Studying the Process of Enzyme Treatment on Beef Meat-Bone Paste Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the results of a very important and interesting research into the enzymatic treatment of beef meat-bone paste.

Research is comprehensive, adequately planned experiments and adequately conducted.

Below, I provide the following comments that indicate minor corrections needed in the manuscript:

C1 - in part 2.1. it should be described how moisture, protein, fat, ash in fresh rib bones were determined;

C2 - in part 2.1. a fraction of granulation below 0.01 mm after grinding using a rotary ultrafine grinding machine should be specified;

C3 - in the Results and discussion, Figures 1 and 2, the polynomial fit is shown, but their equations, R, R2, etc. should also be shown.

C4 - in Table 1 for the displayed results, provide data on the statistical significance of the difference, if possible for MBP-C in relation to MBP-E.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although I am not an expert in the English language, I feel that this can be improved in the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please find answers in the attached file

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very grateful to you for the invitation to review the manuscript applsci-3206289 by Baikadamova and coauthors, titled “Studying the process of enzyme treatment on beef meat-bone paste quality”. The present article highlights the effect of enzyme and organic acid treatment on physicochemical properties, particle size, 11 microstructure and safety of meat-bone paste (MBP).

 

The overall quality of the study is good, however, I provide some comments that should be addressed before this manuscript could be published. The methodology for the development of the work is appropriate and the experimental part has been well executed. The results need to be discussed more. In conclusion add a few sentences about innovative data from this study. The paper is relevance to the field of Applied Sciences.

 

Line 71-72: Please reformulate this sentence, it is not entirely clear effect of pH.

Line 183: Please write the full name and in italic of E. coli, it is the first appearance in the text. Escherichia coli

Line 241-247: Provide with references.

Line 308 and 413: Please check how to show references.

Line 396: Total viable count of what?

Line 397: Correct 1x105 CFU/g in superscript 1x10⁵ CFU/g, and through the text.

Line 400-401: Correct all bacteria in italic, and through the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please find answers in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a pertinent issue in the field of sustainable food processing. However, several aspects require improvement before it can be considered for publication. Below are the detailed suggestions from this reviewer.

 Abstract: The abstract would benefit from a clearer emphasis on the novelty of the findings and their potential applications in food products. Moreover, the abstract would be more impactful if it included specific quantitative results (e.g., pH and microbial counts) to support the conclusions.

 Introduction: The introduction provides an informative overview of topics related to collagen, enzymatic treatments, and sustainability. Nevertheless, it could be made more concise and focused on the specific objectives of the study, particularly regarding the practical applications of enzyme treatment in the food industry. I suggest further elaboration on why this research is necessary, citing relevant studies (e.g., prior work on paste application in sausages, pâtés, cutlets, and meatballs). Additionally, the current manuscript lacks a clear hypothesis.

 Materials and Methods:

 - The section describing enzyme concentration and treatment duration lacks sufficient detail. Please provide a thorough justification for the choice of enzyme concentrations, treatment durations, pH levels, and temperatures. Was there any optimization process through preliminary tests to ensure reproducibility of the experimental conditions?

 - Microbiological analysis: The methods used for pathogen detection (e.g., E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella) are briefly mentioned but not fully detailed. I recommend including a description of the methods used for microbial species identification with the standards employed.

 - Statistical Analysis: Please provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical methods, including how significant differences between treated and untreated samples were determined. Clarify whether post-hoc tests were used and how assumptions such as normality and homogeneity of variance were verified.

 Results (and Discussion, the “discussion” word is missing in this section):

 

 - Figures and Tables: The figures and tables could be better integrated into the discussion. The connection between the data presented in the figures and the text sometimes weak. Furthermore, the presentation of results regarding enzymatic treatments is somewhat unclear.

 - Figures: I`m missing consistency in font style and size in figures, particularly for text boxes and axis. Some text is disproportionately small compared to other elements.

 Discussion: this section does not sufficiently contextualize the findings within the field of food science and technology.

- There is limited comparison with existing literature, and the practical implications of the findings for the food industry. I suggest enhancing the discussion by comparing the results with previous, particularly in promoting sustainable food production.

- The manuscript also need improved transitions between ideas in this section. Each paragraph should logically flow from the previous one.

- Particle Size and Biological Significance: While the particle size results are well presented, the biological significance of particle size reduction, as well as its implications for changes in viscosity and water-binding capacity, are not discussed sufficiently. For instance, the potential of this approach to valorize animal bones as a valuable food ingredient, as mentioned in the abstract, is not adequately explored. This idea of study’s sustainability objectives should be better integrated throughout the discussion. For instance, authors could expand the discussion using information like those provided in lines 380-383.

 - Microbiological Safety and Shelf-life: Although the microbiological safety results are promising, their implications for shelf-life and food safety regulations are not discussed or referenced.

- Comparison with previous studies: a comparison of the results with previous research on the enzymatic treatment of animal by-products are missing. Please include how the findings will fill gaps in the literature.

- Limitations and Future Research: The study does not discuss its limitations or provide suggestions for future research. I recommend including a section that addresses limitations (e.g., the need for more comprehensive microbiological testing, potential impacts of enzyme treatment on flavor) offering directions for future studies.

 Conclusion: the conclusion could be improved by offering a more definitive statement regarding the industrial applications of the research. How enzyme treatments could be implemented in commercial food production? what ways do they contribute to sustainability within the food processing industry?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written, but could be benefited by clearer explanations and transitions between ideas. I recommend to revise the text ensuring that each section logically follows from the previous one

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Please find answers in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the reviewers' suggestions satisfactorily. In my opinion, the article is now suitable for publication in the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks

The English language was edited