Review Reports
by
- Llerena-Silva Wilma 1,
- José Burgos 2 and
- Ricardo Santos Alemán 8,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Hilton Deeth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article “Effects of aseptic pasteurization on the nutritional, sensory and microbiological properties of orange nectar (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.)” was reviewed, and the following comments are made to contribute to the improvement of the quality of it.
If the color was determined using a spectrophotometer measuring transmittance, how were these values converted to the Lab* scale? Please describe it in the methodology.
The rest of the methodology is very brief, please provide more detailed information about the procedures.
According to the proposed flow chart, once the thermal process, packaging, and storage have been carried out, the different analyses proceed. There is a step on the right, which is storage for 30 days. If after 30 days the studies were carried out, then the image of the refrigerator must be included in the image of the center. It is suggested to make this diagram more attractive.
The discussion of the vitamin C section is very brief, please compare it with other related works.
There seems to be no discussion about temperatures 5 and 6 in figure 5. Please corroborate. What happens with these temperatures that showed values above the maximum allowable?
Use more intense and varied colors in the graphs to easily distinguish the results.
The conclusion is extremely poor. It is necessary to conclude about each analysis they did and its practical implications in the production of high-quality juices. Of course, it must be accompanied by the perspectives of this study in the commercial field.
Author Response
The article “Effects of aseptic pasteurization on the nutritional, sensory and microbiological properties of orange nectar (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.)” was reviewed, and the following comments are made to contribute to the improvement of the quality of it.
If the color was determined using a spectrophotometer measuring transmittance, how were these values converted to the Lab* scale? Please describe it in the methodology.
Answer: For color analysis, it worked with a Hunter Lab colorimeter to obtain the L*, a*, and b* values from the International Commission on Illumination (CIELab) and thus interpret them with the help of equations and the graphic system [22].
The rest of the methodology is very brief, please provide more detailed information about the procedures.
Answer: the methodology was improved.
According to the proposed flow chart, once the thermal process, packaging, and storage have been carried out, the different analyses proceed. There is a step on the right, which is storage for 30 days. If after 30 days the studies were carried out, then the image of the refrigerator must be included in the image of the center. It is suggested to make this diagram more attractive.
Answer: the diagram was improved.
The discussion of the vitamin C section is very brief, please compare it with other related works.
Answer: the discussion was improved.
There seems to be no discussion about temperatures 5 and 6 in figure 5. Please corroborate. What happens with these temperatures that showed values above the maximum allowable?
Answer: the discussion was improved.
Use more intense and varied colors in the graphs to easily distinguish the results.
Answer: The figures were improved.
The conclusion is extremely poor. It is necessary to conclude about each analysis they did and its practical implications in the production of high-quality juices. Of course, it must be accompanied by the perspectives of this study in the commercial field.
Answer: The conclusion was improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper reports the effects of thermal treatments under vacuum of a carrot-orange nectar. While the paper presents some interesting and potentially useful information there are several issues which require the authors’ attention.
The title contains the word “aseptic pasteurization” while the rest of the paper refers to “vacuum pasteurization”. I suggest the title be changed accordingly. The term “vacuum cooking” is also used in the paper; I see no need to introduce this term
The title contains the words “orange nectar (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.)” I suggest these be changed to “orange (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.) nectar”.
Please check spelling of “pasteurization” throughout the manuscript; in some places it is spelt “pasterization”.
Table 2 is unnecessary as it can be replaced by a single statement
Other issues are as follows (line number, comment)
43-44, I don’t understand what is meant by “subprocess”
49-59, brucellosis, tuberculosis, typhoid, Q fever, salmonellosis, scarlet fever are not bacteria
56, this is the first mention of “nectars”. Please define. How do they differ from juices?
62, please correct the spelling of “pectinmethylesterase”
65-66, I question the phrase “limiting the development of bacteria”. It is the pH not the yeasts which limits the growth of bacteria at low pH
67, delete “such as”
98-99, it is insufficient to cite Z values as indicators of thermal lethality. Some D value in the target temperature range should also be given.
100, the meaning of “validation” here is unclear as it appears that just the temperature was checked.
103, were the 280 mL bottles sterile and were they filled aseptically (as suggested by the current title of the paper). If so, this should be stated.
104, delete “cold”
88-105, there is no mention of replication of the entire trials. If such replication was not carried out, what do the standard deviations in the data refer to: replicate analyses only?
111, define “OIV”
122 and elsewhere, please ensure that superscripts such as “-1” are formatted as superscripts
149, please convert to English
154, replace “Hydronium ion concentration (pH)” by just “pH”
Figure 1, correct spelling of “extraction”
176, evaporation may give an increase in TS but not necessarily in TSS
177, data for increase in TSS during storage for 32 weeks at 20 °C is inappropriate since there is no methodology provided for such storage.
179-189, this explanation is irrelevant given that there was no change during storage in this work
197-198, please reword as the effect of pasteurization cannot be evident in raw (unheated) samples
206, delete “pasteurization”
208, 210, what is OI. Should this be “DI”
212, the statement “the IO increases and decreases when stored at 4.5 °C for 7 weeks.” is meaningless. Also, what is “IO”?
Figure 3, why are the values for the raw nectar different for each heat treatment?
228, delete “the presence of”
236, define “INEN”
233-241, I find this confusing and difficult to agree with the conclusions. Firstly, what is the “INEN 2337 standard” for this product? I don’t understand the meaning of the days, CFU data in brackets when several points are for zero counts. The authors consider treatment T1 to be not as effective as T3 but Figure 4 does not support this conclusion. The fact that there was a high count in the raw nectar appears to be irrelevant given that all zero-time counts were zero
240-241, I would conclude that T1 was more effective than T4, based on Figure 4
Figure 4, convert words to English
Figure 4, what is “UFC”; is it the same as “CFU” as mentioned in the text. Also what is “UPC”?
Table 4, I don’t understand what is meant by “Mesophilic aerobic and yeast”
245, I can’t see data for yeast in “the raw samples”; is the “INEN 2337 standard” for raw or heat-treated product?”
262-263, what is meant by “did not perceive differences concerning control treatment”? Does it mean the same as the wording in lines 267-268 that there was no significant differences between the treatments and the control”? Also, what was the “control treatment”; I can’t find it defined in the Materials and Methods.
Figure 5, the different raw milks results make the data difficult to interpret. Why were they so different?
Figure 5, there is no need for the RHS Y-axis labelled “INEN Standard limit” when the horizonal line is presented indicating this limit.
Figure 7, what was the “control”?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome information is given in a non-English language
Author Response
The paper reports the effects of thermal treatments under vacuum of a carrot-orange nectar. While the paper presents some interesting and potentially useful information there are several issues which require the authors’ attention.
The title contains the word “aseptic pasteurization” while the rest of the paper refers to “vacuum pasteurization”. I suggest the title be changed accordingly. The term “vacuum cooking” is also used in the paper; I see no need to introduce this term
Answer: The title was improved.
The title contains the words “orange nectar (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.)” I suggest these be changed to “orange (Citrus x sinensis) and carrot (Daucus carota l.) nectar”.
Answer: The title was improved.
Please check spelling of “pasteurization” throughout the manuscript; in some places it is spelt “pasterization”.
Answer: The check spelling was done.
43-44, I don’t understand what is meant by “subprocess”
Answer: The check spelling was done.
49-59, brucellosis, tuberculosis, typhoid, Q fever, salmonellosis, scarlet fever are not bacteria
Answer: The sentence was improved.
56, this is the first mention of “nectars”. Please define. How do they differ from juices?
Answer: The sentence was improved.
62, please correct the spelling of “pectinmethylesterase”
Answer: The check spelling was done.
65-66, I question the phrase “limiting the development of bacteria”. It is the pH not the yeasts which limits the growth of bacteria at low pH
Answer: The sentence was improved.
67, delete “such as”
Answer: The sentence was improved.
98-99, it is insufficient to cite Z values as indicators of thermal lethality. Some D value in the target temperature range should also be given.
Answer: D values in the target temperature range were given.
100, the meaning of “validation” here is unclear as it appears that just the temperature was checked.
Answer: The sentence was improved.
103, were the 280 mL bottles sterile and were they filled aseptically (as suggested by the current title of the paper). If so, this should be stated.
Answer: The sentence was improved.
104, delete “cold”
Answer: Word was deleted.
88-105, there is no mention of replication of the entire trials. If such replication was not carried out, what do the standard deviations in the data refer to: replicate analyses only?
Answer: Statement was added.
111, define “OIV”
Answer: The sentence was removed.
122 and elsewhere, please ensure that superscripts such as “-1” are formatted as superscripts
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
149, please convert to English
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
154, replace “Hydronium ion concentration (pH)” by just “pH”
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
Figure 1, correct spelling of “extraction”
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
176, evaporation may give an increase in TS but not necessarily in TSS
Answer: The water loss due to evaporation causes an increase in TSS.
177, data for increase in TSS during storage for 32 weeks at 20 °C is inappropriate since there is no methodology provided for such storage.
Answer: The sentence was rephrased.
179-189, this explanation is irrelevant given that there was no change during storage in this work
Answer: The sentence was rephrased.
197-198, please reword as the effect of pasteurization cannot be evident in raw (unheated) samples
Answer: significant effect of vacuum pasteurization was evident in the raw samples, increasing in those treatments at high temperatures or long application times (T1, T3, and T6).
206, delete “pasteurization”
Answer: Word was deleted.
208, 210, what is OI. Should this be “DI”
Answer: Word was changed.
212, the statement “the IO increases and decreases when stored at 4.5 °C for 7 weeks.” is meaningless. Also, what is “IO”?
Answer: The sentence was rephrased.
Figure 3, why are the values for the raw nectar different for each heat treatment?
Answer: The heat treatment has shown to decrease the vitamin C even on raw nectar due to enzymatic reactions.
228, delete “the presence of”
Answer: Word was deleted.
236, define “INEN”
Answer: INEN was define.
233-241, I find this confusing and difficult to agree with the conclusions. Firstly, what is the “INEN 2337 standard” for this product? I don’t understand the meaning of the days, CFU data in brackets when several points are for zero counts. The authors consider treatment T1 to be not as effective as T3 but Figure 4 does not support this conclusion. The fact that there was a high count in the raw nectar appears to be irrelevant given that all zero-time counts were zero
Answer: INEN was define and conclusion were rephrased.
240-241, I would conclude that T1 was more effective than T4, based on Figure 4
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
Figure 4, convert words to English
Answer: The recommendation was followed.
Figure 4, what is “UFC”; is it the same as “CFU” as mentioned in the text. Also what is “UPC”?
Answer: Words was changed.
Table 4, I don’t understand what is meant by “Mesophilic aerobic and yeast”
Answer: Mesophilic aerobic and yeast counts.
262-263, what is meant by “did not perceive differences concerning control treatment”? Does it mean the same as the wording in lines 267-268 that there was no significant differences between the treatments and the control”? Also, what was the “control treatment”; I can’t find it defined in the Materials and Methods.
Answer: Control refers to just basic pasteurization. The sentence was rephrased.
Figure 5, the different raw milks results make the data difficult to interpret. Why were they so different?
Figure 5, there is no need for the RHS Y-axis labelled “INEN Standard limit” when the horizonal line is presented indicating this limit.
Figure 7, what was the “control”?
Answer: Control refers to just basic pasteurization.
Answer: The figures were improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made some changes to the manuscript. However, I find many of the responses to my comments unsatisfactory and some necessary changes have not been made. The authors' responses to my comments included statements such as "statement was added", "The check spelling was done", "the sentence was improved". In the authors' responses I need to see exactly what changes have been made; I should not have to search for these in the manuscript.
Changes made which are unsatisfactory Include (line number, comment):
57, contains the words "nectar is fruit nectar..."; do the authors mean "nectar is fruit juice...)?
100, D values are given but they are meaningless without specifying the temperature at which they were obtained; a reference for the Z and D value information is required
186-187, this information is irrelevant and should be deleted
Figure 2, the spelling of "pasterized" must be corrected
203-204, As I indicated in my review, "the effect of pasteurization cannot be evident in raw (unheated) samples" The authors have not reworded this sentence satisfactorily.
218-219, I still do not know how to interpret the statement "the dark index increases and decreases when stored at 4.5 °C for 7 weeks.
"246, 247 AND ELSEWHERE, the -1 superscripts have not been formatted as superscripts.
Figure 4 and elsewhere, the term "mesophilic aerobic" is meaningless; presumably the authors mean "mesophilic aerobic bacteria"
285-287 and elsewhere, The authors have commented that the control treatment was "basic pasteurization". What is this; it does not seem to be described in the Materials and methods. Furthermore, lines 286-287 contain the words "control treatment (raw nectar)"; which is correct?
Figure 5, the authors have still not defined UFC and UPC. They have also not corrected the spelling of "pasteurized"
Figure 5, my two comments on this figure in my initial review have not been responded to. They were "the different raw milks results make the data difficult to interpret. Why were they so different?" and "there is no need for the RHS Y-axis labelled “INEN Standard limit” when the horizonal line is presented indicating this limit."
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some minor English errors are present, including in the changes made by the authors
Author Response
The authors have made some changes to the manuscript. However, I find many of the responses to my comments unsatisfactory and some necessary changes have not been made. The authors' responses to my comments included statements such as "statement was added", "The check spelling was done", "the sentence was improved". In the authors' responses I need to see exactly what changes have been made; I should not have to search for these in the manuscript.
Changes made which are unsatisfactory Include (line number, comment):
57, contains the words "nectar is fruit nectar..."; do the authors mean "nectar is fruit juice...)?
Answer: The sentence was improved.
100, D values are given but they are meaningless without specifying the temperature at which they were obtained; a reference for the Z and D value information is required
Answer: The information and references was added.
186-187, this information is irrelevant and should be deleted
Answer: The sentence was deleted.
Figure 2, the spelling of "pasteurized" must be corrected
Answer: The Figure was improved.
203-204, As I indicated in my review, "the effect of pasteurization cannot be evident in raw (unheated) samples" The authors have not reworded this sentence satisfactorily.
Answer: The sentence was improved.
218-219, I still do not know how to interpret the statement "the dark index increases and decreases when stored at 4.5 °C for 7 weeks.
Answer: The sentence was improved.
"246, 247 AND ELSEWHERE, the -1 superscripts have not been formatted as superscripts.
Answer: The superscripts was added.
Figure 4 and elsewhere, the term "mesophilic aerobic" is meaningless; presumably the authors mean "mesophilic aerobic bacteria"
Answer: The Figure was improved.
285-287 and elsewhere, The authors have commented that the control treatment was "basic pasteurization". What is this; it does not seem to be described in the Materials and methods. Furthermore, lines 286-287 contain the words "control treatment (raw nectar)"; which is correct?
Answer: The terminology was corrected.
286-287 contain the words "control treatment (raw nectar)"; which is correct?
Figure 5, the authors have still not defined UFC and UPC. They have also not corrected the spelling of "pasteurized"
Answer: The terminology was corrected.
Figure 5, my two comments on this figure in my initial review have not been responded to. They were "the different raw milks results make the data difficult to interpret. Why were they so different?" and "there is no need for the RHS Y-axis labelled “INEN Standard limit” when the horizonal line is presented indicating this limit."
Answer: The Figure was improved.