Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Corrections are needed in the present manuscript as per marked in the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

detailed responses to the review are included in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Stadnik et al deals with the evaluation of the quality of dry-cured pork which may have possible applications in the meat industry. The manuscript is well written with easy and clear language which is easy to follow. The hypothesis is well explained.

My observations are as follows-

       i.          The authors also did Aw and acidity, ORP and OXi, surface hydrophobicity please highlight these results also in abstract.

     ii.          In some places comma is used in value in place of dots. Please correct.

   iii.          A summary may be neede; please check the Journal standard format.

Abstract: The abstract needs formatting as the authors have described the intro and methodology more and the findings very briefly. I would prefer the opposite of that. Such as ‘Oxidation of meat can adversely affect its quality may be deleted. The significance (p levels) of the results should be mentioned for better clarity.

Keywords: may be replaced as dry-cured meat, LAB, TBARS, sulfhydryl groups, color stability or any other suitable words.

Introduction: The introduction need formatting with more focus on the present good work undertaken by the authors. Please add brief literature on TBARS and Sulphydryl groups, surface hydrophobicity ORP, OXi to improve the hypothesis.

Statistical analysis: please mention the n?

Results and discussion: Appropriate with suitable references. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

detailed responses to the review are included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc