Quantifying of the Best Model for Prediction of Greenhouse Gas Emission, Quality, and Thermal Property Values during Drying Using RSM (Case Study: Carrot)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Avoid using abbreviations in the abstract.
2) The abstract is too long.
3) Please ensure consistent number formatting, using a period as the decimal separator and a comma as the thousand separator.
4) Unify in-text reference format - "(Mirzaei-Baktash et al., 2022" vs. "[14]".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere and deep thanks to the associate editor for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript entitled “Quantifying of the best model for prediction of greenhouse gas emission, quality and thermal property values during drying using RSM (case study: carrot)” with manuscript ID of “applsci-2510605- R1”. Responses to the associate editor and reviewer’s comments were be highlighted in the main text with regard to the following his/her remarks in the revised version of the paper. Also, all references were relevant to the contents of the manuscript. This manuscript was sent to a native language company for editing language and its certificate was attached.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Prof. Dr. Ebrahim Taghinezhad
Postdoctoral Fellowship
Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences
Department of Food Chemistry and Biocatalysis
Norwida 25, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland
Mobile phone: 0048 600 651 226
Response to Reviewer (1) Comments
We would like to thank for the comments and your time. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments of the reviewers. The changes were made in manuscript on red color.
1) Avoid using abbreviations in the abstract.
Response 1: The change has been according to reviewer comments.
The abstract was edited and removed abbreviations in the abstract
2) The abstract is too long.
Response 2:
The abstract was reduced to 294 words.
3) Please ensure consistent number formatting, using a period as the decimal separator and a comma as the thousand separator.
Response 3:
Was done
4) Unify in-text reference format - "(Mirzaei-Baktash et al., 2022" vs. "[14]".
Response 4: it was done
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors conducted a study that involves the use of a statistical modelling tool (RSM) to predict carbon emissions. The work is appealing and suits the readership of the journal as it encapsulates carbon neutrality.
The authors did not discuss the validation experiments - this component is crucial when using RSM as its shows the accuracy of the results. These results should be included prior to the acceptance of this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere and deep thanks to the associate editor for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript entitled “Quantifying of the best model for prediction of greenhouse gas emission, quality and thermal property values during drying using RSM (case study: carrot)” with manuscript ID of “applsci-2510605- R1”. Responses to the associate editor and reviewer’s comments were be highlighted in the main text with regard to the following his/her remarks in the revised version of the paper. Also, all references were relevant to the contents of the manuscript. This manuscript was sent to a native language company for editing language and its certificate was attached.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Prof. Dr. Ebrahim Taghinezhad
Postdoctoral Fellowship
Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences
Department of Food Chemistry and Biocatalysis
Norwida 25, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland
Mobile phone: 0048 600 651 226
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors conducted a study that involves the use of a statistical modelling tool (RSM) to predict carbon emissions. The work is appealing and suits the readership of the journal as it encapsulates carbon neutrality.
Response: We would like to thank for the comments and your time. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments of the reviewers. The changes were made in manuscript on red color.
The authors did not discuss the validation experiments - this component is crucial when using RSM as its shows the accuracy of the results. These results should be included prior to the acceptance of this manuscript.
Response: validations were shown in table 2 by R2; Adj R2; Pred R2; CV (%). But it was not done in Table 3 because of the limitation of space for the report. Validation for Table 4 was shown by desirability values. We would like to write and explain more, but because of the limitation of page numbers, we are not allowed. Also, we had an attachment that increased the volume of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the Author
The paper presents a case study about the optimization of the microwave drying process of carrot slices using response surface methodology (RSM). The impact of microwave power (100, 200 and 300 W) and slice thickness (2, 4 and 6 mm) will be evaluated on quality features (color and shrinkage), thermal properties (drying time, effective moisture diffusivity, specific energy consumption and energy efficiency) and greenhouse gas emission (CO2 and NOX) for six different plants (SP-NG, SP-HO, GT-NG, GT-GO, CC-NG and CC-GO). Two pretreatments will be also applied, ultrasonication and blanching.
This paper is well-written and deserves to be published. Numerous results that make reading difficult. Results must be better presented and many items should be reviewed before being published. For that reason, I recommend minor revision.
A final proofreading must be carried out before the revised version is submitted.
1) Line 35: the comma is missing after “(GT)”
2) Line 41: put a space before and after the sign “>”
3) Line 42: delete the bracket and the comma after “plant
4) Introduction: add the meaning of acronyms the first time they appear in the text (in addition to the abstract)
5) Lines 56, 60: put “i.e.” in italics
6) Lines 118-120: replace “four” by “six” different plants and remove bold for “CC-GO”
7) Lines 124-125: move the titles “2.” and “2.1” to the next page
8) Line 126: convert to SI units
9) Line 129: define MC in brackets
10) Line 130: for equipment in the following format (model, manufacturer, city, country) in brackets. To be used throughout the manuscript.
11) Line 131: “and” is missing after [23]
12) Line 134: add space before “+/-“ and units for the moisture content
13) Line 137: Convert to SI units “grams”
14) Convert “100 g” in SI units
15) Lines 156-157: please add the units for initial and final MC
16) Lines 159, 178, 331: please, write the title in full rather than using the mathematical symbol
17) Line 160: what is the drying kinetics diagram? Please, explain a little
18) Lines 164-166: please, re-write the sentence as I do not understand the sense
19) Line 170: what is Mb in the equation? M0 in the text. It is not clear. Please align le numbers of equations to the right on a page.
20) Line 174: delete “also”
21) Lines 184, 186, 191: put the “w” in index
22) Line 191: “Wwhere"
23) Lines 204-212: the figure is too small. It is illegible.
24) Line 248: delete the comma
25) Line 250: there is a problem with the sum symbol. Re-write the equation.
26) Line 256: bs, please add the meaning. bs does not exist in Eq. (9).
27) Line 266: delete “, and estimation”
28) Line 281: replace “P” by “p” (to be done throughout the manuscript). What is the significance threshold? It would be appropriated to indicate it in the materials and methods section.
29) Table 2: must be redone entirely. This is the great weakness of the manuscript. Putting it in landscape format makes it easier to read. “EE” is different from “Eef”. You have to choose between the two names. Notice: “conditions”
30) Line 295: Fig. 2 instead of Fig. 1, right?
31) Line 313: “Sslices”
32) Lines 320, 328: delete “and”
33) Line 396: add a space between drying and [53].
34) Line 402: Bblackberry
35) Line 416: Tthe
36) Line 433: 0.96 (result not shown?) I cannot find it. Please, explain.
37) Table 3: Pretreatment (also in Table 4), CO2, NOX. R2 and CV do not appear in the table.
38) Line 471: blackberry
39) Line 474: CO2
40) Line 490: dot after “samples” and capitalize for Fig. 8
41) Lines 518-525: The effect of pretreatments are presented. Cite figures or tables on which these results are based.
42) Line 546: “Tthe”
43) Lines 554-560: paragraph to be reformulated.
44) Line 574: delete the colon and add the dot after “follows”
45) Lines 575-587: review the way in which the results are presented. Some values do not correspond to the data in the table. Add the units. Please write Deff using 10-10 and not E-10.
46) Line 602: delete the space after the bracket “(linearly”
47) Lines 608-610: values should be reviewed.
48) Nomenclature: MP appears twice, font size and index for lw
49) References: delete lines 633-646. Re-write reference 42 according the template.
50) The manuscript should be re-read carefully, as it contains numerous typographical errors (font in index…)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere and deep thanks to the associate editor for the careful reading of the manuscript and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript entitled “Quantifying of the best model for prediction of greenhouse gas emission, quality and thermal property values during drying using RSM (case study: carrot)” with manuscript ID of “applsci-2510605- R1”. Responses to the associate editor and reviewer’s comments were be highlighted in the main text with regard to the following his/her remarks in the revised version of the paper. Also, all references were relevant to the contents of the manuscript. This manuscript was sent to a native language company for editing language and its certificate was attached.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.
Kind regards,
Prof. Dr. Ebrahim Taghinezhad
Postdoctoral Fellowship
Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences
Department of Food Chemistry and Biocatalysis
Norwida 25, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland
Mobile phone: 0048 600 651 226
Response to Reviewer (3) Comments
The paper presents a case study about the optimization of the microwave drying process of carrot slices using response surface methodology (RSM). The impact of microwave power (100, 200 and 300 W) and slice thickness (2, 4 and 6 mm) will be evaluated on quality features (color and shrinkage), thermal properties (drying time, effective moisture diffusivity, specific energy consumption and energy efficiency) and greenhouse gas emission (CO2 and NOX) for six different plants (SP-NG, SP-HO, GT-NG, GT-GO, CC-NG and CC-GO). Two pretreatments will be also applied, ultrasonication and blanching.
This paper is well-written and deserves to be published. Numerous results that make reading difficult. Results must be better presented and many items should be reviewed before being published. For that reason, I recommend minor revision.
Response: We would like to thank for the comments and your time. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments of the reviewers. The changes were made in manuscript on red color.
A final proofreading must be carried out before the revised version is submitted.
1) Line 35: the comma is missing after “(GT)”
Response: Was done
2) Line 41: put a space before and after the sign “>”
Response: Was done
3) Line 42: delete the bracket and the comma after “plant
Response: Was done
4) Introduction: add the meaning of acronyms the first time they appear in the text (in addition to the abstract)
Response:
According to the opinion of the first reviewer, all abbreviations in the abstract were removed and placed in the introduction.
5) Lines 56, 60: put “i.e.” in italics
Response: Was done
6) Lines 118-120: replace “four” by “six” different plants and remove bold for “CC-GO”
Response: Was done
7) Lines 124-125: move the titles “2.” and “2.1” to the next page
Response: Was done
8) Line 126: convert to SI units
Response:
length: 0.17 m and diameter: 0.03 m
9) Line 129: define MC in brackets
Response: Was done
10) Line 130: for equipment in the following format (model, manufacturer, city, country) in brackets. To be used throughout the manuscript.
Response: Was done
11) Line 131: “and” is missing after [23]
Response: Was done
12) Line 134: add space before “+/-“ and units for the moisture content
Response: Was done
13) Line 137: Convert to SI units “grams”
Response: Was done
14) Convert “100 g” in SI units
Response: The 100 g changed to 0.01 kg
15) Lines 156-157: please add the units for initial and final MC
Response: Was done
“ The process of drying continued from the initial MC of 11.95 ± 0.55 until the final MC of 0.11 ± 0.1 (d.b.) “
16) Lines 159, 178, 331: please, write the title in full rather than using the mathematical
Symbol
Response: Was done
17) Line 160: what is the drying kinetics diagram? Please, explain a little
Response:
Kinetic diagram are diagram that show the moisture ratio or moisture content of the product at any ti,e. In this article, instead of kinetic diagrams, the final drying time is used (3.1. Drying time (Dt)).
18) Lines 164-166: please, re-write the sentence as I do not understand the sense
Response:
To measure the Deff, the diagram of the drying kinetics and the Crank equation based on the second Fick’s law were applied. To this end, the MC was plotted versus time for the drying process. Then, the moisture ratio was determined and its logarithmic diagram was drawn versus time and fitted with a straight line. The second Fick’s law deals with the mass diffusivity during the drying process’s descending phase, and it may be solved for a variety of geometries by employing the right boundary conditions. Eq. (2). can be used to calculate the Fick equation for a thin layer:
19) Line 170: what is Mb in the equation? M0 in the text. It is not clear. Please align le numbers of equations to the right on a page.
Response:
Mt, Me, and Mb represents the sample moisture at time of t, equilibrium, and initial MC (d.b), respectively.
where, MR is the moisture ratio, decimal; Mt is the moisture content at any time, kg water/ kg dry matter; Me is the equilibrium moisture content, kgwater/kg dry matter; M0 is the initial moisture content, kgwater/kg dry matter; n = 1, 2, 3... is the number of terms taken into consideration; t is the drying time.
20) Line 174: delete “also”
Response:
Was done
21) Lines 184, 186, 191: put the “w” in index
Response: Was done
22) Line 191: “Wwhere"
Response:
Was done
23) Lines 204-212: the figure is too small. It is illegible.
Response:
The quality of figure was increased.
24) Line 248: delete the comma
Response: Was done
25) Line 250: there is a problem with the sum symbol. Re-write the equation.
Response:
They were used to model the behavior of two-line operating systems and investigate their interaction effects [10].
(9)
where yk is the response variable, xi shows the independent variable value, xj is the actual value of each parameter, β0 and βi denote the intercept and the coefficients of the variables, respectively; while βji is the coefficients of the interaction effects of the variables
26) Line 256: bs, please add the meaning. bs does not exist in Eq. (9).
Response:
The sentences “A multifactorial two-level design with central and actual points cannot be utilized to estimate the coefficient of the variables of a quadratic model, because the number of βs is greater than the number of treatments. Adding axial points, it is possible to calculate βs and also better use the quadratic model” were deleted. Because it is not appropriate for there.
27) Line 266: delete “, and estimation”
Response: Was done
28) Line 281: replace “P” by “p” (to be done throughout the manuscript). What is the significance threshold? It would be appropriated to indicate it in the materials and methods section.
Response: Was done
29) Table 2: must be redone entirely. This is the great weakness of the manuscript. Putting it in landscape format makes it easier to read. “EE” is different from “Eef”. You have to choose between the two names. Notice: “conditions”
Response: Sincerely, in the opinion of the honorable reviewer
We tested many methods to present this table, which is best seen in this mode.
30) Line 295: Fig. 2 instead of Fig. 1, right?
Response:
Was done
31) Line 313: “Sslices”
Response:
Was done
32) Lines 320, 328: delete “and”
Response:
Was done
33) Line 396: add a space between drying and [53].
Response:
Was done
34) Line 402: Bblackberry
Response:
Was done
35) Line 416: Tthe
Response:
Was done
36) Line 433: 0.96 (result not shown?) I cannot find it. Please, explain.
Response: Because of space limitation in Table 3, we couldn’t add the amount of R2 to this table.
37) Table 3: Pretreatment (also in Table 4), CO2, NOX. R2 and CV do not appear in the table.
Response: For table 3 , as I explained above (question 36) we had the space limitation for adding another column to this table.
38) Line 471: blackberry
Response:
Was done
39) Line 474: CO2
Response: Was done
40) Line 490: dot after “samples” and capitalize for Fig. 8
Response:
Was done
41) Lines 518-525: The effect of pretreatments are presented. Cite figures or tables on which these results are based.
Response:
Accordingly, the color variation range of the untreated samples was 19.29-28.68 which altered to 13.69-21.22 and 15.59-25.94 in the samples pretreated by ultrasound waves and blanching, respectively
42) Line 546: “Tthe”
Response:
Was done
43) Lines 554-560: paragraph to be reformulated.
Response:
That was corrected
44) Line 574: delete the colon and add the dot after “follows”
Response:
Was done
45) Lines 575-587: review the way in which the results are presented. Some values do not correspond to the data in the table. Add the units. Please write Deff using 10-10 and not E-10.
Response:
That was corrected
46) Line 602: delete the space after the bracket “(linearly”
Response:
Was done
47) Lines 608-610: values should be reviewed.
Response: Was checked again.
48) Nomenclature: MP appears twice, font size and index for lw
Response: was deleted
49) References: delete lines 633-646. Re-write reference 42 according the template.
Response:
Was done
50) The manuscript should be re-read carefully, as it contains numerous typographical errors (font in index…)
Response:
The manuscript was carefully re-read and many changes were made within it.
