Evaluation of a Calcium Carbonate-Based Container for Transportation and Storage of Fresh Fish as a Sustainable Alternative to Polystyrene Boxes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number: sustainability-2683650

Manuscript Title: Evaluation of a calcium carbonate-based container for transportation and storage of fresh fish as a sustainable alternative to polystyrene boxes

 This work assessed the effect of alternative packaging materials (calcium carbonate-based container) on the quality retention and shelf-life of whole fish at low and abuse temperature conditions. The study is interesting but there are some problems to be solved. My comments and suggestions are listed below.

 

 Comments:

1. Temperature may impact the container and fish during transportation and storage, but it may also be affected by numerous other factors during transportation and storage, including vibration, shock, drops, etc. that can easily harm the container. During transportation and storage, the author simply takes into account temperature factor, which is comparatively insufficient.

2. It is advised that the author add more information about the manufacturing procedure and key technical aspects of the calcium carbonate-based carton, such as mechanical properties etc.

3. Although the author introduced the analysis method of ANOVA in part 2.3, there are few relevant specific analysis data and text in the 3rd parts (Results and discussion).

Author Response

Reviewer #1

 

This work assessed the effect of alternative packaging materials (calcium carbonate-based container) on the quality retention and shelf-life of whole fish at low and abuse temperature conditions. The study is interesting but there are some problems to be solved. My comments and suggestions are listed below.

 

Comments:

 

1. Temperature may impact the container and fish during transportation and storage, but it may also be affected by numerous other factors during transportation and storage, including vibration, shock, drops, etc. that can easily harm the container. During transportation and storage, the author simply takes into account temperature factor, which is comparatively insufficient.

Response:

The objective was to evaluate the thermal properties of the tested materials and their preservative effect on perishable food (fresh fish) during transportation and storage, as alternative to conventional EPS. For this reason, mechanical properties were not evaluated, as all the tested materials are commercial products and meet the standard requirements for food transportation in the supply chain. The main question is the ability of the alternative materials to provide the appropriate insulation for the effective preservation of perishable food, for this reason the present study focused on the thermal properties and the temperature conditions inside the containers which affect the microbial load and remaining shelf life if fish. The importance of the evaluation of the applicability of the tested containers at pilot scale has been highlighted in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

 

2. It is advised that the author add more information about the manufacturing procedure and key technical aspects of the calcium carbonate-based carton, such as mechanical properties etc.

Response:

The requested information was provided in Section 2.1 of the revised manuscript. The mechanical properties were not evaluated in this study, as the objective was to evaluate the thermal properties of the materials and the preservative effect on perishable food (fresh fish) during transportation and storage, as alternative to conventional EPS. The importance of the evaluation of the applicability of the tested containers at pilot scale has been highlighted in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

 

3. Although the author introduced the analysis method of ANOVA in part 2.3, there are few relevant specific analysis data and text in the 3rd parts (Results and discussion).

Response:

After the suggestion, the results of Duncan Multiple Range test have been added in a table and comments regarding the statistical significance have been included in the Results and discussion sector.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, to assess the effect of alternative packaging materials on the quality retention and shelf-life of whole fish at low and abuse temperature conditions, red sea bream (Pagrus major) was harvested and stored into different packaging containers, i.e., a conventional polystyrene (PS) box, a CaCO3-based box and a cardboard box (tested as a simple alternative container for transportation and short term storage of food). This topic is interesting. However, there are some problems in this study. The experimental design is too simple. The background is unclear in the introduction. Some methods are not provided. Moreover, more experiments are needed. In addition, more samples are needed in each group, and the data should be expressed at mean±SD.

1. In the part of “Introduction”, it is better to introduce the background according to a certain logical relationship. For example, first, introduce the existing packaging and the existing problems. Based on these problems, introduce calcium carbonate-based container, especially its advantages.

2. In the part of “2.1. Sample preparation and storage”, it is necessary to provide the time at 2°C and periodically kept at ambient temperature (25°C), respectively.

3. In the part of “2.1. Sample preparation and storage”, please offer the body weight and body length of red sea bream used in this study.

4. In the part of “2.2. Measurement of the thermal properties of the packaging materials ”, How many fish samples were used for microbiological analysis in each group?

5. In the part of “2.2. Microbiological analysis ”, it is necessary to determine microbiological analysis by using 16s RNA sequencing. How many fish samples were used for microbiological analysis in each group?

6. Table 1, Figure 2: the data should be expressed at mean±SD. It is impossible to conduct statistical analysis by using one data.

7. It is necessary to combine figure 3, 4, 5.

8. In the part of “Conclusion”, please simplify the conclusion.

9. Please unify the format of references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer #2

In this study, to assess the effect of alternative packaging materials on the quality retention and shelf-life of whole fish at low and abuse temperature conditions, red sea bream (Pagrus major) was harvested and stored into different packaging containers, i.e., a conventional polystyrene (PS) box, a CaCO3-based box and a cardboard box (tested as a simple alternative container for transportation and short term storage of food). This topic is interesting. However, there are some problems in this study. The experimental design is too simple. The background is unclear in the introduction. Some methods are not provided. Moreover, more experiments are needed. In addition, more samples are needed in each group, and the data should be expressed at mean±SD.

 

1. In the part of “Introduction”, it is better to introduce the background according to a certain logical relationship. For example, first, introduce the existing packaging and the existing problems. Based on these problems, introduce calcium carbonate-based container, especially its advantages.

Response:

The Introduction section has been revised and re-written according to the logical relationship suggested. Firstly, the cold chain management issues are being explained and the problem of fish and seafood waste is being introduced to the readers, highlighting the important role of packaging.  Following, the most used packaging materials are introduced (i.e., polystyrene) and then the environmental and sustainable concerns related to them are analysed. The need to start using more sustainable materials is explained and at this point CaCO₃-based materials and their advantages are introduced. 

 

2. In the part of “2.1. Sample preparation and storage”, it is necessary to provide the time at 2°C and periodically kept at ambient temperature (25°C), respectively.

Response:

The estimated duration that boxes with fish were kept at ambient temperature as well as at 2 °C and intermediate temperatures have been provided in paragraph 2.1.

“During the first days of the study, boxes with fish were kept for a short amount of time at ambient temperature (25 °C) (e.g., 3-4 hours) while this amount increased gradually until the final days of the study (e.g., 8-10 hours). The cumulative time that boxes with fish were kept at ambient temperature (25°C) is estimated to be 33-35 hours, while the rest of the time (almost 230 hours) they were kept at 2°Cand intermediate temperatures.”

 

3. In the part of “2.1. Sample preparation and storage”, please offer the body weight and body length of red sea bream used in this study.

Response:

The average samples’ body weight and body length has been provided as suggested in paragraph 2.1.

“Fish body weight was on average 500g (400-600g batch) while their height ranged between 20-35 cm.”

 

4. In the part of “2.2. Measurement of the thermal properties of the packaging materials”, How many fish samples were used for microbiological analysis in each group?

Response:

The requested information has been provided in section 2.3 of the revised manuscript.

“Overall, 12 fish samples in each tested container were analysed for microbial growth, in order to achieve duplicate measurements.”

 

5. In the part of “2.2. Microbiological analysis ”, it is necessary to determine microbiological analysis by using 16s RNA sequencing. How many fish samples were used for microbiological analysis in each group?

Response:

The requested molecular analysis for microbiome characterization in red sea bream has been provided in the revised manuscript. A new section “2.4. DNA extraction and 16S rRNA Sequencing” has been added in the revised Materials and Method and the respective results are presented and discussed in section “3.3. 16S rRNA Sequencing profile for red sea bream” and in Figure 4. More detailed information has been provided in supplementary material.

The number of the tested fish specimens for each analysis was provided in the revised Materials and Methods section of the revised manuscript.

 

6. Table 1, Figure 2: the data should be expressed at mean±SD. It is impossible to conduct statistical analysis by using one data.

Response:

Regarding Figure 2, the temperature means refer to the temperature distribution inside of each container (descriptive statistics). Therefore, there is a standard deviation for each temperature mean inside each one of the containers, which is included. Also, minimum and maximum values of temperature inside each box, resulting from descriptive analysis, will be included as well. As far as Table 1 is concerned, data has been provided as mean±SD for each tested parameter.

 

7. It is necessary to combine figure 3, 4, 5.

Response:

Figures 3,4 and 5 are combined in terms of the microorganisms’ type (TVC, Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacteriaceae). Since the temperature values are not the same inside of each one of the tested containers (the external temperature is), it is necessary to maintain the graphs for each container separated so that the axis of temperature is not affected. However, they are placed next to each other for easier comparison.

 

8. In the part of “Conclusion”, please simplify the conclusion.

Response:

The Conclusions section has been shortened, according to the reviewer’s suggestion. The additional discussion has been incorporated into the Discussion section of the manuscript.

 

9. Please unify the format of references

Response:

The format of the references list has been carefully revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion, based on the guidelines for authors by the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study assessed how different packaging materials, including CaCO3-based containers, affect the microbial quality of fish during storage at varying temperatures, finding that the CaCO3-based containers performed well in maintaining the quality, suggesting the potential for environmentally friendly packaging alternatives. The study is interesting however it needs some improvements. Please see my comments below:

1. Some of the relevant articles have not been cited (e.g. Luo, Z., Wang, Y., Jiang, L., & Xu, X. (2015). Effect of nano-CaCO3-LDPE packaging on quality and browning of fresh-cut yam. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 60(2), 1155-1161.)

2. Is there a chance that chemical additives in the packaging (such as the cross-link reagents) migrate to the food material?

Author Response

Reviewer #3

The study assessed how different packaging materials, including CaCO3-based containers, affect the microbial quality of fish during storage at varying temperatures, finding that the CaCO3-based containers performed well in maintaining the quality, suggesting the potential for environmentally friendly packaging alternatives. The study is interesting however it needs some improvements. Please see my comments below:

 

1. Some of the relevant articles have not been cited (e.g. Luo, Z., Wang, Y., Jiang, L., & Xu, X. (2015). Effect of nano-CaCO3-LDPE packaging on quality and browning of fresh-cut yam. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 60(2), 1155-1161.)

Response:

The proposed citation has been incorporated in the references list in the revised manuscript.

“Luo et al. (2015) tested the effect of nano-CaCO₃ based low density polyethylene films on fresh-cut Chinese yam packaging. They observed that the fabricated CaCO₃ based packaging material managed to retard total bacterial counts as well as delay browning and extend the product’s shelf-life for 2 days.”

 

2. Is there a chance that chemical additives in the packaging (such as the cross-link reagents) migrate to the food material?

Response:

All the tested packaging materials (cardboard, CaCO₃-based and EPS) are commercial products and have been manufactured according to the current standards and regulations for migration in food contact materials.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Evaluation of a calcium carbonate-based container for transportation and storage of fresh fish as a sustainable alternative to polystyrene boxes” addresses an interesting and current topic.

 

Before it can be considered for publication, some issues need to be addressed:

 

There are lots of non-space mistakes like "...2 °C" (line 14)

Line 65: What means the “RTE”?

Line 69:  This paragraph is too long. Please, rewrite.

2.2. Please provide sampling.

Line 131: Please, remove “o”.

Line 288: This paragraph is too long. Please, rewrite.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #4

The manuscript “Evaluation of a calcium carbonate-based container for transportation and storage of fresh fish as a sustainable alternative to polystyrene boxes” addresses an interesting and current topic.

Before it can be considered for publication, some issues need to be addressed:

 

There are lots of non-space mistakes like "...2 °C" (line 14)

Response:

They have all been adjusted to the appropriate format with space between the number and symbol, thank you for commenting on that.

 

Line 65: What means the “RTE”?

Response:

RTE is the abbreviation for the term “ready-to-eat”. The “read-to-eat” phrase has been added into the manuscript in Line 65 before the abbreviation, as rightfully suggested.

 

Line 69:  This paragraph is too long. Please, rewrite.

Response:

The paragraph initiating in line 69 has been revised and divided accordingly into 3 shorter paragraphs.

 

2.2. Please provide sampling.

Response:

The exact sampling days have been added in the microbiological analysis paragraph.

“Sampling for microbiological analysis was performed on days 0, 1, 4, 6, 8 and 11 of the experiment. Overall, 12 fish samples in each tested container were analyzed for microbial growth, in order to achieve duplicate measurements.”

 

Line 131: Please, remove “o”.

Response:

It has been removed, as rightfully suggested.

 

Line 288: This paragraph is too long. Please, rewrite.

Response:

The paragraph has been revised and divided into three shorter paragraphs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well-organized work with clear ideas and detailed data. There is only one recommendation. In the conclusion section, there is no need to say any more about the purpose of the study, just go straight to the conclusion.

Author Response

Reviewer #5

This is a very well-organized work with clear ideas and detailed data. There is only one recommendation. In the conclusion section, there is no need to say any more about the purpose of the study, just go straight to the conclusion.

Response:

The conclusion section has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion, so as to avoid any repetition of the aim of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented the results of the study in which the alternative packaging systems for transportation and storage of fish was assessed, with the aim to retain shelf-life of fish and seafood. The aim was also to provide solution for fish storage and transport while reducing the use of plastic containers. The presented results could be interesting to professionals and academia, since the authors provide also potential for further research of novel carbonate based containers. The layout of the paper is sufficiently good and presented methodology is detailed and clear. There are numerous quality parameters of produced ice cream base samples that were analyzed and the obtained results are presented in manner so that potential readers can clearly follow the given discussion. The English require minor formatting. Overall, the manuscript should be accepted for publishing with minor changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Reviewer #6

The authors presented the results of the study in which the alternative packaging systems for transportation and storage of fish was assessed, with the aim to retain shelf-life of fish and seafood. The aim was also to provide solution for fish storage and transport while reducing the use of plastic containers. The presented results could be interesting to professionals and academia, since the authors provide also potential for further research of novel carbonate based containers. The layout of the paper is sufficiently good and presented methodology is detailed and clear. There are numerous quality parameters of produced ice cream base samples that were analyzed and the obtained results are presented in manner so that potential readers can clearly follow the given discussion. The English require minor formatting. Overall, the manuscript should be accepted for publishing with minor changes.

Response:

The manuscript has been thoroughly reassessed for potential language mistakes and obscurities and there have been adjustments and improvements to the language standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.