The Effect of Turmeric Rhizome on the Inhibition of Lipid Oxidation and the Quality of Vacuum-Packed Pork Meatloaf
, Mirosława Karpińska-Tymoszczyk 1, Manuel Simões 2,3 and Magdalena A. Olszewska 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for your valuable study. The authors studied on the effects of turmeric rhizome on selected quality features, oxidative stability, and the microbiological safety of pork meatloaf. The study is important in the field of food industry to stabilize healthy products. However, In my opinion, the manuscript needs some modification before any decision:
Major points:
Page 1, line 14: what is the mean for two addition level? Is your mean two different concentration in percent?
Please improve your introduction with recent references. The used sources are old.
I did not see the p-values in the Tables. Please add them to each Table.
Minor points:
Check some typo and grammatical errors.
Improve the conclusion section.
Line 224, Table 1 shows the effect of turmeric addition on the MDA content...... What effect? The sentence is not clear.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study aimed to evaluate the effects of turmeric rhizome at two addition levels (1 and 3%) on selected quality features, oxidative stability, and the microbiological safety of pork meatloaf. The article is well-written and needs only minor corrections.
1. The manuscript needs to be checked for English writing.
2. et al should be written in italics.
3. In line 197, the bacteria's name should be written in italics.
4. It seems that the results of the 3% sample are better than 1%. The choice of a 1% sample instead of 3% should be explained at the end of the discussion.
5. The article should be updated with new references from 2022 and 2021.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled "Effect of turmeric rhizome on the inhibition of lipid oxidation 2 and quality of vacuum-packed pork meatloaf " obtained a very interesting results for using the turmeric in food application.
Some suggestions to improve the interesting manuscript:
1. Line 53 I suggest to write the reference number as [7, 17-24] not [17-24, 7].
2. Line 61. Why you decide to use this concentration 1 and 3%? How about 5% or 0.5% for examples?
3. Line 83 I suggest to add in this line that 1% is T1 and 3% is T3.
4. Line 197, 404, 405 The Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium spp. should be Italic text.
5. Line 206-213. Proximate composition analysis the results is at 0 or 7, 14 or 21 days it is not clear. I suggest to write more about proximate analysis results and to compare your obtained values with the previous published results.
6. Line 268-269 "This may explain the lower pH of pork meatloaf with a 3% turmeric addition". This sentence is only correct to the results at 7 days while at 0, 14 or 21 no change in the pH value between 0 and 1 or2 % turmeric. How you explain that?
7. Line 399 -408 in this part "Evaluation of product safety" I suggest to add more information about the advantages of using vacuum to the product compared with un-vacuum products.
8. In Table 3 change the additive column to C. T1 and T3 instead to control, 1% turmeric and 3% turmeric.
9. Table 1 and 2. I suggest to change the tables title to "The effect of different concentrations of turmeric and storage time on …………. of hermetically vacuum packed pork meatloaf".
10. Line 445, 447, 461, 462, 467, 469, 474, 480, 481, 499, 532, 552, the Latin name should be in Italic text.
Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors I found your work very interesting and actuality, because focus on the utilization natural antioxidants to improve meat quality, safety and shelf life.
Line 36: change the reference 4 with a more focused reference on the oxidation effect in meat
Line 83: insert the abbreviation for the experimental groups as C=control T1= 1% of turmeric, T3=3% turmeric
Chapter 2.11: improve the material and method explaining which are the test you have done, hardness, chewiness.
Chapter 3.1: improve the chapter explaining why you find some differences in chemical composition or report some Authors that find or not the same differences.
To understand better your results would be use to insert a table for proximate composition
Line 228, 232, 281, 282, 284, 293, 301, 343, 352, 353, 362, 363, 366, 371, 373, 377: put the “p<0.05” at the end of the sentence, for easing the reading
Line 378-379: improve syntax
Line 373 and 379: delete p>0.05
Table 1, 2 and figures: delete the letters in column, row and in histogram if there are not significant differences.
Line 281, 282, 284: correct “aw” with “aw”
Chapter 3.4: try to explain why you find some differences in chemical composition or report some Authors that find or not the same differences
Line 313: delete one space
Line 316: delete the semicolon
Line 317: delete one space
From line 351 to 355: try to explain why you find some differences in chemical composition or report some Authors that find or not the same differences
Line 390: explain better or improve the syntax
Chapter Reference: correct the references 5 and 60
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
