Evaluation of Solid-State Fermentation Conditions from Pineapple Peel Waste for Release of Bioactive Compounds by Aspergillus niger spp.
, Juan A. Ascacio-Valdés 1, Miriam Desirée Dávila-Medina 1, Miguel A. Medina-Morales 2, Liliana Londoño-Hernández 3 and Leonardo Sepúlveda 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOne of the biggest issue in the manuscript is that the author uses very very long sentences throughout the manuscript, which makes the reviewer very hard to follow clearly and catch the points the authors want to express. The authors should revise this issue throughout the whole manuscript.
Moreover, the quality of the figures and tables in the paper is not appropriate. The texts and numbers in the figures are blur, especially for Figure 4. Tables are not organized properly, with many repeated headlines in one table (Table 2).
Please address there issue and send for another review.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOne of the biggest issue in the manuscript is that the author uses very very long sentences throughout the manuscript, which makes the reviewer very hard to follow clearly and catch the points the authors want to express. The authors should revise this issue throughout the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate each of the observations to improve the manuscript. Next we will respond in detail.
"One of the biggest issue in the manuscript is that the author uses very very long sentences throughout the manuscript, which makes the reviewer very hard to follow clearly and catch the points the authors want to express. The authors should revise this issue throughout the whole manuscript."
Response: The entire manuscript was reviewed in detail. Ideas are more precise and clear.
"Moreover, the quality of the figures and tables in the paper is not appropriate. The texts and numbers in the figures are blur, especially for Figure 4. Tables are not organized properly, with many repeated headlines in one table (Table 2)"
Response: Each of the figures and tables were reviewed in detail. The quality of figure 4 was improved. The order of the figures and tables are now correct.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction lacks statistical data on pineapple production, how much is processed, and what percentage is waste.
The benefits of biotechnological waste management are poorly presented in the review - sustainable development, zero waste policy.
Why did you study these particular strains of mold? Why not collection strains? Where were these strains isolated from? Are they safe? Do they produce mycotoxins?
Here and there, the methodology lacks the names of manufacturers of reagents and equipment.
There is a lack of statistical analysis, standard deviations alone seem to be insufficient.
Some results are missing units.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate each of the observations to improve the manuscript. Next we will respond in detail.
"The introduction lacks statistical data on pineapple production, how much is processed, and what percentage is waste."
Response: Reference 6 was updated.
"The benefits of biotechnological waste management are poorly presented in the review - sustainable development, zero waste policy."
Response: We consider it to be an interesting topic, however, we do not consider it for our work.
There are very extensive works already published on this topic.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043575
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-021-10318-9
"Why did you study these particular strains of mold? Why not collection strains? Where were these strains isolated from? Are they safe? Do they produce mycotoxins?"
Response: These strains were isolated from the semi-desert of Coahuila, they are studied for their ability to adapt to any substrate in fermentation processes.
At the moment only the A. niger GH1 strain is deposited in the micoteca of the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Aspergillus niger strains are safe. They are classified by the FDA as GRASS. This strain can be used for the production of enzymes and secondary metabolites.
You can review table 2.2 in the following link.
GRAS-Notice-GRN-832-Acid-prolyl-endopeptidase.pdf
At the moment we do not have mycotoxin studies of these strains.
"Here and there, the methodology lacks the names of manufacturers of reagents and equipment."
Response: All reagents that were used were added. Added the make, model and origin of all equipment.
"Some results are missing units"
Response: The document was reviewed and the units are corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors should refine the language of the manuscript, as in current version it is still hard to follow the manuscript due to confusing language and experessions.
Please consider the following examples:
Line 124-127, Break the long sentence into short ones, to make it more clear.
Line 167-169, Sentence is not clear.
Line 169, can it be written as "A microplate reader was used to measure the absorbance of samples at a wavelength of 750 nm"?
Line 203-205, the sentence is not clear.
Figure 3, Why are the numbers in x-axis of the figure A and B in different orientation?
Line 257 and 275, why use "shown" rather than "showed"?
Line 320, may be written as "Andrade [24] mentioned in a study that ..."
Line 328-330, need to rewrite the sentence to be less confussing.
Line 347-348, The sentence is not clear, please rewrite.
Line 349-353, Confusing. Rewrite.
Line 364-366, Sentence not clear, rewrite.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors should refine the language of the manuscript, as in current version it is still hard to follow the manuscript due to confusing language and experessions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We appreciate your comments again, they help us greatly to improve our work. I hope to be able to respond in detail to each of your comments.
Line 124-127, Break the long sentence into short ones, to make it more clear.
Response: The polyphenols assays was rewritten.
Line 167-169, Sentence is not clear.
Response: The antioxidant activity methodology was rewritten.
Line 169, can it be written as "A microplate reader was used to measure the absorbance of samples at a wavelength of 750 nm"?
Response: The antioxidant activity methodology was rewritten.
Line 203-205, the sentence is not clear.
Response: The section 3.3 was rewritten.
Figure 3, Why are the numbers in x-axis of the figure A and B in different orientation?
Response: The figure 3 was modified.
Line 257 and 275, why use "shown" rather than "showed"?
Response: I consider that this verb should be conjugated in the present (shows). All words were changed.
Line 320, may be written as "Andrade [24] mentioned in a study that ..."
Response: The sentence was modified.
Line 328-330, need to rewrite the sentence to be less confussing.
Response: The section 4.3 was modified.
Line 347-348, The sentence is not clear, please rewrite.
Response: The beginning of section 4.4 was modified.
Line 349-353, Confusing. Rewrite.
Response: The sentence was modified.
Line 364-366, Sentence not clear, rewrite.
Response: The sentence was modified.
