Modeling the Thermal Inactivation of Ascospores from Heat-Resistant Molds in Pineapple Juice and Evaluating Disinfection Efficiency of Sodium Hypochlorite and Chlorine Dioxide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reports the ‘Modeling the Thermal Inactivation of Ascospores from Heat-Resistant Molds in Pineapple Juice and Evaluating Disinfection Efficiency of Sodium Hypochlorite and Chlorine Dioxide’.

The study is well conducted. It can be proceeded after necessary major revisions.

My main concerns are as follows.

1

Figure 1 has a poor resolution. Please increase the resolution.

2

Line 383

3.1.2 Comparison of thermal inactivation models

The numbering should be 3.1.3.

3

3.1. Inactivation kinetics of heat resistant mold ascospores in pineapple juice

Why did the author choose the two models for description of inactivation kinetics?

It seems the log-linear model is only the special case of the Weibull model (when p = 1).

Therefore the comparison of the two models is somewhat of no significance.

4

Figure 2B

Why were the Log-reduction negative values?

Please explain this.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine.

Author Response

 We appreciate the invaluable feedback and constructive comments from the reviewers, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of the manuscript. The reviews provided by the editors and external reviewers have been instrumental in shaping this paper into its present form. We have diligently revised the manuscript in line with the reviewer comments, which are included alongside our responses in this letter. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript will meet the standards for publication in Beverages.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript can be reconsidered after major revisions.

1. The introduction does not provide a good overview of the development in this field, especially the lack of relevant descriptions of the effects of additives, including the important roles played by sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide.

2. The materials and methods section lack a large amount of reagent and equipment information and method details, resulting in a lack of reproducibility.

3. L72-78: More details on obtaining and identifying the used molds need to be provided

4. L83: Firstly

5. “mL”, “30 ± 2 °C”, “0.1 %” Some non-standard language runs throughout all the manuscript.

6. L104: More details need to be provided on how to obtain pineapple juice and what pineapple are used.

7. L109: More details need to be provided, including the size of the polyethylene plastic bag, whether it is filled, how to seal, etc.

8. L152-155: “... maximum, intermediate, and maximum concentrations recommended by the manufacturers ...” It is not a scientific expression.

9. L172-173: Is nutritional broth prepared in the laboratory or purchased directly? If purchasing directly, please provide the model and manufacturer. If preparing in the laboratory, please provide the preparation method.

10. Figure 1 is difficult to see clearly

11. The data in the manuscript is sufficient and well presented, but it seems to lack sufficient discussion on in-depth mechanisms.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required

Author Response

We appreciate the invaluable feedback and constructive comments from the reviewers, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of the manuscript. The reviews provided by the editors and external reviewers have been instrumental in shaping this paper into its present form. We have diligently revised the manuscript in line with the reviewer comments, which are included alongside our responses in this letter. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript will meet the standards for publication in Beverages.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this work, the authors investigated the thermal resistance of ascospores obtained from the species of different heat-resistant molds, which included Aspergillus laciniosus, A. chevalieri, A. denticulatus, A. siamensis, Hamigera pallida, and Talaromyces macrosporus, isolated from the soils of pineapple and sugarcane field. Practically, the kinetics of ascospore inactivation in pineapple juice were analyzed under heat treatment (at 75-97°C) using log-linear and Weibull models. Among these species, A. laciniosus was shown to display the highest heat resistance (δ-value: 104.59 min at 85°C), while A. siamensis exhibited the lowest (δ-value: 3.39 min at 80°C). Furthermore, the most heat-resistant species, A. laciniosus, showed notable tolerance to sanitizers, the most effective inactivation was obtained by 1 %(w/v) sodium hypochlorite, but chlorine dioxide was shown to be ineffective. Consequently, this study revealed a possible correlation of ascospore resistance to heat and chlorine dioxide, thereby suggesting significant findings for practical inactivation strategies.

 The thermal inactivation kinetics of heat-resistant mold species were examined. Moreover, in case of the combined application of hot water pretreatment and sanitizers, the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide in the inactivation of ascospores was determined to provide an additional explanation for the previous study.

 The experiments seemed well designed, and carefully carried out without any critical defect. The results  

 Regarding the manuscript, the Introduction seemed clear and uncomplicated, and quite easy to understand the objective of this work. The Methods seemed clearly and practically stated, and therefore ease to reexamine and revalidate this study. The presentation of experimental results was a little complicated, but not so troublesome to understand. The obtained conclusion could probably be considered to be reasonable.

 Although the research area of this study might be possible to say relatively narrow range, but the obtained results would probably be able to provide significant information and knowledge for practical inactivation of heat-resistance molds in the field of food safety. Hence the results of this work would probably be considered to be worth proceeding.

Author Response

We appreciate the invaluable feedback and constructive comments from the reviewers, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of the manuscript. The reviews provided by the editors and external reviewers have been instrumental in shaping this paper into its present form. We have diligently revised the manuscript in line with the reviewer comments, which are included alongside our responses in this letter. We sincerely hope that the revised manuscript will meet the standards for publication in Beverages.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has undergone revisions and improvements.

My previous comments and raised issues have been well addressed.

Please note that Figure 3 are not normally displayed.

Thank you for your response.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is fine.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised and could be considered for acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required