Environmental Consequences of Shelf Life Extension: Conventional versus Active Packaging for Fresh-Cut Salads

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript analyzes the environmental behavior for a minimallly processed fress product. An active packaging for the packaging of minimally processed fresh products were investigated. A life cycle analysis was carried out and a conventional packaging was made concerning its manufacture and use. The sensitivity analysis showed the difference in waste disposal or treatment generated in the packaging production process and the packaged product. There need some revision before publish in Agronomy.

1. Line 234, Reference source not found?

2. Could Figure 2 and Figure 3 combined into one figure?

3. There is no error in the data in all tables.

4. Figure 10 shows something similar to a method.

5. The caption of Figure 11 should indicate what 1AP, 1CP , etc. stand for?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thanks in advance for your observations about the paper. These help us to improve the quality of the work.

Below, we answer all your requests:

1. Line 234, Reference source not found?

A/ Line 234 does not cite any reference; it mentions the reference flow taken into account for the analysis of the Functional Unit of the LCA.

2. Could Figure 2 and Figure 3 combined into one figure?

A/ The figures were combined into a single one.

3. There is no error in the data in all tables.

A/ In this work, the present tables do not show statistical data.

4. Figure 10 shows something similar to a method.

A/ The Figure 10 shows the configurations used to analyze the end-of-life treatment of pack-aging and salad in order to combine the processes involved. Line 411

5. The caption of Figure 11 should indicate what 1AP, 1CP , etc. stand for?

A/ Figure 11. Comparison of active packaging (AP) vs. conventional packaging (CP) with disposal scenarios analysis. i.e. 1 AP (Set 1 for AP), 1 CP (Set 1 for CP). 1: Set 1 / 2: Set 2 / 3: Set 3 Line 439

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes a life cycle assessment (LCA) of two treatments applied to fresh-cut salads to extend shelf life and reduce waste at the retail and consumer stages of the supply chain. Use of LCA to assess the environmental outcomes of such methods is necessary for objectively pursuing strategies to reduce pollution and other negative side effects of resource use and consumption. The methodology in this manuscript appears sound; however, the paper's length needs to be reduced considerably, especially the Introduction section and to a lesser extent, the Discussion. The Abstract also needs improvement because it lacks specific findings or takeaways that allow reader to understand what contributions this work makes without needing to scan the entire paper to discover this.

Abbreviations should always be defined at first mention and then used throughout the body of the paper. Abbreviations are used in the Abstract that have not been defined (e.g. EVOH). If the term is only used once in the Abstract, there is no need for an abbreviation at all. Just write out the word – there’s no need to make the reader search for the meaning of an abbreviation in the body of the paper.

Beginning on line 20, the authors write in the Abstract that “[t]he results showed that the use of AP packaging has a beneficial performance due to the reduction in the amount of food produced…” Do they mean a reduction in the amount of food lost to waste? These treatments shouldn’t have an effect on the amount of food produced unless the authors are assuming that consumers will buy less because they waste less. If so, please be clear in the explanation.

There are a number of single-sentence paragraphs in this manuscript that should be revisited and either used elsewhere in other paragraphs if they merit sufficient importance or just deleted.

The Introduction could be reduced by 50% if unnecessary background information is simply deleted. It's far too long for this research report.

The source of the original data (measurements) used for this LCA is not clear. Was it from a published database or did the author actually make any field measurements or verify assumptions used? The sources (and assumptions) need to be provided.

See line 234: “Error! Reference 234 source not found.”

Explain the relationship between 1 kg and 159 pcs of output.

Vertical axis in Figure 4 needs a label.

In Table 1, is it really necessary and useful to present values with 9 digits to the right of the decimal? Or even 7 or 8? Is there really that much precision in these measurements?

Vertical axes in Figures 11 and 12 also need a label.

In the References section, the authors do not follow the publisher’s guidelines on the use of bold and italics in referenced journal articles. The authors need to correct this. They also have incomplete references (e.g. see 21).

In short, shorten this manuscript and clean it up for a second review.

 

 

Author Response

Thanks in advance for your observations about the paper. These help us to improve the quality of the work.

Below, we answer all your requests:

The source of the original data (measurements) used for this LCA is not clear. Was it from a published database or did the author actually make any field measurements or verify assumptions used? The sources (and assumptions) need to be provided.

A/ The values used in the LCA for the inventory were taken from measurements made in the laboratory, considering the quantities of materials used in the production of the con-tainers and in the packaging process. Line 296

See line 234: “Error! Reference 234 source not found.”

A/ Line 234 does not cite any reference; it mentions the reference flow taken into account for the analysis of the Functional Unit of the LCA.

Explain the relationship between 1 kg and 159 pcs of output.

A/ The number of packages that can be produced from 1 kg of film corresponds to 159 pieces. Line 318

Vertical axis in Figure 4 needs a label.

A/ Done

In Table 1 2, is it really necessary and useful to present values with 9 digits to the right of the decimal? Or even 7 or 8? Is there really that much precision in these measurements?

A/ Done

Vertical axes in Figures 11 and 12 also need a label.

A/ Done

In the References section, the authors do not follow the publisher’s guidelines on the use of bold and italics in referenced journal articles. The authors need to correct this. They also have incomplete references (e.g. see 21).

A/ Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some problems. It is recommended to review after major revisions to the manuscript. My specific comments are as follows: 

1、The results and progress of domestic and foreign scholars in this research direction are missing in the introductory part, and it is suggested to describe the current status of domestic and foreign research with appropriate space.

2、The introduction section is too long to quickly and accurately summarize the scientific question of the manuscript; please summarize the background, purpose, and significance of the research in this paper in concise terms.

3、Please describe and analyse the sources and calculation methods of data and parameters in the main process contributions of the two packaging methods of the article (CP) and (AC).

4、In the first part of the text, the description of "greenhouse gas emissions" is not closely related to the "use of coating technology in fresh food packaging" in the abstract. The text should be closely linked to the abstract.

5、Please expand on the discussion of the conclusion in what specific ways active packaging is significant to food loss.

Author Response

Thanks in advance for your observations about the paper. These help us to improve the quality of the work.

Below, we answer all your requests:

The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some problems. It is recommended to review after major revisions to the manuscript. My specific comments are as follows:

1. The results and progress of domestic and foreign scholars in this research direction are missing in the introductory part, and it is suggested to describe the current status of domestic and foreign research with appropriate space.

A/ Thank you for the suggestions. The studies have been added in lines 91 to 99.

2. The introduction section is too long to quickly and accurately summarize the scientific question of the manuscript; please summarize the background, purpose, and significance of the research in this paper in concise terms.

A/ The introduction had been reduced and improved.

3. Please describe and analyse the sources and calculation methods of data and parameters in the main process contributions of the two packaging methods of the article (CP) and (AC).

A/ The paper indicates that the initial data were taken from laboratory measurements and the methods of analysis followed the ReCiPe methodology for LCA in the different subsections of the Materials and Methods section.

4. In the first part of the text, the description of "greenhouse gas emissions" is not closely related to the "use of coating technology in fresh food packaging" in the abstract. The text should be closely linked to the abstract.

A/ Yes, the reviewer is right in what he says, this part is complementary and it has been removed from the introduction section.

5. Please expand on the discussion of the conclusion in what specific ways active packaging is significant to food loss.

A/ Thank you for your suggestion. We consider that this point is not part of the discussion and we added this in the introduction.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All concerns have been adequately addressed.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions to improve our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In 2.2. Preparation of the active film and packaging of the salad must be  having available basis. Citation is needed for this method.

Author Response

Thanks in advance for the comment, in section 2.2. the reference to the method of preparation of the active film and the packaging of the salad was inserted (line 119).

"In 2.2. Preparation of the active film and packaging of the salad must be having available basis. Citation is needed for this method."

A/ Some data for LCA, including the film preparation, was obtained on the previous work: Muriel-Galet, V.; Cerisuelo, J.P.; López-Carballo, G.; Aucejo, S.; Gavara, R.; Hernández-Muñoz, P. Evaluation of EVOH-coated PP films with oregano essential oil and citral to improve the shelf-life of packaged salad. Food Control 2013, 30, 137-143.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf