Advances, Applications, and Comparison of Thermal (Pasteurization, Sterilization, and Aseptic Packaging) against Non-Thermal (Ultrasounds, UV Radiation, Ozonation, High Hydrostatic Pressure) Technologies in Food Processing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Advances in Thermal (Pasteurization, Sterilization and Aseptic Packaging) against Non-Thermal (Ultrasounds, UV radiation, Ozonation, High Hydrostatic Pressure) Technologies in Food Processing” in a review paper that describes the advantages and disadvantages of thermal and non-thermal food processing highlighting some advances from the last decade. The paper brings some interesting information for the reader of Applied Sciences, however, it needs some modifications/clarifications prior to publication.
Thermal and non-thermal treatments have been extensively studied. I suggested the authors add some information regarding a more specific time range that they are covering and what is the lack of information in the existing literature that is been filled with the present review. This would also benefit the readers.
In Line 66 (introduction section) the authors state that “… can benefit from healthier plant-based products with …”. This sentence seems to be out of place. Moreover, it gives the impression that the paper will focus on plant-based products, which is not true since the authors bring examples of both animal and plant-based food products. Please, rewrite this sentence accordingly.
The authors state that “Aseptic processing being an alternative thermal food processing and packaging” since aseptic packing can be combined with UHT for example, it is slightly confusing when the authors mention aseptic processing as another process since it does require one of the thermal processes (pasteurization or sterilization) prior aseptic packing. Please, rewrite the topic to improve the clarity of the subject being discussed.
The authors also state that: ”Pasteurization is a heat treatment method used to kill pathogenic microorganisms in food, helping to reduce or eliminate pathogens in low moisture foods”. Why only low moisture foods? What about milk or juice pasteurization processing milk? Please explain.
Figure 2. US Probe and US Bath” Since the first image is the bath and the second the probe, please change the order in the figure caption. I also suggest adding A and B in the Figure/
Figure 3. Please remove the red underline from the figure
Please summarize the non-thermal technology description and emphasized more a critical point of view for each processing with some future perspectives and potential of scaling up.
Since the author mentioned the cost of thermal processing in the introduction section, it would be interesting to add the costs of the non-thermal treatments as well, including cost per unit and equipment cost.
In the sentence “Coliform and total aerobic 664 and anaerobic bacteria were effectively inhibited by the application of ozone gas at 10×10- 6 kg O3/m3/h [181]. Please double-check the unit and values, and/or rewrite them as 1 x 10 -5.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is a revision of the state or the art concerning thermal and non themal technolgies. It is well organized and well documented and it can be published in the actual form
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I propose changing the title to the following "Comparison of Thermal (Pasteurization, Sterilization and Aseptic Packaging) and Non-Thermal (Ultrasounds, UV radiation, Ozonation, High Hydrostatic Pressure) Technologies in Food Processing"
I suggest that for the Figures that are not the authors' own elaboration, the source of literature should be given.
Line 150. What about products such as jams, purees, fruit or vegetable pulp? These are products with a higher moisture content.
Line 300. …., phenols,…
Line 300. ….colours….I suppose the authors meant the natural dyes.
3.1.5. Is the effect of the use of ultrasound on wheat flour and the quality of gluten in the dough made of it known? What is the impact of the application of this technique on the quality of final products? The authors refer to examples of gluten-free raw materials (rice flour, buckwheat flour).
Ex.
Zhang, H., Chen, G., Liu, M., Mei, X., Yu, Q., & Kan, J. (2020). Effects of multi-frequency ultrasound on physicochemical properties, structural characteristics of gluten protein and the quality of noodle. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 67, 105135.
3.2.4. Is the effect of the use of ultrasound on wheat flour and the quality of gluten in the dough made of it known? What is the impact of the application of this technique on the quality of final products?
Ex.
Kumar, A., Rani, P., Purohit, S. R., & Rao, P. S. (2020). Effect of ultraviolet irradiation on wheat (Triticum aestivum) flour: Study on protein modification and changes in quality attributes. Journal of Cereal Science, 96, 103094.
I suggest you consider whether to include detailed citations in the work and to repeat this information as summaries in Tables (2-5).
Could this review also include membrane processes infomation?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript is design and written very well. The manuscript need some corrections before publish. Comments and suggestions are given below.
- Title of this manuscript should need improvement. Author can be write like “Application and Advances of Thermal against Non-Thermal Technologies in Food Processing sector.”
- Keyword should be change; the keywords should be not repeated from title
- It could be better if authors providing the table of content for better understanding about the content of manuscript.
- It could be better if authors graphically present the thermal and non-thermal technologies in separate figures.
- No need to write subsection of introduction for each technologies remove it (Eg: 3.1.1; 3.2.1………)
- Why authors not discuss about Microfludizer technologies???? Need to be mention in manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors answered all the points raised by this reviewer and/or brought clarifications and improved the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend its publication.
