Technology for Apple Pomace Utilization within a Sustainable Development Policy Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments have to follow before considering this manuscript for further consideration

1. The fine-tuning of English is very important
2. The introduction should support by the statistics and available data than general statements
3. line 40,   can you add how much pomace is produced in a year?
4. The lines from 55 to 62, instead of giving the chemical nutritional composition better to give with values.
5. In addition to the given information, it is better to give the information on the environmental issues related to the pomace degradation
6. line 105, how many days preserved?
7. Line 138, what is the working principle of the moisture tester?
8. Line 142 to 146, revise the sentence as the same information is repeated again 
9. Line numbers 169 to 234 should be  presented in the materials and methods as this is the methodology 
10. Images 1-4 can be planned as a single image
11. Section 3.2 is just a presentation of the results, hence, needs a discussion of the results. 
12. line 236. the first sentence should be revised  
13. After figure 2, there is figure 7, try to check once, 
14. Total images are 12 in this manuscript which is not required, so some images should concert to tables 
15. Why sensory analysis is performed for the product?
16. the conclusions should be fine-tuned and can give the best one product out of 4 produced products.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,                                                                                            

Thank you very much for your careful analysis of our manuscript. We present the responses to the comments below. We tried to correct the manuscript in accordance with your comments in the best possible way. All corrections are marked in the text.

Sincerely

Professor Rafał Nadulski

Corresponding Author

 

Rev. 01

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following comments have to follow before considering this manuscript for further consideration

1. The fine-tuning of English is very important

The grammar and spelling of the manuscript was checked carefully and corrected by a certified translator. 

2. The introduction should support by the statistics and available data than general statements

The introduction was supported by the statistics and available data.

3. Line 40, can you add how much pomace is produced in a year?

Such information was included in the introduction.

4. The lines from 55 to 62, instead of giving the chemical nutritional composition better to give with values.

The introduction has been supplemented with detailed data on the chemical composition of the pomace.

5. In addition to the given information, it is better to give the information on the environmental issues related to the pomace degradation

Such information was included in the text.

6. Line 105, how many days preserved?

Such information was included in the text.

7. Line 138, what is the working principle of the moisture tester?

Samples weighing 5 g were dried at 105^o C for such a period of time, after which the changes in the water content of the samples were not recorded by the device.

A detailed description of the operation of the moisture analyzer (MAC 210/NH Radwag ) is available at the link https://radwag.com/pliki/instrukcje/moisture_analyzer_mac.pdf

8. Line 142 to 146, revise the sentence as the same information is repeated again

The sentences have been corrected.

9. Line numbers 169 to 234 should be presented in the materials and methods as this is the methodology

This part of the text has been moved to the Materials and methods section.

10. Images 1-4 can be planned as a single image

After discussion, Figures 1-4 have been left separated because it is clearer.

11. Section 3.2 is just a presentation of the results, hence, needs a discussion of the results.

This part of the manuscript has been corrected extending the discussion.

12. line 236. the first sentence should be revised

Comment unclear. The row indicates the caption under the picture and the sentence is ok.

13. After figure 2, there is figure 7, try to check once,

The correct figure number has been inserted.

14. Total images are 12 in this manuscript which is not required, so some images should concert to tables

After the discussion, the figures were left for the better readability of the results.

15. Why sensory analysis is performed for the product?

At the present stage of the research, no sensory analysis of the obtained products has been performed.

16. The conclusions should be fine-tuned and can give the best one product out of 4 produced products.

The conclusions contain information on which product is recommended by us.

Reviewer 2 Report

The agricultural by-products of apple processing are fully utilized, not only increasing their added value, but also avoiding environmental pollution caused by excessive apple pomace. These four food products also provide some theoretical basis for the practical process of apple pomace. However the article still lacks a certain novelty. The four products have different ratios of ingredients (pomace to bran) and their nutritional values are not comparable. Furthermore, the authors' focus on the effect of the processing technique for the final product？or the ratio of apple pomace to wheat bran in the product？
The method is too simplistic. For the testing of sample texture, the test conditions and the type of probe used should have been clearly stated. For the testing of sugar in the four products, the authors should have stated the method of extraction of the sugar, which has a significant impact on the final sugar content.
There is an error in line 268. It should be Figure 6, not Figure 2.

Why is the line in figure 3 crooked?

The two pictures in Figure 5 (C and D) do not seem to be very clear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,                                                                                            

Thank you very much for your careful analysis of our manuscript. We tried to correct the manuscript in accordance with your comments in the best possible way. All corrections are marked in the text. Below are the replies to your comments and suggestions.

Sincerely

Professor Rafał Nadulski

Corresponding Author

Rev. 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1. The agricultural by-products of apple processing are fully utilized, not only increasing their added value, but also avoiding environmental pollution caused by excessive apple pomace. These four food products also provide some theoretical basis for the practical process of apple pomace. However the article still lacks a certain novelty. The four products have different ratios of ingredients (pomace to bran) and their nutritional values are not comparable. Furthermore, the authors' focus on the effect of the processing technique for the final product？or the ratio of apple pomace to wheat bran in the product.

Response 1. The aim of the work was to develop relatively simple technologies for pomace processing on site in the production plant. The proposed new products differ in terms of the pomace and bran used. We are aware that this also has an impact on the nutritional value. Nevertheless, the main goal was to use wet pomace for food purposes and to propose new products with health-promoting properties.

Point 2. The method is too simplistic. For the testing of sample texture, the test conditions and the type of probe used should have been clearly stated.

Response 2. In the evaluation of the obtained products, we focused on the assessment of the chemical composition. In fact, we limited the texture tests to simple tests - the cut test and the compression test.

Point 3. For the testing of sugar in the four products, the authors should have stated the method of extraction of the sugar, which has a significant impact on the final sugar content.

Response. 3. All chemical analyzes, including sugar content, were carried out by an accredited laboratory. The laboratory has been accredited in accordance with the PN-EN ISO / IEC17025 standard. The samples were ground and then the sugars were extracted with water. The tests were conducted using the Shimadzu HPLC Systems with RID-10A. We did not describe in detail the method for determining the sugar content as it is a standard method.

Point 3. There is an error in line 268. It should be Figure 6, not Figure 2.

Response 3. Figure numbering has been corrected.

Point 4. Why is the line in figure 3 crooked?

Response 4. The Figure 3 has been corrected.

Point 5. The two pictures in Figure 5 (C and D) do not seem to be very clear.

Response 5. The figures were improved by increasing the sharpness.

Reviewer 3 Report

This topic uses four different technologies to treat apple residue, and analyzes the composition and biological activity of products made by four treatment methods.  This is a valuable topic, but there are some problems in the article that need to be revised.

1.  Four methods are used to treat apple pomade, which I think should be described in detail in the method rather than in the conclusion.  
2.  There are many irregularities in this article. Please check and correct them carefully.  e.g., Consider whether Spaces are required between values and units.
3.  Finally, compared with the products processed by these four methods, only the basic components and polyphenol content are listed in this paper. The experimental content is a little thin. Please try to add other aspects.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,                                                                                             

Thank you very much for your careful analysis of our manuscript. We present the responses to the comments below. We tried to correct the manuscript in accordance with all reviewers’ comments in the best possible way. Please see the revised manuscript also after the comments of other reviewers.

Sincerely

Professor Rafał Nadulski

Corresponding Author

Rev. 3

This topic uses four different technologies to treat apple residue, and analyzes the composition and biological activity of products made by four treatment methods.  This is a valuable topic, but there are some problems in the article that need to be revised.

Point 1. Four methods are used to treat apple pomade, which I think should be described in detail in the method rather than in the conclusion. 

Response 1.  This part of the text was moved to the Materials and methods section.

Point 2. There are many irregularities in this article. Please check and correct them carefully.  e.g., Consider whether Spaces are required between values and units.

Response 2. In our opinion, spaces between values ​​are required, but the final decision rests with the editor.

Point 3. Finally, compared with the products processed by these four methods, only the basic components and polyphenol content are listed in this paper. The experimental content is a little thin. Please try to add other aspects.

Respone 3. In our research, we focused on developing simple and easy to implement pomace processing technologies. The analysis of the chemical composition of the pomace shows that, from the nutritional point of view, the most important components of the pomace are dietary fiber, polyphenols and sugars, while proteins and fats are of less importance. Antioxidant activity is also important. That is why we focused on these values ​​in our research. Thank you for your comment and we will extend the research to include other chemical components in the future.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I also have some suggestions:

1. The format of the data in Table 1 and 3 should be consistent, especially with regard to the number of decimal places.

2. Consider combining Figures 8-10; and also 11-12.

3. The conclusion is not a repetition of the results and needs to be streamlined a little more.

Author Response

see as attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The questions raised before have been revised. This article can be published.

Author Response

see as attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf