Evaluation of the Impact of Whey Edible Coatings with Bioprotective Cultures and Thyme Essential Oil Applied to Cheese

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 57. You must first write L. monocytogenes in full version.

Line 48,115. There is extra space within the sentence

Line 57. The phrase ‘The efficacy of BC in inhibiting fungal contamination has also been demonstrated’ is unnecessary, as it has already been stated above that it prevents fungi.

Line 60. The sentence ends with a comma, and there is an extra space.

Line 60-63. This sentence is unnecessary, as a similar expression already appears above.

Line 63-75. You said that the use of starter or non-starter cultures is prohibited in GI or PDO products. In such products, if the product is traditionally matured at appropriate temperatures, the microbes that give the traditional product its unique characteristics already dominate the microbiota. The uniqueness that grants them the geographical indication is already provided by the unique harmony of this microflora. Therefore, adding a starter, non-starter, or BC culture from outside to this microbiome goes against the nature of the process. I believe you should abandon this argument in this section.

Line 81. In this section, you can discuss studies on the use of EO in coatings for cheeses, briefly explaining which EO are used more frequently and which ones have yielded positive results.

Line 110. ‘the thyme 110 essential oil (Plena Natura, Amadora, Portugal)’ In this sentence, it should now be written as TEO.

Line 121. Elswere? Elsewhere?

Line 122-123. There are many mistakes in these sentences. Please correct them. Don't use lactic acid bacteria anymore, you should write LAB.

Line 126. Extra point

Line 132-156. There are too many paragraph breaks; it doesn't look good. Combine them all into 1 or 2 paragraphs.

Line 158. Please write LAB instead of lactic acid bacteria.

Line 159. Neither Lactobacillus grows only on MRS Agar nor Lactococcus grows only on M17 Agar. You need to specify ‘presumptive Lactobacillus’ and ‘presumptive Lactococcus’. How do you know that streptococci or other LAB do not grow on these media? You should also write down the incubation temperature and duration.

Line 236, 243, 334, 364 etc. TA please instead of Titratable acidity.

Line 366, 369, 370, 380, Spelling errors. Respectivelly, negativelly, chewinness, ? Please carefully reread the entire text for errors such as spelling mistakes, extra spaces, etc., and correct any errors.

Line 380-382. Where did you get that from? Back it up with literature.

Line 419-439. The section mentioned here is more of a lengthy literature review than a discussion, and has temporarily converted the study into a review article. Please discuss the results in this section; there is no need to dwell on information that is not related to the results.

Line 419-460. Although this section is a discussion section, it would be better to mention the findings, even if briefly, and then move on to comparing them with the literature and presenting similar results.

Line 472. Why didn't you inoculate the mould cultures and compare them with the control cheese to interpret the antifungal activity based on the mould count? This would have provided more accurate interpretations.

Why weren't the changes during storage discussed? There are gaps in this regard in the discussion section.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions.

Line 57. You must first write L. monocytogenes in full version.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see line 60.

Line 48,115. There is extra space within the sentence

AU: Corrected as suggested.

Line 57. The phrase ‘The efficacy of BC in inhibiting fungal contamination has also been demonstrated’ is unnecessary, as it has already been stated above that it prevents fungi.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see line 60.

Line 60. The sentence ends with a comma, and there is an extra space.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

Line 60-63. This sentence is unnecessary, as a similar expression already appears above.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see line 68.

Line 63-75. You said that the use of starter or non-starter cultures is prohibited in GI or PDO products. In such products, if the product is traditionally matured at appropriate temperatures, the microbes that give the traditional product its unique characteristics already dominate the microbiota. The uniqueness that grants them the geographical indication is already provided by the unique harmony of this microflora. Therefore, adding a starter, non-starter, or BC culture from outside to this microbiome goes against the nature of the process. I believe you should abandon this argument in this section.

AU: You are right. However, several producers are now using refrigerated milk, especially during weekends. Refrigerated milk favours the development of psychrotrophic bacteria such as Pseudomonas sp. The obtained curds tend not to acidify due to the lack of indigenous LAB. Therefore, it is common to obtain low quality cheese batches with bitter tastes. This is the justification for the use of starters and bioprotective cultures. In Portugal, there are some research groups working on the development of starter cultures based on selected indigenous strains. However, their use is not allowed yet.

Line 81. In this section, you can discuss studies on the use of EO in coatings for cheeses, briefly explaining which EO are used more frequently, and which ones have yielded positive results.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Some additional information was added. Please see lines 80-112.

Line 110. ‘the thyme 110 essential oil (Plena Natura, Amadora, Portugal)’ In this sentence, it should now be written as TEO.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 128 and 144.

Line 121. Elswere? Elsewhere?

AU: Corrected as suggested.

Line 122-123. There are many mistakes in these sentences. Please correct them. Don't use lactic acid bacteria anymore, you should write LAB.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

Line 126. Extra point

Line 132-156. There are too many paragraph breaks; it doesn't look good. Combine them all into 1 or 2 paragraphs.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 165-184.

Line 158. Please write LAB instead of lactic acid bacteria.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

Line 159. Neither Lactobacillus grows only on MRS Agar nor Lactococcus grows only on M17 Agar. You need to specify ‘presumptive Lactobacillus’ and ‘presumptive Lactococcus’. How do you know that streptococci or other LAB do not grow on these media? You should also write down the incubation temperature and duration.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 186-192.

Line 236, 243, 334, 364 etc. TA please instead of Titratable acidity.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 255, 264 and 272.

Line 366, 369, 370, 380, Spelling errors. Respectivelly, negativelly, chewinness, ? Please carefully reread the entire text for errors such as spelling mistakes, extra spaces, etc., and correct any errors.

AU: All cases corrected as suggested.

Line 380-382. Where did you get that from? Back it up with literature.

AU: Sorry. The sentence resulted from a wrong interpretation of reference documents. Sentence was eliminated. Please see lines 431-433.

Line 419-439. The section mentioned here is more of a lengthy literature review than a discussion, and has temporarily converted the study into a review article. Please discuss the results in this section; there is no need to dwell on information that is not related to the results.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Information regarding EOs was transferred to introduction and results were better discussed. Please see lines 391-401; 417-420; 451-467.

Line 419-460. Although this section is a discussion section, it would be better to mention the findings, even if briefly, and then move on to comparing them with the literature and presenting similar results.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 391-401; 417-420; 451-467.

Line 472. Why didn't you inoculate the mould cultures and compare them with the control cheese to interpret the antifungal activity based on the mould count? This would have provided more accurate interpretations.

AU: It would be an interesting approach. However, our intention was focused on maintaining the conventional method of cheese production and compare the different treatments.

Why weren't the changes during storage discussed? There are gaps in this regard in the discussion section.

AU: Normally this type of cheese is consumed shortly after ripening (15 to 30 days after the ripening period). Otherwise, it becomes very hard. In fact, it would be interesting to evaluate the impact of the edible coatings over a longer storage period. However, resources and personnel were limited, and it was not possible to prolong the research activities longer. We tried to better discuss changes during the 28 days ripening period.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dairy 3726246.

General comments:

This manuscript analyses the effects of whey-based edible coatings with BC and BC-TEO, natamycin on several physicochemical, compositional and sensory properties of different cheeses. The lack of this paper is the absence of the viscoelastic properties of the modified cheeses according to the coating. It is interesting to determine the influence of coating on the gel-like quality of different cheeses. For that purpose it will be necessary to measure the mechanical spectra in the linear viscoelastic range to discriminate the true quality of the cheese network. The novelty of this manuscript is poor since the same Authors have written a similar manuscript with oregano essential oil and so on.

Specific comments:

1.- Lines 40, 163, 170, 185, 373, 409: separate the words!!.

2.- Lines 104: here and in all manuscript including the references: write well the units of temperature °C (without order symbol).

3.- Lines 153-154:  what is the geometry of sample? What is the percentage of compression?

4.- Lines 407-408: “ impact of direct light (coating opacity)”. Authors relate the small changes in colour of coated cheeses with coating opacity. In this context the term “opacity” is not adequate. Opacity means that the light has difficult to pass through the cheese. But this fact did not occur as was evidenced in the higher values of L* at 28 days for WFQ and WFQT (Figure 5A). Authors should analyse the paleness and translucent character of cheeses to study the portion of light which may be reflected from the cheese surface. Moreover, Authors may also quantify the other proportion of light which is scattered from the inner cheese matrix.

5.- References: Lines 536-539: write the reference based on the Journal’s format. Line 558: remove the point and introduce a coma before the page range. Line 560 remove the points in the title. There are two 2021, check!. Line 576: there are two 2022. Check!. Write the Journal with the  Abbreviated Journal Name. Lines 577 and 614: write the chapter based on the Journal’s format. Line 646: write coma after volume’s number.

6.- Figures: revise the units of figure 4, specifically for chewiness (J in SI), since it is the product of gumminess*springiness=(hardness*cohesiveness*springiness). Adhesiveness: it is the work (J) necessary ton pull the plunger away from the food sample. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: indicate at the bottom of figure, the meaning of the error bars in the statistical terms.

Figure 5: introduce the capital letters for each figure.

7.- Tables: at the bottom of the table, indicate the meaning of amounts of uncertainties and the small letters.

 

Author Response

This manuscript analyses the effects of whey-based edible coatings with BC and BC-TEO, natamycin on several physicochemical, compositional and sensory properties of different cheeses. The lack of this paper is the absence of the viscoelastic properties of the modified cheeses according to the coating. It is interesting to determine the influence of coating on the gel-like quality of different cheeses. For that purpose, it will be necessary to measure the mechanical spectra in the linear viscoelastic range to discriminate the true quality of the cheese network. The novelty of this manuscript is poor since the same Authors have written a similar manuscript with oregano essential oil and so on.

AU: Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. We agree that a more detailed evaluation of the rheological properties of cheeses would be advisable in  order to better understand the impact of edible coatings on the textural properties of cheeses. Unfortunately,  it was not possible to perform such analyses.

Specific comments:

1.- Lines 40, 163, 170, 185, 373, 409: separate the words!!.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

2.- Lines 104: here and in all manuscript including the references: write well the units of temperature °C (without order symbol).

AU: Corrected as suggested.

3.- Lines 153-154:  what is the geometry of sample? What is the percentage of compression?

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see lines 161, 181 and 183.

4.- Lines 407-408: “ impact of direct light (coating opacity)”. Authors relate the small changes in colour of coated cheeses with coating opacity. In this context the term “opacity” is not adequate. Opacity means that the light has difficult to pass through the cheese. But this fact did not occur as was evidenced in the higher values of L* at 28 days for WFQ and WFQT (Figure 5A). Authors should analyse the paleness and translucent character of cheeses to study the portion of light which may be reflected from the cheese surface. Moreover, Authors may also quantify the other proportion of light which is scattered from the inner cheese matrix.

AU: Sentence was eliminated.

5.- References: Lines 536-539: write the reference based on the Journal’s format. Line 558: remove the point and introduce a coma before the page range. Line 560 remove the points in the title. There are two 2021, check!. Line 576: there are two 2022. Check!. Write the Journal with the  Abbreviated Journal Name. Lines 577 and 614: write the chapter based on the Journal’s format. Line 646: write coma after volume’s number.

AU: Corrected as suggested. Please see signalled references in yellow.

6.- Figures: revise the units of figure 4, specifically for chewiness (J in SI), since it is the product of gumminess*springiness=(hardness*cohesiveness*springiness). Adhesiveness: it is the work (J) necessary to pull the plunger away from the food sample. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7: indicate at the bottom of figure, the meaning of the error bars in the statistical terms.

Figure 5: introduce the capital letters for each figure.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

7.- Tables: at the bottom of the table, indicate the meaning of amounts of uncertainties and the small letters.

AU: Corrected as suggested.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dairy 3726246.R1

Specific comments:

1.- There are two figures 8. Revise!

2.- Table 1 indicate the statistical meaning of the letters for the different amounts. The same comment was indicated in my first revision. Please, be careful!

3.- Revise all the references in the final list to follow the style of the Journal. See guide for authors!

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. All text was revised in order to improve clarity. Several spelling errors were corrected.

1.- There are two figures 8. Revise!

Sorry. Correction made.

2.- Table 1 indicate the statistical meaning of the letters for the different amounts. The same comment was indicated in my first revision. Please, be careful!

Sorry. Correction made.

3.- Revise all the references in the final list to follow the style of the Journal. See guide for authors!

Revised as suggested.