Efficacy of Gas-Containing Conditioning Technology on Sterilization and Preservation of Cooked Foods
, Zhonghua Li 1, Yang Liu 1, Zhonghua Guo 3, Zhicai Wu 3, Chunping Cao 3, Chunhong Zhang 1,* and Cunkun Chen 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments to authors：
All the comments have been revised carefully. The overall manuscript was rewritten, and the quality was improved to a certain extent. I therefore recommend this paper to be accepted after minor revision because of the following doubt.
Line 193: Meaning of CL value not clear.
At least in writing there are spaces between numbers and their units, and this requires special attention in the WHOLE manuscript.
Packing parameters (volume, samples weight, the package headspace to sample ratio, packing material, and temperature and humidity) need to be supplemented.
In addition to the product safety indicators using with GCT, the color, freshness and taste of the product are also crucial. Therefore, further research is still needed to clarify the influence of GCT factors influencing color, freshness and taste.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Efficacy of Gas-containing Conditioning Technology on Sterilization and Preservation of Cooking Foods” (ID: agriculture-1995004). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as flowing:
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Line 193: Meaning of CL value not clear..
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your reminding. The full name for CL is Critical Limits, and the CL value of thermal processing usually refer to the sterilization temperature and time.
We have made the following changes to the revised manuscript:
the critical limits value of thermal processing.(line 194)
Point 2: At least in writing there are spaces between numbers and their units, and this requires special attention in the WHOLE manuscript.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your reminding, we are very sorry for our negligence. We have revised the whole manuscript and added the spaces between numbers and their units.
Point 3: Packing parameters (volume, samples weight, the package headspace to sample ratio, packing material, and temperature and humidity) need to be supplemented.
Response 3: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. We are very sorry for that these information was not presented in the manuscript, the packing parameters of products were listed in Table S1 - S5.
Point 4: In addition to the product safety indicators using with GCT, the color, freshness and taste of the product are also crucial. Therefore, further research is still needed to clarify the influence of GCT factors influencing color, freshness and taste.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your suggestion. It is really true as you suggested that the color, freshness and taste of the product are also important safety indicators, we will take this point into consideration in our future research.
Special thanks to you for your good comments again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The revised version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication, even though it did not answer all raised questions previously. The schematic diagram of the process would be beneficial for better visualization. Some minor remarks:
Line 70: there is a number 1 in the sentence, is it typo or reference?
Line 138-140: please rephrase for better understanding
Line 153: please add after must be and it was
Line 180: the F0 should be F0
Line 212: please check, but microorganisms should be written in italic.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Efficacy of Gas-containing Conditioning Technology on Sterilization and Preservation of Cooking Foods” (ID: agriculture-1995004). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as flowing:
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Line 70: there is a number 1 in the sentence, is it typo or reference?
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your suggestions. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, we have deleted the number 1 in the sentence.(line 70)
Point 2: Line 138-140: please rephrase for better understanding
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your suggestions. We have revised this manuscript and rephrased the sentence as follows:
The Products shall not be stacked in multiple layers overlapping in the sterilization cage, in case of incomplete sterilization. The sterilization process was divided into three stages, and the main parameters (time, temperature and pressure) of each stage are as follows: stage 1 (100 ℃, 10 min, 0.12 Mpa), stage 2 (110 ℃, 30 min, 0.15 Mpa) and stage 3 (121 ℃, 25 min, 0.18 Mpa). (line 137-141)
Point 3: Line 153: please add after must be and it was
Response 3: Thanks a lot for your reminding. We have rephrased the sentence as follows:
The entire process must be performed exactly as the requirements of HACCP. (line 154)
Point 4: Line 180: the F0 should be F0
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your reminding. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, and the F0 was rewritten as F0 (line 190).
Point 4: Line 212: please check, but microorganisms should be written in italic.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your reminding, we are very sorry for our negligence. We have revised the whole manuscript and changed the font of microorganisms to italic. (line 213-214)
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting and presents a new idea of preservation but it needs major revision.
1. Reorganization of the manuscript and the sections for better and easier reading.
2. Detailed schematic presentation of the technique with each phase or step of the process, duration of the each step and the total processing time.
3. Microorganisms count is not the only quality parameter that is important, if you are not willing to present more results than this should be technical note or short communication and then written in that matter. But even with this experiment you should evaluate the bacteria count after every step in order to point out the governing phase or the step that offers biggest reduction of microorganisms count.
4. The sentence for beneficial aspects of the method is repeated trough out the text more than 3 times and it should be revised.
5. There is no conclusion
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper investigated the gas-containing conditioning processing technology for special circumstances food processing and preservation and its applications. It seems that the title contains two sections: “application of gas-containing conditioning processing technology” and “their packaging optimization”. However, what does “packaging optimization” mean in the main text? It's hard to understand whether this paper is a review or a research report. From the perspective of the abstract and its organization, it feels like a review on the application of gas-containing conditioning processing technology for special foods. However, there was also some experimental sections (Table 1-2 and Fig. 1), which seriously lacks relevant methods and self-explanatory. Accordingly, the article is loosely organized. More importantly, please explain how this manuscript advances this field of research and/or contributes something new to the literature.
Additionally, authors will improve the English language. For example,
The lower resolution limits the quantity of Figure 1. This requires some editing for more clarity.
The superscript problem of the Total Bacterial Count in Table 1.
As a comprehensive summary of the literature, only a few references were cited.
