Impacts of Killing Process on the Nutrient Content, Product Stability and In Vitro Digestibility of Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) Larvae Meals
, Yu Zhang 1, Mengzhi Wang 1, Wanwipa Vongsangnak 3,4, Chantima Pruksakorn 5 and Attawit Kovitvadhi 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
Dear Authors, I reviewed your manuscript "Killing process on the nutrient content, product stability and in vitro digestibility of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae meals". The direction of this study is interesting and worthy of investigation, and the results seem to provide some new information that will be helpful for selection of the killing method that offers the best end quality product. Moreover, the article is very well written and the discussions are in depth.
Specific comments
Title: please review the title. Maybe “Effect of killing process...” or “Impacts of killing process...”
Abstract (Line 6): What was obtained after killing?
Abstract (Line 13): the highest on free...
Abstract (Line 15 and 16): Authors just mentioned above in the minimal details that blanching and humane were the best...it is a bit repetitive
Keywords: What do you consider to be the difference in "chemical compositions" and "chemical properties"?
Page 2: Some recent studies have also pointed out how conventional rearing method often leads to the issue of the BDF having undesirably high heavy metal residues that can be harmful to animals. Do you have any insights on that as well that are worth pointing out in the introduction?
Page 3 (section 2.1): Change “was” to “were” in “(insects was placed under vacuum for 120 h)”
Page 3 (section 2.2): Microbial analysis should be described in more detail...what material was used for the plate count, how many replicates...etc...
Page 3 (section 2.3.1): The methodologies here should also be explained in more detail. The explanation given are too vague. Which AOAC protocol was used for each analysis? How many replicates? What were the equipment you used in your lab? And so on...
Page 3 (section 2.4.1): Convert to rpm to g
Page 4 (section 2.7.1): Better use g instead of rpm...
Page 6 (section 3.2): physico-chemical or physicochemical ? Stick with just one of the forms... Add P<0.001 in the methodology as well...
Table 2: Define the meaning of SEM. Why do authors find it important to change the P for each analysis? There is ,001.;0.47; 0.12; 0,01… Give a quick explanation on the post-hoc test and hoy the data should be interpreted (row or column for example...)
Figure 1: The differences....
Page 8 (section 3.4): and was highest...
Page 9 (section 4.2.2): That is true when we talk about "human customers" but this study focuses on animal feed...in that sense does the color really play an important role?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Thank you for your kindness suggestion and questions. We corrected this manuscript following your suggestion with carefully.
You can check our correction by track-changed file and also the details in the attached file.
If you have any suggestion or question, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would like to correct to you as soon as possible.
Best regards
Attawit Kovitvadhi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This an interesting topic and the paper is correct. Only some corrections and changes are necessary.
As a general comment, it should be noted that the text is very compact because it lacks paragraphs; what makes reading difficult. Please try to divide or separate the text of each subsection into shorter paragraphs.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
Thank you for your kindness suggestion and questions. We corrected this manuscript following your suggestion with carefully.
You can check our correction by track-changed file and also the details in the attached file.
If you have any suggestion or question, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would like to correct to you as soon as possible.
Best regards
Attawit Kovitvadhi
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
