Approaches of Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety
, Doaa A. Semida 1, Shaaban S. Elnesr 1,*, Hamada Elwan 2 and Ensaf A. El-Full 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled Approaches of Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety is well written, and presents some literature review regarding the effect of thermal or non-thermal techniques in reducing contaminants.
Before further processing, some corrections must be made, especially in terms of explaining the findings from the authors’ point of view, not only comparing literature data.
Some concrete observations/suggestions can be found below:
Row 42 – 44. Please rephrase it for better understanding.
Row 50-51. Indeed, extending shelf life of eggs is a challenge; however, laying hens nutritional studies have proved that by nutritional manipulation of the animals, it is possible, beside other quality improvements.
Row 78. Egg albumen does not have a 9-10 pH value. That means that the egg is altered or was stored too much and suffered a loss of carbon dioxide from the albumen, which means that the egg is too old. In a recent study, it was evaluated the effect of antioxidants on eggs with PUFA, and the value of pH did not reach 10 (https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11101948). In a different study (https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey349) eggs stored at 37 C, the albumen pH barely reached 9.5. How the authors can explain these differences?
Row 93. What studies? Can the authors give some examples accordingly?
In the entire paper, please italicize Salmonella where was omitted.
Row 156 – 163. Can the authors explain why the eggs from hens raised in cages had a thicker eggshell compared with free-range raised laying hens?
Row 168 -169. Zinc, copper, and manganese have been shown to affect eggshell quality in lower or in higher doses added to laying hens’ diets?
Row 171 – 177. Please try to develop this part. Also, include your own thoughts and explanations. In this form, this part brings nothing new.
For the conclusion part. What the authors suggest as future perspective?
Good luck!
Author Response
Response to Comments from Reviewer 1
Comment: The paper entitled Approaches of Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety is well written, and presents some literature review regarding the effect of thermal or non-thermal techniques in reducing contaminants. Before further processing, some corrections must be made, especially in terms of explaining the findings from the authors’ point of view, not only comparing literature data.
Response: We are grateful to you as we feel that it directed us toward improving our paper. Some clarifications were added to the manuscript to be suitable for publication. Hope the revised version meets the requirements.
Some concrete observations/suggestions can be found below:
Comment: Row 42 – 44. Please rephrase it for better understanding.
Response: Done
Comment: Row 50-51. Indeed, extending shelf life of eggs is a challenge; however, laying hens nutritional studies have proved that by nutritional manipulation of the animals, it is possible, beside other quality improvements.
Response: Thank you. Corrected
Comment: Row 78. Egg albumen does not have a 9-10 pH value. That means that the egg is altered or was stored too much and suffered a loss of carbon dioxide from the albumen, which means that the egg is too old. In a recent study, it was evaluated the effect of antioxidants on eggs with PUFA, and the value of pH did not reach 10 (https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11101948). In a different study (https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey349) eggs stored at 37 C, the albumen pH barely reached 9.5. How the authors can explain these differences?
Response: You are right in your comment. We have corrected the value for the laying time (The pH of albumen from a newly laid egg is between 7.6 and 8.5. During the storage of shell eggs, the pH of albumen increases (Sunwoo & Gujral, 2015))
Comment: Row 93. What studies? Can the authors give some examples accordingly?
Response: Done
Comment: In the entire paper, please italicize Salmonella where was omitted.
Response: Done
Comment: Row 156 – 163. Can the authors explain why the eggs from hens raised in cages had a thicker eggshell compared with free-range raised laying hens?
Response: Done
Comment: Row 168 -169. Zinc, copper, and manganese have been shown to affect eggshell quality in lower or in higher doses added to laying hens’ diets?
Response: Done "positively"
Comment: Row 171 – 177. Please try to develop this part. Also, include your own thoughts and explanations. In this form, this part brings nothing new.
Response: Done
Comment: For the conclusion part. What the authors suggest as future perspective?
Response: We added this section "Future perspectives and research needs"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Comments from Reviewer 2
Review: Approaches of Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety
General comments:
Comment: Authors set out to summarize microbial decontamination on eggs. While the internal protection mechanism and spoilage prevention is briefly discussed, the main body of the article is taken up by the summary table (table 1), minimal discussion on results findings or meta-analysis was provided. Author did not associate the pathogens spotlighted to associated, recent outbreaks.
Response: We are grateful to you as we feel that it directed us toward improving our paper. Some clarifications were added as required. Hope the revised version meets the requirements.
Comment: While data were presented, inconsistent formatting when presenting CFU data is commonly seen. Recommend remaining consistent to log CFU/unit. Inconsistant presentation of bacteria naming schemes, sometimes informal short-hands are used. Formatting errors like double spaces were seen in tables. Formatting of units like centimeters square is missing superscripts, while chemical formulas are missing subscripts.
Response: Corrected as required
Specific comments:
Comment: 20: List more than one method when describing more than one method of combination treatments.
Response: Done
Comment: 97: Missing descriptions on direct and indirect methods.
Response: Done
Comment: Fig. 1. Parts of the description has unreadable font.
Response: Corrected
Comment: Fig. 2. What are the causes of the change in physical state of the egg?
Response: We added "Main causes: storage, temperature, and relative humidity"
Comment: Table 1. Plenty of double spaces on the left column.
Response: Done
Comment: Section 5 seems misplaced.
Response: We corrected this sentence
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper explores the decontamination methods (direct and indirect) for egg preservation that have been applied. The topic is relevant about Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety.
Exist a manuscript similar (Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14(3), 335; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030335) but this paper is about Salmonellla.
The tables 1 and 2 should be divided in two one with the types of contamination and other effect on egg properties.
The section indirect factores the review need more references. The section of decontamination methods indirect for egg preservation needs more references.
The conclusions address the decontamination methods for egg preservation. The conclusions are very generally. The conclusion could be improved with the changes in the discussion in the new tables.
Author Response
Response to Comments from Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: This paper explores the decontamination methods (direct and indirect) for egg preservation that have been applied. The topic is relevant about Egg Decontamination for Sustainable Food Safety.
Response: Thank you very much for these valuable comments and observations
Comment: Exist a manuscript similar (Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14(3), 335; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030335) but this paper is about Salmonellla.
Response: This paper is good, but I think that our manuscript dealt with the collection of methods used against pathogenic microbes, not just salmonella, in addition to discussing indirect factors. We added some clarifications. Hope the revised version meets the requirements.
Comment: The tables 1 and 2 should be divided in two one with the types of contamination and other effect on egg properties.
Response: Thank you very much. Done
Comment: The section indirect factores the review need more references. The section of decontamination methods indirect for egg preservation needs more references.
Response: Done
Comment: The conclusions address the decontamination methods for egg preservation. The conclusions are very generally. The conclusion could be improved with the changes in the discussion in the new tables.
Response: Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
CFU stands for Colony Forming Units, please use capitalized abbreviation (CFU).
Many instances “Number log10 CFU/unit” have formatting errors and spacing.
Be consistent with either log10 CFU/unit, or log CFU/unit.
Mis-formatting of “PH” in table 3 under microwave.
Author Response
Response to Comments from Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: CFU stands for Colony Forming Units, please use capitalized abbreviation (CFU).
Response: Thank you very much. Done
Comment: Many instances “Number log10 CFU/unit” have formatting errors and spacing.
Response: Thank you very much. Corrected
Comment: Be consistent with either log10 CFU/unit, or log CFU/unit.
Response: Thank you very much. Done (log CFU/unit)
Comment: Mis-formatting of “PH” in table 3 under microwave.
Response: Thank you very much. Done
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did the corrections
Author Response
Response to Comments from Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: The authors did the corrections
Response: Thank you very much
