Application of High-Frequency Defrosting, Superheated Steam, and Quick-Freezing Treatments to Improve the Quality of Seafood Home Meal Replacement Products Consisting of the Adductor Muscle of Pen Shells and Common Squid Meat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

This manuscript studied the seafood home meal replacement (HMR) product containing the adductor muscle of the pen shell (AMPS) and common squid meat (CSM) via high-frequency de-frosting (HFD), superheated steam, and quick freezing. The authors used RSM to find the optimal conditions of temperature and heating time of roasting for overall acceptance and hardness using quadratic polynomial model equations. This topic is interesting. However, some points need to be solved and clarified as addressed below.

1. Line 25. The chemical name of the abbreviation “MDA” should be indicated for the first appearance in abstract.
2. Lines 80-83. The sources of some specific chemicals and reagents used in this study, such as Brunswick reagent, thiobarbituric acid, etc., should be stated in the experimental section.
3. Lines 102-103. The sum of roasted AMPS, roasted CSM, and sauce contents in test HMR product is 90%. What are the remaining 10% ingredients?
4. Table 1. The basis of percentage for ingredients of the sauce should be indicated. In addition, the total sum of the ingredients is not 100% (based on weight or what?). What are the remaining ingredients?
5. Lines 136-137. What standard compound is used in the measurement of samples at 530 nm?
6. Lines 140-143. The AOAC official methods applied in some of the specific analysis, e.g. dietary fiber, fatty acid, crude protein, etc., should be individually cited in the reference list.
7. Line 207. What are the conditions of time and input power (watt) using high frequency defrosting (HFD)? What is the temperature after thawing process using HFD?
8. Table 2. The basis of percentage for drip loss should be clarified.
9. Table 3. What are the meanings of the variables X₁ and X₂? The indication for the meaning of the variables in the Table is required. A Table should be independently readable without referring to the text.
10. Lines 238-239. The basis of X₁ and X₂ values in the model equations Y₁ and Y₂ for AMPS should be clarified in the text. Are they based on actual or coded values?
11. Lines 240-242. The time and temperature cannot be judged to increase “linearly” with overall acceptance until reaching the optimal condition. For AMPS, the partial derivatives of Y₁ to X₁ and Y₁ to X₂ are still a linear function of X₁ and X₂ (not constant values), respectively.
12. Lines 251-252. The right-hand side of equation of Y₁ for CSM is different from that in Table 3. Which one is the correct? In addition, the basis of X₁ and X₂ values in the model equations Y₁ and Y₂ for CSM should be clearly stated in the text.
13. Lines 256-257. The time and temperature cannot be judged to “linearly” increase hardness. For CSM, the partial derivatives of Y₂ to X₁ and Y₂ to X₂ are still a linear function of X₁ and X₂ (not constant values), respectively.
14. Lines 262-263. It is not suitable to use the coded value “0” for the temperature and time in the text without clear indication.
15. Figure 1, (A) and (B). The quality of Figure 1 should be improved using actual scales of x-axis and y-axis to replace coded scales (X₁ and X₂). The coded values are not suitable to be used in the response surface of the plots. The Figure should be independently readable without referring to the text for the actual values of X₁ and X₂.
16. Lines 286-287. What are the conditions of HFD and superheated steam roasting for both AMPS and CSM in producing the test product for analysis of pH, VBN and TBARS?
17. Line 324. The unit “Kcal” needs to be corrected using “kcal”. The same correction should be made in Table 7.
18. Table 10. The full name of the abbreviation TBC should be independently indicated in the Table without referring to the text.
19. Lines 457-458. The statement “accelerated the results of TBC” is not clear. A more detailed statement is required for “accelerated the results of TBC” using program simulation.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF REVIEWER#1

 

<General Comments>

 

This manuscript studied the seafood home meal replacement (HMR) product containing the adductor muscle of the pen shell (AMPS) and common squid meat (CSM) via high-frequency de-frosting (HFD), superheated steam, and quick freezing. The authors used RSM to find the optimal conditions of temperature and heating time of roasting for overall acceptance and hardness using quadratic polynomial model equations. This topic is interesting. However, some points need to be solved and clarified as addressed below.

 

Thank you for the appreciation. We have carefully addressed all the concerns raised by you. We have made the necessary changes following your suggestions, and the corresponding changes made in the main manuscript are shown in “red-colored font.”

 

<Major Comments>

 

Point 1: Line 25. The chemical name of the abbreviation “MDA” should be indicated for the first appearance in abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. In response to your comment, we have revised to (1.13 mg Malondialdehyde [MDA]/kg).

 

Point 2: Lines 80-83. The sources of some specific chemicals and reagents used in this study, such as Brunswick reagent, thiobarbituric acid, etc., should be stated in the experimental section.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have updated the experimental section as follows;

“All chemicals used in this study, including potassium carbonate, sulfuric acid, boric acid, sodium hydroxide, trichloroacetic acid, phosphoric acid, N-tert-butyldimethylsilyl-N-methyltrifluoroacetamide with 1% Butyldimethylchlorosilane (MTBSTFA with 1% t-BDMCS), methyl red solution, methylene blue solution, acetonitrile, 2-thiobarbituric acid, ethanol, and sodium bicarbonate were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. (St. Louis, MO, USA). The Difco plate count agar and EC medium used for microbiological analysis were purchased from BD Co. (New Jersey, USA), whereas Sanita-Kun plates were obtained from JNC Corp. (Tokyo, Japan).”

 

Point 3: Lines 102-103. The sum of roasted AMPS, roasted CSM, and sauce contents in test HMR product is 90%. What are the remaining 10% ingredients?

Response 3: Apologies for the confusion. We would like to clarify that the ingredients shown in Table 1 are the ingredients used to cook the stock of sauce, which constituted 27.5% of the test HMR. Our test HMR products contained 27.5% of roasted AMPS, 27.5% of roasted CSM, and 45% sauce (cooked first). The sum of roasted AMPS, roasted CSM, and the sauce adds up to 100%. To aid clarity, we have revised the text accordingly (please see our response to your next comment#4)

 

Point 4: Table 1. The basis of percentage for ingredients of the sauce should be indicated. In addition, the total sum of the ingredients is not 100% (based on weight or what?). What are the remaining ingredients?

Response 4: In our study, firstly, we made the sauce as stock before we cooked AMPS and CSM. After AMPS and CSM were cooked, the test HMR products were made by mixing roasted AMPS, roasted CSM, and sauce in ratios 27.5:27.5:45%, respectively. The ingredients of the sauce were soy sauce mixed (24.69%), food additive D-sorbitol liquid (49.19%), fructose (9.27%), and purified water (~16.00%). We have updated this information to the materials and methods section and updated Table 1, as well.

The revised text reads;

“First, the stock of sauce was prepared by mixing the ingredients shown in Table 1. Next, a test seafood HMR product was then produced by mixing roasted AMPS, roasted CSM, and sauce at ratios (w/w) of 27.5, 27.5, and 45.0%, respectively.”

 

Point 5: Lines 136-137. What standard compound is used in the measurement of samples at 530 nm?

Response 5: We used MDA bis (dimethyl acetal) as the standard to measure samples at 530 nm. We have added “MDA bis (dimethyl acetal) was used as the standard. “ in the section “measurement of thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS).”

 

Point 6: Lines 140-143. The AOAC official methods applied in some of the specific analysis, e.g. dietary fiber, fatty acid, crude protein, etc., should be individually cited in the reference list.

Response 6: In response to your comment, we have revised the sentence as follows: “Proximate analysis was performed using AOAC standard methods. Moisture was measured following the methods AOAC 952.08 [17] using an oven at 105 °C for 24 h. Ash was determined following the AOAC 938.08 method [18] in a furnace at 550 °C. Sodium was measured following AOAC 971.27 method [19]. Crude protein was determined following AOAC 960.48 method [20]. N content from the test product was then multiplied with 6.26 to obtain the value of crude protein. Calories, carbohydrates, sugars, dietary fiber, crude fat content, cholesterol, vitamin D, potassium iron, and calcium were measured following AOAC 971.10 [21], AOAC 998.18 [22], AOAC 985.29 [23], AOAC 948.15 [24], AOAC 994.10 [25], AOAC 936.14 [26], AOAC 984.27 [27], AOAC 990.05 [28], and AOAC 984.27 [29], respectively.”

 

Point 7: Line 207. What are the conditions of time and input power (watt) using high frequency defrosting (HFD)? What is the temperature after thawing process using HFD?

Point 8: Table 2. The basis of percentage for drip loss should be clarified.

Response 7&8: Thank you for the insightful inputs. As the concerns raised in Point 7 and point 8 are related, we decided to combine the questions. As per your suggestion, to aid clarity, we have revised the contents under the section “Drip loss analysis.” The revised text reads as;

“Frozen AMPS and CSM were thawed under three different conditions: room temperature, running water, and HFD. For running water and room temperature thawing, samples were placed in plastic bags. For HFD thawing, the controller of the HFD machine (CHRFT-100, Chamco Co. Ltd., Busan, Korea) was set at 27 MHz for 10 min (with an input power of 11 kW). Drip loss was analyzed using the filter-paper wetness (FPW) method following Kauffman et al. [15]. Quantitative filter paper No. 2 (55 mm; Advantech, Tokyo, Japan) was weighed (y), placed on the samples during thawing, and then filter paper with absorbed fluid was weighed again (x). The weight difference of filter paper was expressed as the weight of the absorbed exudate. Drip loss was quantified as a percentage following this formula:

The temperature of the samples after thawing using HFD ranged from 3 to 5°C.

 

Point 9: Table 3. What are the meanings of the variables X₁ and X₂? The indication for the meaning of the variables in the Table is required. A Table should be independently readable without referring to the text.

Response 9: In response to your comment, we have defined the variables in the footnote of Table 3—

“Y₁: overall acceptance and Y₂: hardness are the dependent variables; X1: Temperature (°C); X2: heating time (min) are the independent variables.”

 

Point 10: Lines 238-239. The basis of X₁ and X₂ values in the model equations Y₁ and Y₂ for AMPS should be clarified in the text. Are they based on actual or coded values?

Response 10: Thank you for the suggestion. Accordingly, we have added the following text;

“The optimum conditions for roasting were analyzed using RSM. Temperature (X₁) and heating time (X₂) were set as independent variables, while overall acceptance (Y₁) and hardness (Y₂) were set as dependent variables. The model in this study was build using the actual value of independent variables.”

 

Point 11: Lines 240-242. The time and temperature cannot be judged to increase “linearly” with overall acceptance until reaching the optimal condition. For AMPS, the partial derivatives of Y₁ to X₁ and Y₁ to X₂ are still a linear function of X₁ and X₂ (not constant values), respectively.

Response 11: Thank you for highlighting. Accordingly, we have revised the text to phrase it correctly, as follows;

“Three-dimensional response surface plots showed an increase in the score of overall acceptance and decrease in hardness value with an increase in time and temperature until an optimum condition was attained (Figure 1a). The overall acceptance score started to decline beyond 217.8°C and 1.08 min (Figure 1a), whereas the hardness value tended to increase by increasing the temperature and time beyond 217.8°C and 1.08 min increased the hardness (Figure 1b).”

 

Point 12: Lines 251-252. The right-hand side of equation of Y₁ for CSM is different from that in Table 3. Which one is the correct? In addition, the basis of X₁ and X₂ values in the model equations Y₁ and Y₂ for CSM should be clearly stated in the text.

Response 12: Apologies for the mistake. We have corrected it.

 

Point 13: Lines 256-257. The time and temperature cannot be judged to “linearly” increase hardness. For CSM, the partial derivatives of Y₂ to X₁ and Y₂ to X₂ are still a linear function of X₁ and X₂ (not constant values), respectively.

Response 13: In response to your comment, we have revised the text as follows;

“Three-dimensional response surface plots of CSM for overall score and hardness (Figure 1b) showed the same pattern as those for AMPS. The overall acceptance score increased with the increasing time and temperature until the optimum condition was attained, while a reverse trend was observed for hardness. Increasing the temperature and time beyond 296.07°C and 1.53 min decreased the overall acceptance scores (Figure 1c), while a temperature and time beyond 296.07°C and 1.53 increased the hardness (Figure 1d).”

 

Point 14: Lines 262-263. It is not suitable to use the coded value “0” for the temperature and time in the text without clear indication.

Response 14: Apologies for the confusion. To aid clarity, we have revised the text as follows;

“The optimum temperature and time of AMPS and CSM were 217.8°C for 1.08 min and 296.1°C for 1.53 min, respectively. These value were in the range -0.1964 to 0.2435 (Table 4). Moreover, centeral composite design results (Table 5) showed that the optimum practical temperature and time values for superheated steam roasting was 220°C for 1 min for AMPS and 300°C for 1.5 min for CSM.”

 

Point 15: Figure 1, (A) and (B). The quality of Figure 1 should be improved using actual scales of x-axis and y-axis to replace coded scales (X₁ and X₂). The coded values are not suitable to be used in the response surface of the plots. The Figure should be independently readable without referring to the text for the actual values of X1 and X2.

Response 15: Thank you for the suggestion. Accordingly, we have revised Figure 1.

 

Point 16: Lines 286-287. What are the conditions of HFD and superheated steam roasting for both AMPS and CSM in producing the test product for analysis of pH, VBN and TBARS?

Response 16: To produce the test HMR product, HFD was set at 27 MHz for 10 min (with input power 11 kW) for defrosting raw materials, and the optimum value from RSM was used for superheated steam roasting.

 

Point 17: Line 324. The unit “Kcal” needs to be corrected using “kcal”. The same correction should be made in Table 7.

Response 17: We have corrected the proofreading error by replacing “Kcal” with “kcal” in all relevant places of its appearance in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 18: Table 10. The full name of the abbreviation TBC should be independently indicated in the Table without referring to the text.

Response 18: Thank you for highlighting. Accordingly, we have defined the abbreviations in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 19: Lines 457-458. The statement “accelerated the results of TBC” is not clear. A more detailed statement is required for “accelerated the results of TBC” using program simulation.

Response 19: In response to your comment, we have revised to “The test seafood HMR product’s expiry date, and overall acceptance values were established using TBC and the simulator program, respectively.”

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the quality of the manuscript is good and the information is enough clearly presented. However, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to the following points for improvement.

1. In the introduction, you need to improve the purpose of the work. Please write this goal more specifically. Finally, in the Introduction section, there is probably a goal, but it is completely general. It must be corrected.
2. Materials and methods -   Please add  information about  the study material. (  for example chemical composition)
3. Materials and methods - Chemical evaluation. Please  give more details about  all analysis ( especially amino acid analysis and fatty acid composition analysis)
4. The publication does not contain the number of samples the authors analyzed. There are only how many repetitions 3. I hope it was not one sample
5. Results and discussion.General remark concerning results and discussion – The authors do not describe their results in a comprehensive way, but concentrate on single data-points. They should describe whole data range.
6. For example: Texture is a representative feature that influences sensory analysis. We can only explain the distinguishing features of sensory analysis and texture by the rate of crystal growth. Why the correlation coefficients between the traits of the sensory analysis and the texture were not calculated. This would make the interpretation of the vine much easier and improve the manuscript.
7. Table 7 . Protein, fat…… etc is not parameters only chemical composition.
8. Conclusions are too general. They should give the answer, what are the benefits of treatment .Please give more details. Look at the all analysis, which The Authors carried out in this manuscripts.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

Manuscript ID: Applsci-1143693

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for your insightful suggestions and comments. We have made the necessary changes following your suggestions, and the corresponding changes made in the main manuscript are shown in “red-colored font.” Below, we have prepared a point-point response to each of your comments. We believe the incorporated changes as suggested have satisfactorily addressed your raised concerns, and the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the Applied Science journal. Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,

Jae-Suk Choi

 

 RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF REVIEWER#2

<General Comments>

Overall the quality of the manuscript is good and the information is enough clearly presented. However, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to the following points for improvement.

<Major Comments>

Point 1: In the introduction, you need to improve the purpose of the work. Please write this goal more specifically. Finally, in the Introduction section, there is probably a goal, but it is completely general. It must be corrected.

“In this study, we aimed to elucidate the best method to produce good quality, highly nutritious HMR products with an improved shelf life prepared by mixing roasted AMPS and roasted CSM.”

 

Point 2: Materials and methods - Please add information about the study material. (For example chemical composition)

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have updated the experimental section as follows;

“All chemicals used in this study, including potassium carbonate, sulfuric acid, boric acid, sodium hydroxide, trichloroacetic acid, phosphoric acid, N-tert-butyldimethylsilyl-N-methyltrifluoroacetamide with 1% Butyldimethylchlorosilane (MTBSTFA with 1% t-BDMCS), methyl red solution, methylene blue solution, acetonitrile, 2-thiobarbituric acid, ethanol, and sodium bicarbonate were purchased from Sig-ma-Aldrich, Inc. (St. Louis, MO, USA). The Difco plate count agar and EC medium used for microbiological analysis were purchased from BD Co. (New Jersey, USA), whereas Sanita-Kun plates were obtained from JNC Corp. (Tokyo, Japan).”

 

Point 3: Materials and methods - Chemical evaluation. Please give more details about all analysis (especially amino acid analysis and fatty acid composition analysis)

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. Accordingly, we have updated the experimental section as follows;

2.10. Amino acid analysis

Prior to hydrolysis, the protein was extracted following the Kjeldahl method, and the amino acid analysis was performed using the AOAC 994.12b method [30]. Briefly, a 50 μL aliquot of a solution containing a mixture of 91 μg/mL L-amino acids in 0.1 N HCl was dried. Subsequently, 100 μL of neat MTBSTFA, followed by 100 μL of acetonitrile, were added. The mixture was then heated to 100°C for 4 h. Next, the sample was neutralized with sodium bicarbonate and subjected to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis using the GCMS-QP2020 system (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan). An injection volume of 0.5 µL/min was used for the separations performed on an SLB™-5ms Capillary GC Column (20 m x 0.18 mm I.D., 0.18 μm; Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA) using helium as the carrier gas. During the separation, the oven temperature was programmed as follows— Initially, it was set at 100°C for 1 min, then increased to 290°C at 35°C /min and held for 3 min, and finally, it was raised to 360°C at a rate of 40°C /min and held for 2 min. The temperature for the inlet was set at 250°C, while the temperature for the mass storage device (MSD) interface was set at 325°C.

2.11. Fatty acid composition analysis

The fatty acid composition analysis was performed following a hydrolytic method described by Sutikno et al. [11]. Briefly, ether was used to extract fatty acids and methylate them into fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs). FAMEs were then analyzed using gas chromatography (GCMS-QP2020) fitted with a DB-wax capillary column (30 m x 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 mm film thickness, Agilent). Helium at a constant linear velocity of 30 cm/s was used as the carrier gas. The split ratio was set at 1/10. During the separation, the column oven was programmed as follows: initial column oven temperature was set at 100°C; held for 1 min, and increased to at 25°C /min to 100°C and after 1 min, and finally, it was raised to 240 °C at 5°C /min; held for 2 min. The temperature for the inlet was set at 250°C, while the temperature for Flame Ionization Detector (FID) was set at 270°C. FAME standard mixture (EN 14078, Paragon Scientific Ltd., Wirral, UK) was used to identify the peak and calculate the response factor. The results were expressed as g/100 g of dry matter.

 

Point 4: The publication does not contain the number of samples the authors analyzed. There are only how many repetitions 3. I hope it was not one sample

Response 4: We produced a total of 63 samples of test HMR products in this study, and all samples were analyzed.

 

Point 5: Results and discussion. General remark concerning results and discussion – The authors do not describe their results in a comprehensive way, but concentrate on single data-points. They should describe whole data range. For example: Texture is a representative feature that influences sensory analysis. We can only explain the distinguishing features of sensory analysis and texture by the rate of crystal growth. Why the correlation coefficients between the traits of the sensory analysis and the texture were not calculated. This would make the interpretation of the vine much easier and improve the manuscript.

Response 5: In response to your comment, we have added the following information to the revised manuscript

 

Drip loss:

“Table 2 shows the drip loss results of frozen AMPS and CSM. HFD resulted in the lowest drip loss value of both AMPS and CSM. The drip loss values of AMPS from the high-frequency defroster were significantly different from those thawed using the conventional methods (p < 0.05). The highest drip loss value was observed by thawing at room temperature, followed by running water.”

 

Effect of storage duration on microbiological changes

“Microbiological changes in food can indicate product safety. Table 10 shows the microbial change during storage duration. The score of TBC increased in conjunction with the storage time. At −13°C, bacterial growth increased significantly (p < 0.05) on day 90 (3.20 ± 0.00), while at −18°C, bacterial growth increased significantly (p < 0.05) after days 75 and 90 compared to day 0. However, at −23°C, bacterial growth was maintained throughout the 90-day storage period. The optimum temperature in which to store products based on the TBC was less than −23°C. In this study, the TBC of the product was less than 5 log CFU/g, which is acceptable for consumption (International Commission of Microbiological Specification for Food [ICMSF]) [53]. Overall the findings suggest that low TBC values are influenced by the storage temperature— low temperatures, especially freezing, can decrease microbial activity.”

 

Sensory evaluation of the product:

“On day 0, sensory evaluation scores of the test HMR products ranged from 8.24 to 8.38, with the highest value for flavor and odor. However, during storage, the scores were decreased. When stored at −13°C and −18°C, the sensory evaluation score started to decrease significantly (p < 0.05) on day 45 and day 90, respectively, compared to day 0. In contrast, storage at −23°C did not significantly alter the sensory evaluation scores throughout the 90-day storage period.”

 

Point 6: Table 7. Protein, fat…… etc is not parameters only chemical composition.

Response 6: In response to your comment, we have revised to “Chemical composition.”

 

Point 7: Conclusions are too general. They should give the answer, what are the benefits of treatment .Please give more details. Look at the all analysis, which The Authors carried out in this manuscripts

Response 7: In response to your comment, we have revised the conclusions as follows;

 

“This study revealed that technological improvements produced high-quality test HMR products by mixing AMPS and CSM. HFD maintained the nutritional quality of the raw materials with little drip loss. Optimization of superheated steam roasting using RSM successfully roasted AMPS and CSM at the optimum temperature and time, resulting in good overall acceptance and hardness. Moreover, quick freezing prevented nutrition and texture loss during storage and after reheating. Overall, the application of HFD, superheated steam, and quick freezing successfully produced test HMR products with high nutrition, good texture, and long shelf life, suggesting the potential of the methods reported here for use in the seafood industry to produce new HMR products.” 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered all my questions and made changes in the revised version. I recommend that the revised version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication in this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor revision due to English