Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the authors have provided some interesting and convincing evidence to support the application of Auricularia cornea as a pork fat replacement in sausages. I feel that the manuscript could be accepted for publication after minor revisions and moderate language correction.

Below are my feedback and suggestions:

1. The scientific names of species should be italicized. For example, see “Auricularia cornea” (lines 14, 47, 48, 63, 70, 239, 319, 424), “Lentinula edodes” (line 227), “Pleaurotus eryngii” (lines 194, 210, 228, 238, 270, 299, 410).
2. Line 64: Could the authors indicate clearly what “all spices” refer to?
3. Lines 74-75: “For each recipe, homogenize the ingredients in a blender (Busch, Marburg, Germany) for 140 s.” – This statement sounds like an instruction. Please revise.
4. Line 78: “After cooled …” should be “After cooling …”
5. Table 1: I think the authors might have typo errors/accidentally interchanged some numbers/values for AC25 and AC75. For AC25, pork back fat and AC should be 15.75 and 5.25. For AC75, pork back fat and AC should be 5.25 and 15.75. In its present form, the formulations for 25% AC and 75% AC substitutions are incorrect. Please double check.
6. Line 119: “… were determined by [24] method.” – Please revise the sentence to, for instance, “… were determined by a previously described method [24].”
7. Line 140: “After cooling at room temperature, the volume was constant to 50 ml; 10 ml of the 50 ml hydrolysate was taken and dried, adding 0.1 mol/L HCl solution to 10 ml.” – This statement is unclear. The authors could consider revising it into two shorter, clearer statements.
8. Line 157: “… by matching their mass spectra with those in a commercial and by comparison of the retention times and mass spectra of commercial standards” – Something seems missing in this statement, especially after “a commercial”. Also, are there redundant/repetitive information here? Please check.
9. Line 170: “One-way ANOVA was used to determined significant effect…” – Please revise. The statistic tool is used to determine whether there is any statistical significance in the data compared.
10. Line 175: “All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation” – Please recheck this statement. Was it a typo error? In RESULTS, standard errors, rather than standard deviation, were presented. See “Values are given as mean ± standard error.” in lines 189, 257, 345, and 398. Please either revise the statement in M&M, or revise the statements below the tables (in RESULTS).
11. Lines 179-180: “ … listed in Table 2. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed … carbohydrate and energy value…” – In Table 2, the superscript lowercase letters (^a, ^b, ^c…) indicating statistical significance are missing. Without them, it is not possible to see whether the authors really found significance differences among the different treatments. Please recheck.
12. Lines 336 & 337: “Aspartic” and “Glutamic” – Please revise to “Aspartic acid” and “Glutamic acid”.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Application of Auricularia cornea as a pork fat replacement in cooked sausage” (coatings-1471720). 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. The corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:

Point 1: The scientific names of species should be italicized. For example, see “Auricularia cornea” (lines 14, 47, 48, 63, 70, 239, 319, 424), “Lentinula edodes” (line 227), “Pleaurotus eryngii” (lines 194, 210, 228, 238, 270, 299, 410).

Response 1: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see“Auricularia cornea”  (lines 14, 47, 48, 63, 71, 95, 194, 195, 247, 324, 376, 430), “Lentinula edodes”(lines 234, 279, 506), “Pleaurotus eryngii” (lines 201, 217, 235, 245, 278, 304, 415,476).

Point 2: Line 64: Could the authors indicate clearly what “all spices” refer to?

Response 2: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction. All spices : salt, sugar, whate, carrageen, isolated soy protein, dry starch, ice. Please see line 64.

Point 3: Lines 74-75:“For each recipe, homogenize the ingredients in a blender (Busch, Marburg, Germany) for 140 s.” – This statement sounds like an instruction. Please revise.

Response 3: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. The sentence revised that each sausage (Control, AC25, AC50, AC75 and AC100) was added according to the formula and the ingredients were homogenized in a blender (Busch, Marburg, Germany) for 140 s. Please see line 75-77.

Point 4: Line 78:“After cooled …” should be “After cooling …”

Response 4: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 80.

Point 5: Table 1: I think the authors might have typo errors/accidentally interchanged some numbers/values for AC25 and AC75. For AC25, pork back fat and AC should be 15.75 and 5.25. For AC75, pork back fat and AC should be 5.25 and 15.75. In its present form, the formulations for 25% AC and 75% AC substitutions are incorrect. Please double check.

Response 5: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see Table 1.

Point 6: Line 119:“… were determined by [24] method.” – Please revise the sentence to, for instance, “… were determined by a previously described method [24].”

Response 6: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 121-122.

Point 7: Line 140:“After cooling at room temperature, the volume was constant to 50 ml; 10 ml of the 50 ml hydrolysate was taken and dried, adding 0.1 mol/L HCl solution to 10 ml.” – This statement is unclear. The authors could consider revising it into two shorter, clearer statements.

Response 7: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 143-145.After cooling at room temperature, a hydrolyzed sample was volumed to 50 mL. 10 ml from the 50 ml hydrolysate was taken and dried, the dried sample adding 0.1 mol/L HCl solution to 10 mL.

Point 8: Line 157:“… by matching their mass spectra with those in a commercial and by comparison of the retention times and mass spectra of commercial standards” – Something seems missing in this statement, especially after “a commercial”. Also, are there redundant/repetitive information here? Please check.

Response 8:Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 163-166. Fatty acids were identified and quantified based on chromatographic retention times using reference standard Supelco 37 component FAME mix (Sigma Aldrich Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA). Results obtained were presented as percentage of total fatty acids.

 Point 9: Line 170:“One-way ANOVA was used to determined significant effect…” – Please revise. The statistic tool is used to determine whether there is any statistical significance in the data compared.

Response 9: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 177-178.

 Point 10: Line 175: “All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation” – Please recheck this statement. Was it a typo error? In RESULTS, standard errors, rather than standard deviation, were presented. See “Values are given as mean ± standard error.” in lines 189, 257, 345, and 398. Please either revise the statement in M&M, or revise the statements below the tables (in RESULTS).

Response 10: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 183.

 Point 11: Lines 179-180: “ … listed in Table 2. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed … carbohydrate and energy value…” – In Table 2, the superscript lowercase letters (a, b, c…) indicating statistical significance are missing. Without them, it is not possible to see whether the authors really found significance differences among the different treatments. Please recheck.

Response 11: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see Table 2. Because energy value was calculated based on 9 kcal/g for fat, 4 kcal/g for protein and carbohydrate. So there is no error in the energy value. (Pinta do, T., Muñoz-González, I., Salvador, M., Ruiz-Capillas, C., & Herrero, A. M. Phenolic compounds in emulsion gel-based delivery systems applied as animal fat replacers in frankfurters: Physico-chemical, structural and microbiological approach. Food Chemistry. 2021, 340, 128095.).

Point 12: Lines 336 & 337: “Aspartic” and “Glutamic” – Please revise to “Aspartic acid” and “Glutamic acid”.

Response 12: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 343, 344.

 We tried our best to improve the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, and hope you happy every day.

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor remarks

Please, use the defined abbreviations in the text. Also, avoid the use of abbreviations in the titles and subtitles.

Provide a blank space between quantity and unit. Latin names and Greek symbols should be given in italics. Check these things in the whole document.

In some places in the manuscript, it should be mentioned author surname et al. and the number of references. It is not acceptable to use only numbers. An example is given in the document.

In the reference list, use italic letters for Latin names of plant species.

All other minor remarks are given in the manuscript.

 

Major remark

I suggest avoiding lumping the references. Each reference should be discussed separately or deleted older.

The increase of water content (moisture content) probably leads to the decrease of shelf-life of prepared products compared to the control. The aqueous environment is suitable for the growth of microorganisms. Are you have any data about that? It will be useful if you provide this data if you are able.

Please, reduce the reference list. Consider staying newer ones.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Application of Auricularia cornea as a pork fat replacement in cooked sausage” (coatings-1471720). 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. The corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:

Minor remarks

Point 1: Please, use the defined abbreviations in the text. Also, avoid the use of abbreviations in the titles and subtitles.

Response 1：Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 123, 133, 269, 287.

Point 2: Provide a blank space between quantity and unit. Latin names and Greek symbols should be given in italics. Check these things in the whole document.

Respons 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see the revised manuscript above.

Point 3: In some places in the manuscript, it should be mentioned author surname et al. and the number of references. It is not acceptable to use only numbers. An example is given in the document.

Respons 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 317.

Point 4: In the reference list, use italic letters for Latin names of plant species.

Response 4：Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow.  Please see“Auricularia cornea”  (lines 14, 47, 48, 63, 71, 95, 194, 195, 247, 324, 376, 430), “Lentinula edodes”(lines 234, 279, 506), “Pleaurotus eryngii” (lines 201, 217, 235, 245, 278, 304, 415,476).

Point 5: All other minor remarks are given in the manuscript.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see the revised manuscript above.

 Point 6: C18,It should be indexed.Insert here data about the content of the mobile phase. Which type of elution was used, gradient or stationary?

Response 6: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow. Please see line 149-153. C18: Ajs-01 amino acid special analytical column, 3 um, 4.6 mm×150 mm. Elution gradient and flow rate are as follows: time: 0 s, 6 s, 8 s, 10 s, 23 s, 30 s,31 s, 34 s, 35 s, 35 s, 38 s; ()mobile phase B%: 5, 10, 10, 16, 40, 50, 100, 100, 55; flow rate (mL/min): 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.3, 1.0, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6, 1.6.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

 Major remark

Point 1: I suggest avoiding lumping the references. Each reference should be discussed separately or deleted older.

Response 1: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. We have made correction and marked yellow. Each reference should be discussed separately or deleted older.

Point 2: The increase of water content (moisture content) probably leads to the decrease of shelf-life of prepared products compared to the control. The aqueous environment is suitable for the growth of microorganisms. Are you have any data about that? It will be useful if you provide this data if you are able.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Your question is very helpful to us, but due to lack of funds, we are not enough to carry out the experiment.

Point 3: Please, reduce the reference list. Consider staying newer ones.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.We have made correction and marked yellow.We have reduced the reference list, updated and cited articles in the journals of coatings.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions, and hope you happy every day.