Beetroot Powder as Natural Colorant in Fresh Pork Sausages: Impacts on Consumer Liking, Emotional Responses, and Identification of Purchasing Drivers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study applied beetroot powder (BP) as a natural colorant in nitrite/nitrate-free pork sausages, which meets the current food industry's demand for natural, healthy, and clean-label products and has clear practical application value. Combining multi-dimensional analyses such as sensory perception, emotions, and consumption behavior, it has a certain depth.

However, there are still some minor issues that require modification. Firstly, in the introduction, it is suggested to include the controversy over nitrite's impact on health and to emphasize the necessity of this research.

The willingness-to-pay section mentions "an average willingness to pay an additional 40%". But what is the calculation method?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to conduct a comprehensive revision to ensure the quality suitable for publication.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

This study applied beetroot powder (BP) as a natural colorant in nitrite/nitrate-free pork sausages, which meets the current food industry's demand for natural, healthy, and clean-label products and has clear practical application value. Combining multi-dimensional analyses such as sensory perception, emotions, and consumption behavior, it has a certain depth.

Thank you for the comment.

However, there are still some minor issues that require modification. Firstly, in the introduction, it is suggested to include the controversy over nitrite's impact on health and to emphasize the necessity of this research.

Thank you for the comment. We reviewed the introduction section to make the main idea of the article clearer.

The willingness-to-pay section mentions "an average willingness to pay an additional 40%". But what is the calculation method?

Thank you for the comment. We added more information about how we reached this result.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

• A major drawback of the study is the use of commercial beetroot powder. Since the sausages were produced by the authors and not purchased, preparing beetroot powder in-house (as reported in some of the cited works) would have provided more meaningful and comparable results. Could the authors clarify the rationale for using commercial powder instead of a laboratory-prepared one?
• It would also be valuable to include images of the prepared sausages. Visual representation would give readers a clearer impression of the appearance of the products.
• The instrumental characterization of the samples appears incomplete, as it only covers moisture, pH, water activity, color parameters, color difference, and cooking loss. Additional analyses of key quality attributes—such as appearance and texture—would strengthen the study.
• A proximate analysis (protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate content) for all samples should be provided, together with a characterization of bioactive compounds and other beneficial substances originating from beetroot powder. This would allow a more comprehensive evaluation of the functional contribution of BP.
• Some sentences are unclear, likely due to language issues, and would benefit from careful reformulation to improve clarity and readability.
• All remaining comments, along with the suggested corrections, are provided in the attached PDF and Word documents.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language must be improved.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

This study investigated the use of beetroot powder (BP) as a natural colouring agent in pork sausages and its effects on consumer preferences, emotional responses and willingness to buy. The most critical point in this manuscript is the repeated claim that the sausages are “nitrite and nitrate free” and the claim that “63% of participants indicated willingness to pay approximately 40% more per kilogram for sausages formulated with BP instead of conventional curing salts”. However, Table S1 does not specify the use of nitrite or nitrate in any recipe, i.e. there is no experimental comparison with conventionally cured sausages. Without explicit confirmation, either through recipe details or analytical verification, the claim to produce “nitrite/nitrate-free” sausages is unfounded. This represents a fundamental methodological and reporting gap, as the presence or absence of curing salts is central to the interpretation of the functional role of beetroot powder (BP) and to the validation of conclusions regarding consumer acceptance of clean label products. The authors need to clearly state the curing process used, confirm the absence of nitrite/nitrate and revise the title, description and discussion to ensure that the claims are scientifically accurate and not misleading.

Thank you for the comment. We recognize that beetroot powder presents inherent concentration of nitrite/nitrates and thus all claims within the manuscript were changed to nitrite/nitrate low concentration. Among the recipes used, we also recognize that it was a limitation of the present work. But, since we used a fresh sausage, which did not go through maturation period, the addition of chemical nitrite/nitrate samples does not bring a critical issue to make conclusion in the present results, since we added a control sample without any colorant. We also changed the title to make clear to readers that we dealt with low/reduced nitrite samples and fresh sausages.

 

My detailed comments can be found below.

Overall, the manuscript needs significant improvement in terms of the quality of the English language and does not fully comply with standard manuscript formatting and journal guidelines.

Thank you for the comment. We made a huge revision on English grammar to enhance quality of the text. Also we reviewed the authors’ guidelines of the Journal to fit perfectly on the Foods’ patterns.

 

Abstract:

• Lines 17-19: It is stated that the sausages were formulated with 0.5%, 1.0% and 1.5% BP, but it is not mentioned how many consumers participated in the study. Sample size and evaluation method (hedonic scale, emotional analysis tool, etc.) are missing.

Thank you for the comment. We added the information in the abstract section.

• Lines 21-22: “Innovative projective technique” sounds vague. Please briefly explain what this technique entails.

Thank you for the comment. We changed the expression to “sentence completion method” which is a technique of access consumers’ perception about a specific topic. Since abstract is a short summary of the text, we think that there is no space to deeply explain what a projective technique is, where consumers project on other characters their opinion about the studied topic.

 

• Please clarify whether all consumers showed positive emotions or mainly health orientated ones?

Thank you for the suggestion. We added the result in the abstract section.

• Lines 28-31: The last sentence repeats much of what has already been said. Instead, the conclusion should briefly summarise the novelty and practical relevance (e.g. beetroot powder as a viable nitrite alternative that appeals to health-conscious consumers).

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed the last sentence of the abstract section in line to suggestion made.

Introduction:

• The introduction begins with the nutritional properties of beetroot powder, then with market growth, then with applications in the food industry and finally with consumer acceptanceand emotions. The structure appears fragmented. Proposed structure: o General background on beetroot powder and its potential as a natural colourant. o Its importance for nitrite/nitrate-free meat products. o What has already been investigated (effects on colour, lipid oxidation and sensory acceptability)? o What is still unknown (research gap). o Aim of the study.

Thank you for the suggestion. We made changes on the sequence of the introduction section to fit reviewers’ suggestion.

• Lines 88-89: The current research gap is stated as a “lack of scientific evidence regarding the impact of BP in sausages with BP on emotional responses and perceptions of consumers”. This is circular reasoning and unclear. Please add previous research that has focused on technological quality (colour, lipid oxidation, sensory perception). You can also add these sentences (as an example): “Very little is known about emotional responses and purchasing factors associated with BP in nitrite-free sausages” or “Consumer preference alone is not enough, understanding emotions, motivations and willingness to pay is critical to market success.”

Thank you for the suggestion. We added the information suggested within the text. Also, the information about technological quality was already available in the text previously and now it is within lines 47-64.

• The stated objectives are scattered over several sentences. They should be listed in a single, clear sentence at the end of the introduction. Example: “The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the effects of different concentrations of beetroot powder in nitrite-free sausages on consumers' liking, emotional responses and willingness to pay, and to identify the purchasing factors that influence these responses.”

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed the way we stated the objective of the present work in line to the suggestion.

 

Materials and Methods:

• Line 102: “toucinho (pig subcutaneous fat mixed with leather)” has an awkward wording. “pork backfat with skin' or 'subcutaneous pork fat with rind' would be clearer.

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed the expression.

• Lines 102-103: “purchased in local butcher” – should be “purchased from a local butcher”

Thank you for the correction. We changed the text.

• Lines 102-106: Brand details are present, but could be standardised (company, city, state, country).

Thank you for the correction. We standardized the text.

• Line 110: “(2.55kg) 1.8kg of bacon” – the quantities of ingredients are unclear/inconsistent. Two hundred and fifty-five kilogrammes of pork and (2.55kg) appears to be a typo (should be 2.55kg, not 255kg).

Thak you for the correction. We made it correct now.

• Lines 113-114: The percentages for beetroot powder (5%, 10%, 15%) are very high compared to the Abstract (0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%). Please be consistent.

Thank you for the correction. We wrote the information correctly now.

• No information on replicates (how many batches were produced per formulation?).

Thank you for the appointment. We added the information on the data analysis section.

• No clear indication of batch size per formulation (total kg of sausage produced).

Thank you for the suggestion. We added the information in the section 2.4.2

• No information on whether the sausages were cooked, fermented or just frozen raw. Were they fresh sausages?

Thank you for the appointment. All analysis were performed with cooked samples. We added the information in the text.

• The storage time before the analysis is unclear. The samples were frozen and thawed, but how long were they stored?

Thank you for the appointment. We added the information in the text.

• Line 115: The casings are described as “artificial sausage casings” but need to be specified (collagen, cellulose or polyamide).

Thank you for the appointment. We added the information in the text.

• The description of the grinding process is confusing: “...ground on 12 mm disc, salt and the dehydrated seasoning mix.” This part needs clarity on sequence (were meat and fat ground first, then mixed with salt/seasoning?).

Thank you for the correction. We made clear in the text the sequence of the protocol (grinding the meat and then addition of salt and seasoning mix).

• Line 135: “There was any kind of incentive for attending the test” – should read “There was no incentive”. Needs to be corrected.

Thank you for the correction. We made the change in the text.

• Line 135: “Interested to participate” should read “willing to participate”

Thank you for the correction. We made the change in the text.

• Lines 142-147: Dimensions of the slices: “30 cm in diameter and 3 cm in height” – 30 cm is huge for a sausage slice. is that correct? “Left to cool down to 60ºC in room temperature (~25ºC)” is confusing: cooled to 60°C at 25°C? Better phrased as “cooled to 60°C at room temperature (~25°C)” Samples kept at 60°C until analysis" – 60°C is hot and can change texture/flavour; please justify or clarify this. The maximum holding time (20 minutes) should be explicitly linked to the standard sensory protocol.

Thank you for the appointment. We changed the sentence to make the information clearer.

 

Results and Discussion:

• Many sentences are long, convoluted and grammatically awkward. Examples: o Line 256: “Results show that moisture tended decreased due to addition of BP into samples’ formulation…” should read “Moisture tended to decrease with the addition of BP…” o Line 301: “Results seems to be in line to findings…” should read “Results are in line with findings…” o Line 339: “Both emotions are considered as with no clear classification…” is a clumsy formulation; should be simplified.

Thank you for the appointment. We reviewed the whole text to make the manuscript reading clearer.

• Please improve the English throughout the paper.

Thank you for the comment. We made a huge revision on English grammar.

• Statistical reporting is inconsistent: sometimes p-values are reported as “p>0.05” or “p < 0.05", sometimes only verbally mentioned (“did not differ”). Standardise the format.

In line to statistical analyses, when no statistical differences were observed we used p>0.05 and when there was statistical differences p<0.05 was used.

We checked the whole article to make sure of the information and to not miss any report.

• Colour parameters: L*, a*, b* are described, but discussion is brief and could be more explicit about visual appearance and consumer perception.

Thank you for the appointment. We added more information about the color data when we discussed the JAR results, to relate clearly instrumental data with sensory perceived color.

• Repetition of literature comparisons could be reduced: Rocha et al, Belluci et al and AykınDinçer et al are cited several times in succession. For example, Rocha et al. are mentioned in lines 336, 342, 352, 412.

Thank you for the appointment. We reviewed the discussion section in line to the suggestion. It is important to highlight that for Rocha et al. there are two different citations [34 -  Rocha et al. 2019] and [35 – Rocha et al. 2018]

 

• Lines 558-566: Consider imposing restrictions in terms of geographical samples (all from Lajeado, Brazil), limited emotional measures (EsSense25) and short storage time or limited sensory context.

Thank you for the suggestion. We added the information in the limitation section.

 

Conclusion:

• The grammar needs to be significantly improved: o “to as natural colorants” should read “to use as natural colorants.” o “enhances overall liking and evoke positive emotions” should be “enhances overall liking and evokes positive emotions.” o “products’ sensory characteristics of sausages positive attitude of consumers” could be reworded to “the sensory properties of sausage products and evoke a positive consumer response” o In addition, the excessive use of “Also” at the beginning of sentences makes the text repetitive.

Thank you for the corrections and appointments. We reviewed the text to make it clearer.

• Line 562: What is meant by “ideal level”? Consider the phrase “improved perceived balance of colour, flavour and bitterness" or similar.

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed the sentence.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

My comments are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs significant improvement in terms of the quality of the English language.

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

All changes suggested in the pdf attached were changed and some comments are explained bellow.

 

Please provide updated information about this market, as the data presented are from 2022 and 2025 is now nearing its end.

Thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, this is the most updated data we have found.

 

beetroot extract powder: use the abbreviation

the article cited used the extract of beetroot and not the beetroot powder. So, to make the information correct, we kept the text

values of 2.55 kg is not correct

Thank you for the correction. We rephrased the text and now it is correct.

bacon and toucinho are the same?

We added more information and better translation to the term toucinho.

Explain the concentration

Thank you for the comment. We changed the concentration from % to g/kg for better understanding.

Cooking loss

Thank you for the correction. We organized the methodology section to fit into we did. All analyzes were performed with cooked samples.

 

Earlier authors claimed that volunteers were not informed about the addition of BP into sausages but in the completion section they informed.

Thank you for the comment. The completion sentence task were performed before the sensory analyzes always. In google forms, it was in a separate section, so volunteers were not aware of this task until complete the sensory tasks. So, the information in this part of the methodology did not impact on the results of the acceptance, emotional and JAR responses.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strengths, valuable aspects of manuscript:

The relevance, timeliness, and significance of the research problem for industrial development. Practical applicability.

The search for alternatives to nitrites/nitrates in meat products is a significant challenge for the food industry due to health and regulatory issues. The use of natural colorants (e.g., beetroot powder) is in line with the “clean label” trend and growing consumer interest in healthy, natural foods.

Taking the consumer perspective into account. The use of emotion analysis is a modern approach that allows for a better understanding of consumer reactions.

Weaknesses, shortcomings:

Limited scope of the identified research problem. The study focuses mainly on sensory acceptance and preferences, but lacks technological analysis (e.g., microbiological stability, color stability during storage, texture). No safety assessment (e.g., comparison with the preservative role of nitrites).

Limited size of the consumer panel (n=91), lack of   representativeness (age, gender, culinary habits etc.) – a small and homogeneous sample may limit the possibility of generalizing the results. Preference studies often suffer from a declaration effect – consumers may declare greater interest in “healthy” products than they actually show when purchasing.

Lack of a multifaceted quality assessment. The lack of chemical (e.g., dye content, antioxidant stability, nitrate content in dried beetroot) and textural tests means that the experiment does not provide a complete picture of the product's quality.

Temporary nature of the assessment. Consumer acceptance was assessed at a single point in time – it is not known how the quality and acceptance of the product changes during storage.

General comments:

The keywords have not been chosen well (e.g. sentence completion). They should be chosen correctly.

The introduction provides an overview of the topic but omits important aspects of the addition of plant-based ingredients (in the experiment, even several per cent) on quality. Quality is not only about colour, but also texture, microbiological stability, chemical stability, etc. The technology behind hybrid meat-plant products is primarily based on the functional properties of plant substances.

In my opinion, the scope of the experiment is far too narrow for the purposes of a scientific publication. As a result, the objective of the experiment is too narrow and fragmentary.

The description of the materials is generally too brief. It does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the experiment. A similar comment applies to the scope of laboratory tests.

In my opinion, the authors should revise the experimental design. In particular, they should expand the scope of the study to include instrumental methods (chemical composition, texture parameters, microbiological properties, product shelf life, product safety, etc.) and characterise the materials and methods in accordance with the principles adopted in the description of the experiments. However, the most important thing is to select an appropriate (number of respondents, respondent structure) representative group of respondents. The results obtained by the authors do not provide any basis for conclusions in the scope presented in the title.

It is commendable that the authors are aware of this (Chapter 4). There is nothing left to do but to supplement the experiment so that its scientific value is at an acceptable level.

The bibliography is fairly accurate, although it should be supplemented with technological aspects.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER #4

The relevance, timeliness, and significance of the research problem for industrial development. Practical applicability. The search for alternatives to nitrites/nitrates in meat products is a significant challenge for the food industry due to health and regulatory issues. The use of natural colorants (e.g., beetroot powder) is in line with the “clean label” trend and growing consumer interest in healthy, natural foods. Taking the consumer perspective into account. The use of emotion analysis is a modern approach that allows for a better understanding of consumer reactions.

Thank you for the comment

Weaknesses, shortcomings:

Limited scope of the identified research problem. The study focuses mainly on sensory acceptance and preferences, but lacks technological analysis (e.g., microbiological stability, color stability during storage, texture). No safety assessment (e.g., comparison with the preservative role of nitrites).

Thank you for the appointment. The present work is submitted to a special issue in Foods of “Factors Affecting Food Preferences and Their Association with Consumption—2nd Edition” which focuses on sensory analysis and consumer acceptance of foods. Thus, technological approaches were not the objective of the present work. The instrumental analyzes presented herein were performed to give a major characterization of the sausages presented to consumers and, thus, show readers “what kind of sample consumers evaluated”.

Limited size of the consumer panel (n=91), lack of   representativeness (age, gender, culinary habits etc.) – a small and homogeneous sample may limit the possibility of generalizing the results. Preference studies often suffer from a declaration effect – consumers may declare greater interest in “healthy” products than they actually show when purchasing.

Thank you for the appointment. Indeed, these are limitations of the present work. However, we added in the limitation section these issues. However, we present an innovative approach for the sensory science, and these limitations cannot negate the intrinsic value of the present results in our opinion Regarding sample size, we added references to reinforce that it could be big enough to make a proper analysis. In the text: “Although sample sizes in the two segments are not as large as recommended for consumers tests, they exceeded the minimum of 40 for stable estimates [43] and these sample sizes have been used before to explore consumers’ behavior on food acceptance [45-46].”

Lack of a multifaceted quality assessment. The lack of chemical (e.g., dye content, antioxidant stability, nitrate content in dried beetroot) and textural tests means that the experiment does not provide a complete picture of the product's quality.

Thank you for the appointment. In sensory analyzes we evaluated color, flavor, and bitterness and in the instrumental analyzes we evaluated color by cielab and moisture, pH and Aw of samples. Although pH and moisture do not compromise the whole flavor profile, they can help to understand the samples we were evaluating in order to give readers a picture of the sample we evaluated and the results represent.

Temporary nature of the assessment. Consumer acceptance was assessed at a single point in time – it is not known how the quality and acceptance of the product changes during storage.

Thank you for the appointment. The objective of the present work was not to evaluate the effect of storage on sensory profile. This kind of limitation was added into the limitation section along with others limitations related to the sample, such as a single recipe for example.

General comments:

The keywords have not been chosen well (e.g. sentence completion). They should be chosen correctly.

Thank you for the correction. We changed and reviewed the keywords to better represent the present work.

The introduction provides an overview of the topic but omits important aspects of the addition of plant-based ingredients (in the experiment, even several per cent) on quality. Quality is not only about colour, but also texture, microbiological stability, chemical stability, etc. The technology behind hybrid meat-plant products is primarily based on the functional properties of plant substances.

Thank you for the appointment. In line to comments of reviewer #1, we restructured the introduction section to make it clear. Regarding technological aspects, we submitted the present article at special issue related to sensory analyzes and consumer behavior (Factors Affecting Food Preferences and Their Association with Consumption—2nd Edition) and exploring relationships between sensory analyzes and technological aspects.

In my opinion, the scope of the experiment is far too narrow for the purposes of a scientific publication. As a result, the objective of the experiment is too narrow and fragmentary.

Thank you for the comment. We reviewed the text to make it clear our objective and the scope we are looking for to explore in line to sensory analyzes and consumer behaviors.

The description of the materials is generally too brief. It does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the experiment. A similar comment applies to the scope of laboratory tests.

Thank you for the appointment.

In my opinion, the authors should revise the experimental design. In particular, they should expand the scope of the study to include instrumental methods (chemical composition, texture parameters, microbiological properties, product shelf life, product safety, etc.) and characterise the materials and methods in accordance with the principles adopted in the description of the experiments. However, the most important thing is to select an appropriate (number of respondents, respondent structure) representative group of respondents. The results obtained by the authors do not provide any basis for conclusions in the scope presented in the title.

Thank you for the comment. Such as stated before within this response letter, the present work was submitted to the special issue related to Factors Affecting Food Preferences and Their Association with Consumption—2nd Edition and focused on sensory analysis and consumer behavior and not technological aspects.

Regarding the methodology, we reviewed the text to make it clearer the methodology used, although it was presented in line to other works we have worked with and published at other international journals such as Goulart et al. Can children and artificial intelligence be sources of ideas for school meal preparations based on whole food utilization? Food Quality And Preference, v. 123, p. 105349, 2025. Maschio et al. Consumers' sensory perception and technological properties of whole foods utilization in bakery products: case of study of banana peel. British Food Journal, v. 125, p. 4622-4638, 2023; and others.

Regarding sampling, we added it as a limitation, although we used all the criteria to recruit consumers involved with the sample model we used (sausages). Regarding sampling size, we added reference that justify lower sampling than 100 individuals within lines 469-472 (Although sample sizes in the two segments are not as large as recommended for consumers tests, they exceeded the minimum of 40 for stable estimates [43] and these sample sizes have been used before to explore consumers’ behavior on food acceptance [45-46].

 

Regarding the tittle, we changed it to into the objective scope of the present results.

It is commendable that the authors are aware of this (Chapter 4). There is nothing left to do but to supplement the experiment so that its scientific value is at an acceptable level.

Thank you for the comment. We truly believe that the present work brings important data about consumer behavior about utilization of beetroot powder into sausages looking at further optimization to produce a reduced/free nitrite/nitrate product. Also, segmentation in the way we performed present a huge innovation in the sensory analysis in the current literature, which shows a great value of the present work.

The bibliography is fairly accurate, although it should be supplemented with technological aspect

Thank you for the comment. Such as stated before within this response letter, the aim of the present work was not  to work with technological aspects, but only with sensory analyzes and consumer behavior, in line with the topic of the special issue of Factors Affecting Food Preferences and Their Association with Consumption—2nd Edition.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although some corrections were correctly implemented in the new version of the manuscript, many comments and suggestions from the previous version were not addressed. If the authors believe that certain corrections should not be made, they are obliged to provide a clear explanation. Additionally, the calculations of beetroot powder content per kilogram are incorrect. Finally, if the addition of the word “fresh” was suggested by another reviewer, it should be added consistently in all appropriate places throughout the manuscript.

Additional comments for the second round of review are provided in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should consider professional editing to enhance the manuscript’s English language quality.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

Although some corrections were correctly implemented in the new version of the manuscript, many comments and suggestions from the previous version were not addressed. If the authors believe that certain corrections should not be made, they are obliged to provide a clear explanation. Additionally, the calculations of beetroot powder content per kilogram are incorrect. Finally, if the addition of the word “fresh” was suggested by another reviewer, it should be added consistently in all appropriate places throughout the manuscript.

Dear Reviewer, we are truly sorry for the mistake to do not see all comments and corrections suggested.

Regarding the word fresh, we produced a non-cured sausage, so the aim of our work was not to evaluate a cured sausage that would go through a ripening period and benefits of all biochemical processes involved, although addition of nitrite/nitrate is mandatory due to concerns about Clostridium botulinum. Fresh sausages are very popular in Brazil, and we added new information about it in the R1 version. So, we added BP to enhance color of the product and not to safety aspects a priori.

Additional comments for the second round of review are provided in the attached PDF file.

 

• “5g /kg, 7.0g /kg and 7.5 g/kg” Add space after the numbers.

Thank you for the correction. It is done. We also reviewed the calculation regarding the concentration of BP into the sausage formulation.

 

• “Slight In general, health-oriented consumers presented lower frequency of citation of positive emotions.” This sentence is unclear and grammatically incorrect, please rephrase. Avoid repeating "of".

Thank you for the correction. It is done

 

• Please clarify what is meant by 'traditional' — traditional what?

Thank you for the appointment. We used the term used in the article, which indicate traditional as ordinary product. We changed the sentence.

 

• This paragraph is different, but not highlighted? Please move this part of the text to the very beginning, as it appeared in the previous version of the

Thank you for the comment. Since reviewers criticized the introduction section, we just reorganized this paragraph to better understand. However, we accepted the current suggestion and moved to the beginning of the text.

 

• “In conclusion, BP showed to be an interesting alternative to low/reduced fresh sausages that appeals to health-consious consumers.” The sentence is unclear and misleading. The role of BP is "an alternative to low/reduced fresh sausages"? Please rephrase.

Thank you for the correction. It is done

 

• “In this context, the market was valued at approximately USD 456 million worldwide in 2022 and is expected to grow at 40 an annual rate of 5.7% through 2032”. Please pay attention to this It seems incomplete, as it does not make sense on its own.

Thank you for the correction. It is done

 

• “Sausages are usually added to cured salts (nitrites and nitrates) due to safety concerns, mainly Clostridium botulinum and to enhance color quality” The highlighted part of the sentence is unclear, please rephrase.

Thank you for the correction. It is done

 

• “they are considered as potential human carcinogen (Group 2A)” The highlighted part of the sentence is unclear, please rephrase.

Thank you for the correction. It is done

• “Beetroot extract” Please make the correction according to the comment provided in the previous version.

Thank you for the appointment. We made the changes.

• “Two kilograms and fifty-five grams of pork meat and 113 (2.55kg), 1.8kg of bacon, at ~7ºC, were ground on 12 mm disc equipment” Please review the comments from the previous version and make the necessary corrections accordingly.

Thank you for the correction. Now it is correct.

• These numbers (calculations): 3.5, 7.0 and 7.5 g/kg appear to be incorrect. Please review and correct the values throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for the correction. Indeed it was wrong. Now it is correct. We divided the amount of BP by the sum of all ingredients.

• “In order to characterize the samples, moisture, water activity (Aw), color and cooking loss were measured. All analysis were performed with cooked samples. In this context, sausages were placed onto Teflon trays and cooked at 220ºC for 20 minutes, then removed and left to cool to 25ºC before instrumental analysis.” Corrections in the pdf version.

Thank you for the correction. It is done

• “Instrumental analyses were performed from cooked samples.” This has already been mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Thank you for the correction. The sentence was removed.

• “for attending the test” replace for “for participants to attend the test”

Thank you for the correction. It is done

• “Consumers were not aware of the objective of the project (BP into the sausages’ formulation) to avoid biases.” Please rephrase. Avoid “of”

Thank you for the correction. It is done

 

• Please clarify how the sausages were maintained at 60 °C if they were reported as being at room

Thank you for the appointment. The information was added in the methodology section.

 

Comments and answers from the R1.

• A major drawback of the study is the use of commercial beetroot powder. Since the sausages were produced by the authors and not purchased, preparing beetroot powder in-house (as reported in some of the cited works) would have provided more meaningful and comparable results. Could the authors clarify the rationale for using commercial powder instead of a laboratory-prepared one?

Dear Reviewer, initially we apologize for missing this comment in the R1 version to answer it. We have worked for a while with dried powders (mainly from food residues, but our explanation goes in the same direction) and we think it is difficult to keep a huge standardization powder in the end of the production. So, we believe (and our know-how gives us a good basis) that utilization of a commercial BP is a better way to further comparison with our results. Additionally, we know the industry that produces the BP and they have a very good quality control of the raw material,  drying temperature, sieving. Finally, since each work worldwide uses different beetroot peel (from different varieties that went to different sun light and other factors, different peeling processes, etc), uses different temperature (lyophilization, oven drying, and different temperatures), we believe that using a commercial powder would be better for standardization of our work.

 

• It would also be valuable to include images of the prepared sausages. Visual representation would give readers a clearer impression of the appearance of the products.

Thank you for the appointment. At least in the area we work in and our research group usually publishes, this is not usual, so we do not have any photos of the sausages to share.

• The instrumental characterization of the samples appears incomplete, as it only covers moisture, pH, water activity, color parameters, color difference, and cooking loss. Additional analyses of key quality attributes—such as appearance and texture—would strengthen the study. A proximate analysis (protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate content) for all samples should be provided, together with a characterization of bioactive compounds and other beneficial substances originating from beetroot powder. This would allow a more comprehensive evaluation of the functional contribution of BP.

 

Thank you for the appointment. Just like justified before, the present work aimed to work with sensory analysis and not instrumental characterization of the sausages, in line with the topic of the special issue. We believe that the instrumental analysis we presented give a good picture of what kind of sausages the consumers evaluated to readers understand our results and the results to be replicable.

• Some sentences are unclear, likely due to language issues, and would benefit from careful reformulation to improve clarity and readability.

Thank you for the appointment and corrections made in the text. We let the article through a new English review by our partner company here in Brazil.

• All remaining comments, along with the suggested corrections, are provided in the attached PDF and Word documents.
• Consider to completely rephrase the sentence. Please add a space between numbers and units, except for temperature values, which are commonly written without a space. Please check the formatting of the Celsius symbol to ensure it is correct.

Thank you for the appointment. We checked all article.

 

• Please rephrase "added of" and clarify what these percentages refer to and explain how they were calculated.

Thank you for the appointment. We added the explanation in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the major and minor comments you raised.
The critical issue (the misleading “nitrite/nitrate-free” claim) has been corrected to “nitrite-reduced”, and limitations are transparently acknowledged. Methodological gaps have been clarified, language and statistics have been improved, and conclusions have been refined.
The manuscript is pending only minor language polishing, as some sentences are still lengthy and awkward.

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the major and minor comments you raised. The critical issue (the misleading “nitrite/nitrate-free” claim) has been corrected to “nitrite-reduced”, and limitations are transparently acknowledged. Methodological gaps have been clarified, language and statistics have been improved, and conclusions have been refined. The manuscript is pending only minor language polishing, as some sentences are still lengthy and awkward.

Thank you for the appointment. We let the article through a new English review by our partner company here in Brazil.