Recent Progress on the Application of Chitosan, Starch and Chitosan–Starch Composites for Meat Preservation—A Mini Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper jcs-3127364 Recent progress on the application of chitosan, starch and chitosan-starch composites for meat preservation: A mini review, is a resubmission of paper jcs-3094194 that I early review. I appreciate that the paper is now better organized and the glossary of terms is a welcomed and necessary improvement. Nevertheless, all readers will discover this just at the end of reading struggling until then with many acronyms. My suggestion to authors is to mention this glossary from the beginning so that the readers are informed about it and use it at the right time. I appreciate that you introduced values of parameters in Tables describing the films. My idea was that you could do that into a separately column so the information could be accessed much easier. Please think to this aspect. At the end I have to express my discontent (maybe it was the suggestion of other reviewers) related to the fact that you replaced many of terms (materials/substances and parameters) with acronyms. Indeed you have this glossary of terms, but now the paper will be “read with the dictionary”. My suggestion is that as far as possible you should go back to the full name, and wherever a term appears first, give the full name and acronym. Don't just rely on the glossary of terms.

Author Response

Authors Response to Reviewer Comments on MS ID: jcs-3127364

 

Reviewer #1

 

The paper jcs-3127364 Recent progress on the application of chitosan, starch and chitosan-starch composites for meat preservation: A mini review, is a resubmission of paper jcs-3094194 that I early review. I appreciate that the paper is now better organized and the glossary of terms is a welcomed and necessary improvement. Nevertheless, all readers will discover this just at the end of reading struggling until then with many acronyms. My suggestion to authors is to mention this glossary from the beginning so that the readers are informed about it and use it at the right time. I appreciate that you introduced values of parameters in Tables describing the films. My idea was that you could do that into a separately column so the information could be accessed much easier. Please think to this aspect. At the end I have to express my discontent (maybe it was the suggestion of other reviewers) related to the fact that you replaced many of terms (materials/substances and parameters) with acronyms. Indeed you have this glossary of terms, but now the paper will be “read with the dictionary”. My suggestion is that as far as possible you should go back to the full name, and wherever a term appears first, give the full name and acronym. Don't just rely on the glossary of terms.

Response:

Thanks for your efforts. We appreciate your comments. We also realized that the manuscript was more difficult to read due to the use of several acronyms. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript. Many of the terms (materials/substances and parameters) have been written in full. Furthermore, wherever a term appears first the full name is given. As well, a footnote was included for Tables 1-3 to direct the reader to the full list of acronyms after Section 6, as an additional means to ease the burden to translate the various acronyms employed.

As well, We appreciate the time and constructive comments provided by Reviewer #1, along with the opportunity to improve the quality of this contribution to the Journal of Composites Science.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors put a lot of efforts in improving the manuscript.

 

One small suggestion:

Line 21: I would recommend a general formulation: "chitosan and starch based films and coatings".

Author Response

Reviewer #2

The authors put a lot of efforts in improving the manuscript.

One small suggestion:

Line 21: I would recommend a general formulation: "chitosan and starch based films and coatings".

Response:

Thanks for your efforts. We appreciate your comments. We have revised it to "chitosan and starch based films and coatings".

As well, We appreciate the time and constructive comments provided by Reviewer #2, along with the opportunity to improve the quality of this contribution to the Journal of Composites Science.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have to admit that the Authors have significantly improved the manuscript and added more interesting information that can encourage potential researchers to study this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

I have to admit that the Authors have significantly improved the manuscript and added more interesting information that can encourage potential researchers to study this paper.

Response:

We appreciate the time and constructive comments provided by Reviewer #3, along with the opportunity to improve the quality of this contribution to the Journal of Composites Science.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my observations! My recommendation is that the manuscript can be published in the present form.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title has to be changed. Taking into account that the paper concerns mainly packaging dedicated to meat, the title should also include or at least in some way refer to the word “meat”.

Line 111. The Authors state that: “Furthermore, natural active ingredients such as essential oils have been introduced…” Please indicate other active compounds that have been introduced into the chitosan matrix or into the mentioned polymeric blend.

In section 2, lines 144-162 are not connected with the title of the section. The same applies to section 3, where the title reads “Starch based coatings for meat preservation”. With this in mind, a description of the structure of starch encompassing as much as a page of the manuscript is redundant, in particular since starch is a well-known material.

 

The layout of the content is inconsistent, bordering on random. The authors first describe how chitosan-based coatings protect smoked herring and then describe the mechanism of antibacterial potential indicated in other publications. (lines 171-206). Papers dedicated to the storage and protection of meat are just mentioned in the tables.

The list of references and mentioned manuscripts seems to be interesting. However, the presentation of the conclusion of published papers in the form of tables is not professional and bears little correlation with the actual findings.

 

The mini-review is not interesting and looks like a simple list of published papers. Moreover, the description of the structure and properties of polymers is also redundant.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting topic - food preservation, a very wide and offering subject, which is why a more specific approach could be useful to develop an organized and helpful review paper.

Some suggestions:

Title is too general and misleading. As most (all?) cited applications refer to meat products, the title should be reconsidered.

The manuscript should clearly define and separate films and coatings.

Also, a presentation of packaging by category could be useful for an easier identification of applicability: functional, active, biodegradable, edible etc. There are numerous classifications applicable depending on the specific criteria.

Tables: key findings are in most cases just general characterizations, with no specific values or relevance. Key parameter or results should be emphasized.

Conclusions are too general, with limited perspectives and limited authors opinions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Recent progress on the application of chitosan, starch and chitosan-starch composites for food preservation: A mini review” is a well written review that deals with Chitosan based, Starch based and Chitosan and starch-based biocomposite coatings for meat preservation. Additionally to some general considerations which are welcomed the effective review consists of three tables where a series of films based on Chitosan, Starch and Chitosan&starch are discussed. I have some minor observations and a major suggestion. My recommendation to the editor was that the paper can be published but only after considering these issues. Below you have my remarks: 1.    From such a review I would like to find a real comparison between samples. In this form the review seems to be just a collection of data. I would like to see a series of criteria for classification of these films (not only by Chitosan, Starch and Chitosan/Starch). The authors may consider also to modify the Table in such a way to include some common properties of these films (such as water vapor permeability (WVP), tensile strength (TS), elongation at break (EB), and heat resistance) and to provide the measured values (or at least a score). Then the readers can compare the films and choose the best film for their applications. 2.    Minor points: a.    Please do not describe the review in the review such as in abstract (and elsewhere) “Hence, this review briefly considers the recent developments of single component biopolymers (chitosan, starch), and binary biopolymer composite (chitosan + starch) films and coatings for the preservation of food. In particular, this review puts an emphasis on meat products and the role of biopolymer systems toward improvements in the antibacterial, antifungal, and mechanical properties of the films/coatings”. Line 131 “This mini-review offers detailed insight into the recent publications”. b.    Please explain all the materials and methods acronyms (like in ref 73 TBA and TVB-N; or WVTR) c.    Please pay attention to other acronyms such as: (Table 1 ref 77) “HGEL (carp skin gelatine hydrolysate)” probable HGEL comes only from “gelatine hydrolysate” d.    Delete the final point in the titles. e.    If possible use the same Acronym all over the entire review. For example for Chitosan (CS, Chi, etc).