real examples of this 'dark side'?
3. Response: The full sentence, which beginning is recalled in the above comment is as follow :

‘  However, in recent decades, the dark side of IR-developed innovative food preservation methods has been revealed. The accumulation of parasitic side effects has even led to dangerous and harmful global-scale pandemics related to obesity, numerous allergies, and certain types of cancer [38-44].

In our opinion obesity, allergies and cancers are ‘dark enough’.

4. Reviewer#3: ‘“Studies have shown that ultra-processed foods increase the risk of obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, anxiety disorders by 53%, type 2 diabetes by 40%, and depression and premature death by 20%. It also presents strong evidence of a 50% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.“

This is a scientific report, so please add all references accordingly! For each one of this studies mentioned! Those are very strong statements and need to have a scientific background!

Response:  The above citation is ‘cut’ before reaching the end. The complete text which was & is given in the report is as follows:

‘Studies have shown that ultra-processed foods increase the risk of obesity by 55%, sleep disorders by 41%, anxiety disorders by 53%, type 2 diabetes by 40%, and depression and premature death by 20%. It also presents strong evidence of a 50% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular disease. It is estimated that approximately 70% of all food in the United States is ultra-processed. Its consumption is responsible for ~6% in Brazil or Chile but around 14% in the US or England of total health problems [45,46].

Hence, references are given (!). To repeat the same references inside this text would be against general rules for scientific reports.

5. Reviewer#3: ‘“It is estimated that approximately 70% of all food in the United States is ultra-processed. Its consumption is responsible for ~6% in Brazil or Chile but around 14% in the US or England of total health problems [45,46]” Add the references!! And Brazil OR Chile??? References, please!  And about the desigualty? Brazil and EUA are a great examples of this, who has money eat healthily.

Response:  The reference is given: [45,46]—, see the report [46] by Nilson, which was published in May 2025 and immediately, particularly received widespread attention. All data in this sentence is in the cited works. Regarding the presented values, the worst situation is in highly developed "rich countries" with a huge dominance of highly processed foods, with a large share of chemical preservatives, especially chemical ones. This is not the case in Brazil, for example, where the share of such foods is qualitatively lower. Cultural issues also play a role, including preparing meals from simple, basic ingredients. This is already very limited in the US and England, much to the detriment of those societies.

But we are not convinced that such obvious things need to be explained, and whether it is proper for the  given report, whose target is different

6. Reviewer#3: ‘Page 4/24: in the sentence “Below, high-pressure preservation and processing (HPP) for foods are presented. It is also called ’cold pasteurization‘ or ‘radicalization’“ I study HPP since 2015 and I never heard about the term radicalization to refer tot he technique. Revise this please.’

Response: The term has been removed. We see, that it is a ‘localjargon’.

7. Reviewer#3:   ‘Page 11/24: “This improved digestive properties but also reduced the impact of harmful mi-croorganisms or worms. It, therefore, had a pro-health effect.“ For clarification, I would recommend:

 This not only improve food’s digestibility but also reduced the risk of contaminant and or/pathogen microorganisms, thus, having a positive impact on health. In addiction, increase the shelf life, allowing it to be consumed over a longer period of time, objectives that remain essential to food preservation methods even today.

Response:  Thank you for the suggestion. It has been implemented

8. Reviewer#3: ‘Page 12: “ bioactive and nutritional properties maintenance” double spacing in nutritional properties.

Response:  It has been corrected

9. Reviewer#3:   ‘Page 12: in the topics about HPP: “

• environment-friendly technology: (i) limited requirements for electric energy- (ii) practical lack of waste during processing, (iii) reduction of ‘expired products’ amount, and then disposal problems”.

Please take a look in studies about HPP energy efficiency vs. Thermal treatment, HPP can use more energy than the traditional thermal treatments as well as higher costs.

Response: This issue is commented at the end of the 4. Discussion section, which appears due to Reviewer’s suggestion. Nevertheless, I am working since many years in HPP topic and have the facility presented in Figure 3 (former Figure 2). The energy is required only during compressing for 2 – 5 minutes. Later on a slight energy to control the process is needed. Also decompressing is not an energy consuming process. The same takes place for the  CBE-supported HPP or High Pressure Sterilization.

I agree that there is a huge energy consumption for the standard pressure assisted pasteurization/sterilization – including the facility developed by Hiperbaric, recalled in the report. But this is not the topic and the problem of the given report.

 

10. Reviewer#3: ‘Page 13. Figure 2: This seems to be a very old HPP system, I would recommend showing modern technologies, as for example the ones in large scale (up to 500 L) constructed and sold by Hiperbaric.

Response:  It is is a Very Innovative pilot scale facility, well above similar facility offered by Hiperbaric, which is a quite old construction designed (to the best of my knowledge) over 20 years ago. For the facility currently presented in Figure 3 – see the extendend caption and the end of the 4. Discussion section.

Great commertial facilities, particularly with so huge chambers as V = 500L, ha sa lot of internal problems, do not totally present by producers and we do not want to enter this topic.  On the other hand, we do not have any author-limitations for presenting a photo such as in Figures – it is HPP processor in out X-PressMatter IHPP PAS , designed and build within IHPP PAS (UnipressEquipment spin off)

11. Reviewer#3‘Page 14. You may want also cite Bert Hite, a pioneer researcher from the University of West Virginia (USA), that published in 1899 the first study with HPP in milk, showing microorganisms inactivation’s using HPP for the first time.

Response: We know this report and it is discussed in our earlier report [Foods 2024, 13, 3028]. We intentionally used the report of Bridgeman in Figure 4 (former Figure 3) because it directly recalls the  impact of pressure on proteins and carried out more in-depth analysis than Hite, which is rather a preliminary message, in our opinion.

12. Reviewer#3: ‘“…parasitic microorganisms” this is not usual term, you may change for spoilage and/or pathogenic microorganism,

Response:   It has been done

13. Reviewer#3: ‘Page 15: “technological sterilization of food” just sterilization, food sterilization.

Response:   It has been done.

However, in our opinion, real sterilization requires temperatures and times similar to those for surgical instruments, which are impossible for food. Therefore, we believe the term "technological sterilization" may be more formally correct.

We nevertheless acknowledge your suggestion and remove the word "technological."

14. Reviewer#3: ‘Page 15: For HPP sterilization the usual and more correct is Pressure Assisted Thermal Sterilization (PATS), in this case temperature levels must be equal or higher than 121°C at 600 MPa.

Response:   See comments at the beginning of the 3.3  section and then at the end of 4. Discussion section.

15. Reviewer#3: ‘Conclusion: The conclusion is really big and with references, it looks a bit like the discussion, just check if this format is compatible with the journal.

Response:  Note that now there is a supplementary 4.Discussion  section, containing  issues presented in the former ‘Conclusions’ section. It is followed by a short 5. Conclusions section

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:
1. The title of the manuscript has been revised by the authors; it is ok. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

2 reviewers indicate eventual improvements in presentation and English clarity quality – generally with no specification.

The 3^rd reviewer stated that the above issues are fine, but noted a single repeated sentence.

We have taken all these suggestions into account and implemented them. Particularly, the report has been in-depth tested and improved for ‘language issues’, with the support of the native speaker working in the given area.

No other conclusions, interpretations etc. has been introduced. The corrections are exactly in line with the above, quite general, reviewer 2nd Round statements.

The authors are very grateful to Reviewers for their efforts and comments. They really made the report better.

Yours Sincerely

 

Prof. dr hab. Sylwester J. Rzoska

IHPP Polish Academy of Sciences

Warsaw, Poland

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the paper in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

2 reviewers indicate eventual improvements in presentation and English clarity quality – generally with no specification.

The 3^rd reviewer stated that the above issues are fine, but noted a single repeated sentence.

We have taken all these suggestions into account and implemented them. Particularly, the report has been in-depth tested and improved for ‘language issues’, with the support of the native speaker working in the given area.

No other conclusions, interpretations etc. has been introduced. The corrections are exactly in line with the above, quite general, reviewer 2nd Round statements.

The authors are very grateful to Reviewers for their efforts and comments. They really made the report better.

Yours Sincerely

 

Prof. dr hab. Sylwester J. Rzoska

IHPP Polish Academy of Sciences

Warsaw, Poland

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

page 12, item 3.2 there is a duplicate paragraph. "This not only improves food’s digestibility but also reduces the risk of contamination and or/pathogen microorganisms, thus having a positive impact on health. In addition, increasing the shelf life allows for consumption over a more extended period, objectives that remain essential to food preservation methods even today."

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached please find the revised manuscript: sustainability-3710192, by Agata Angelika Sojecka and Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska, Sylwester J Rzoska.

2 reviewers indicate eventual improvements in presentation and English clarity quality – generally with no specification.

The 3^rd reviewer stated that the above issues are fine, but noted a single repeated sentence.

We have taken all these suggestions into account and implemented them. Particularly, the report has been in-depth tested and improved for ‘language issues’, with the support of the native speaker working in the given area.

No other conclusions, interpretations etc. has been introduced. The corrections are exactly in line with the above, quite general, reviewer 2nd Round statements.

The authors are very grateful to Reviewers for their efforts and comments. They really made the report better.

Yours Sincerely

 

Prof. dr hab. Sylwester J. Rzoska

IHPP Polish Academy of Sciences

Warsaw, Poland