Synergistic Interactions Between Bacteria-Derived Metabolites and Emerging Technologies for Meat Preservation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the manuscript titled “Synergistic Interactions Between Bacteria-Derived Metabolites and Emerging Technologies for Meat Preservation.”
The manuscript follows the format of a typical review article. The topic addressed is important and well-suited to the needs of the modern food sector, where there is a growing demand for natural preservation methods and reduced technological process intensity. The introduction is well-written, addressing important issues related to microbial-derived preservatives and food preservation techniques. The subject of this review is clearly defined. Subsequent chapters describe microbial-derived natural preservatives, with examples from the literature and a table. This is followed by a description of emerging technologies and examples of combined technologies. The manuscript is lengthy, but its content is relevant. The authors demonstrate a very good knowledge of the literature in microbiology and food engineering, and the review highlights both the potential for technological synergies and existing limitations.
In summary, the manuscript is very well written and is suitable for Fermentation. Minor corrections are needed to improve the manuscript.
Detailed comments:
Line 30. Please change the keywords to terms other than those in the manuscript title. This will improve the searchability of the article in the database. Add more keywords.
Line 95. Lactobacillus is missing.
Line 116-117. I think it should be 1.31 log cfu/g.
Line 368, 452. Citation needed.
Line 970. Please explain the abbreviation EDTA.
Please answer the following questions:
- How large is the variability of metabolite activity depending on the meat matrix (fat, pH, water activity, salt content)?
- What are the most important industrial barriers to implementing LAB metabolites in combination with „clean label” technologies?
Author Response
Comments 1: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the manuscript titled “Synergistic Interactions Between Bacteria-Derived Metabolites and Emerging Technologies for Meat Preservation.” The manuscript follows the format of a typical review article. The topic addressed is important and well-suited to the needs of the modern food sector, where there is a growing demand for natural preservation methods and reduced technological process intensity. The introduction is well-written, addressing important issues related to microbial-derived preservatives and food preservation techniques. The subject of this review is clearly defined. Subsequent chapters describe microbial-derived natural preservatives, with examples from the literature and a table. This is followed by a description of emerging technologies and examples of combined technologies. The manuscript is lengthy, but its content is relevant. The authors demonstrate a very good knowledge of the literature in microbiology and food engineering, and the review highlights both the potential for technological synergies and existing limitations. In summary, the manuscript is very well written and is suitable for Fermentation. Minor corrections are needed to improve the manuscript.
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript and for recognizing its relevance, clarity, and scientific contribution. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comments and the acknowledgment of the manuscript’s suitability for Fermentation. The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve clarity, consistency, and precision. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine the work and hope that the revised version meets the reviewer’s expectations.
Comments 2: Line 30. Please change the keywords to terms other than those in the manuscript title. This will improve the searchability of the article in the database. Add more keywords.
Response 2: The keywords have been revised to exclude terms already present in the title, and additional relevant keywords have been included to enhance the article’s visibility and searchability in bibliographic databases.
Comments 3: Line 95. Lactobacillus is missing.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The genus Lactobacillus has now been included at the indicated location in the revised manuscript (Line 131).
Comments 4: Line 116-117. I think it should be 1.31 log cfu/g.
Response 4: The reviewer is correct. The value has been corrected to 1.31 log cfu/g in the revised manuscript (Line 155).
Comments 5: Line 368, 452. Citation needed.
Response 5: Appropriate references have now been added to support the statements at the indicated location (Lines 400 and 407).
Comments 6: Line 970. Please explain the abbreviation EDTA.
Response 6: The abbreviation EDTA has now been fully defined as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Line 1119).
Comments 7: How large is the variability of metabolite activity depending on the meat matrix (fat, pH, water activity, salt content)?
Response 7: The activity of microbial-derived metabolites in meat systems shows substantial variability as a function of the matrix composition. Factors such as fat content, pH, water activity, and salt concentration strongly influence both the diffusion and the bioavailability of these compounds, as well as microbial susceptibility. High fat levels may reduce antimicrobial effectiveness by sequestering hydrophobic metabolites, while pH affects the ionization state and stability of organic acids and bacteriocins. Water activity and salt content further modulate microbial stress responses and can either enhance or attenuate metabolite efficacy depending on their combined effects. Consequently, the antimicrobial performance of these metabolites cannot be generalized across meat products and must be evaluated within the specific physicochemical context of each matrix.
Comments 8: What are the most important industrial barriers to implementing LAB metabolites in combination with „clean label” technologies?
Response 8: Although the meat industry has made substantial progress in developing and validating clean-label preservation strategies based on LAB-derived metabolites, regulatory frameworks have not evolved at the same pace. From a technological standpoint, the integration of these metabolites has been widely demonstrated to be feasible and effective at industrial scale. However, regulatory approval pathways often remain fragmented, conservative, or unclear, particularly for novel metabolites, synergistic combinations, or applications beyond traditional use levels. This regulatory delay limits industrial implementation, as manufacturers must operate within established additive classifications and labeling rules that do not fully reflect recent scientific and technological advances. Consequently, despite strong industrial readiness and consumer demand, broader adoption remains constrained by regulatory structures that have yet to fully accommodate these emerging preservation concepts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article evaluates the efficacy of integrating microbial secondary metabolites with emerging technologies for the preservation of meat products. The study offers an innovative perspective that may provide a novel viewpoint to the academic community. The following recommendations should be considered prior to publication.
1. The author's focus is on combination technologies; however, much of the content addresses microbial products and new technologies separately, which does not align with the central theme.
2. When comparing combination technologies with single technologies, is there an observed improvement in effectiveness? Furthermore, the mechanisms by which combination technologies enhance microbial inactivation efficiency should be elucidated.
3. For commonly employed combination technologies, the author should include a table for clear presentation.
4. Given the relatively high cost of microbial secondary metabolites, it is advisable for the author to introduce the current industrial production methods of these substances.
5. Advances in research on modified atmosphere packaging should be incorporated, as this technology, compared to those mentioned by the author, is currently the most proximate to practical application.
6. For irradiation and plasma technologies, lipid oxidation poses a potential risk. The author needs to discuss the impact of these technologies on product quality.
Author Response
Comments 1: This article evaluates the efficacy of integrating microbial secondary metabolites with emerging technologies for the preservation of meat products. The study offers an innovative perspective that may provide a novel viewpoint to the academic community. The following recommendations should be considered prior to publication.
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful assessment of our manuscript and for acknowledging its innovative perspective and potential contribution to the academic community. We greatly appreciate the constructive recommendations provided. All comments were carefully considered, and the manuscript was revised accordingly to improve clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor prior to publication.
Comments 2: The author's focus is on combination technologies; however, much of the content addresses microbial products and new technologies separately, which does not align with the central theme.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have substantially revised this section to strengthen its focus on combination technologies. The text has been restructured to explicitly emphasize integrated preservation strategies in which microbial secondary metabolites are applied in conjunction with emerging processing technologies, rather than being discussed in isolation. Additional examples and recent studies were incorporated to better illustrate synergistic mechanisms and practical applications of these combined approaches. Furthermore, the revised discussion now clearly identifies existing knowledge gaps, underscoring current limitations in the integration of biological antimicrobials with physical preservation technologies and highlighting priorities for future research and technological development.
Comments 3: When comparing combination technologies with single technologies, is there an observed improvement in effectiveness? Furthermore, the mechanisms by which combination technologies enhance microbial inactivation efficiency should be elucidated.
Response 3: Overall, the available evidence indicates that combination technologies generally exhibit greater effectiveness than single interventions, particularly in terms of microbial inactivation and shelf-life extension. The integration of microbial-derived metabolites with emerging technologies often results in synergistic or additive effects, enabling enhanced antimicrobial performance at lower treatment intensities. This approach improves microbial control while reducing processing severity and preserving product quality. Although the magnitude of improvement depends on the specific technology–metabolite combination and the characteristics of the food matrix, the reviewed studies consistently support the advantages of combined approaches over standalone technologies. The key mechanisms underlying these synergistic interactions are now explicitly described and discussed in the revised manuscript (Lines 1060-1072; 1144-1155; 1190-1198; 1223-1228; 1254-1309).
Comments 4: For commonly employed combination technologies, the author should include a table for clear presentation.
Response 4: A new table (Table 3) has been added to the revised manuscript, summarizing the most commonly employed combination technologies, their target microorganisms, meat systems, and main synergistic mechanisms (Line 1310).
Comments 5: Given the relatively high cost of microbial secondary metabolites, it is advisable for the author to introduce the current industrial production methods of these substances.
Response 5: This aspect has now been addressed in the revised manuscript (Lines 92–127), where current industrial production strategies for microbial secondary metabolites are discussed, with emphasis on fermentation, downstream processing, and cost-related constraints that influence large-scale application.
Comments 6: Advances in research on modified atmosphere packaging should be incorporated, as this technology, compared to those mentioned by the author, is currently the most proximate to practical application.
Response 6: Modified atmosphere packaging has been incorporated into Section 3.7 (Lines and the corresponding Technologies section (Lines 991–1039; 1290-1306). In addition, Table 2 were updated to explicitly include and contextualize this technology within the framework of combined preservation strategies.
Comments 7: For irradiation and plasma technologies, lipid oxidation poses a potential risk. The author needs to discuss the impact of these technologies on product quality.
Response 7: This issue has now been addressed in the revised manuscript (Lines 712–730; 900-926), where the potential for lipid oxidation associated with irradiation and plasma technologies is discussed, along with its implications for product quality attributes such as flavor, color, and oxidative stability.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS is suitable for publication
