Physical Modeling of the Process of Centrifugation of Crushed Bovine Bones to Separate Animal Fat and Meat–Bone Slurry
, Anara Bakiyeva 1, Assemgul Baikadamova 1, Madina Jumazhanova 1, Yeldos Mukhametov 1, Mars Khayrullin 4 and Nadir Ibragimov 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The revised manuscript is interesting and novel, however, it is necessary to address the following recommendations:
Line 15: modify text…. 10 and 15 min),
Line 17: modify text…. was observed
Line 17: modify text…. was rotated
Line 17: modify text…. 5 min,
Line 20: modify text…. was presented
Line 30: remove space…. [1,2]
Line 37: remove space…. [3,4]
Line 43: remove space…. [6,7]
Line 46: modify text …. [8–10]
Line 49: remove space…. [11,12]
Line 53: remove space…. [13,14]
Line 64: remove space…. [16,17]
Line 73: modify text…. was to develop
Line 76: correct subtitle…. Study Objects
Line 77: add correct indentation format
Line 77: modify text…. Were bovine bons
Line 78: insert information about the used equipment, fridge (model, trademark, country)
Line 79: insert information about the used equipment, power-crushing machine (model, trademark, country)
Line 82: correct subtitle…. Description of the Design of the Pilot Installation – Centrifuge
Line 83: add correct indentation format
Line 84: was installed?
Line 84: were transported?
Line 86: was connected?
Line 83-88: use the justify text format in the paragraph
Line 89: add correct indentation format
Line 90: was thrown?
Line 93: was passed
Line 94 was removed
Line 89-95: use the justify text format in the paragraph
Line 96: add correct indentation format
Line 96: was redirected
Line 97: was fed
Line 99: (Figure 1 and 2)
Line 102: Figure 1.
Line 102: modify text…. bones.
Line 105: Figure 2.
Line 105: use the justify text format in the figure title
Line 105: use the following number format…. Design: (1) casin, (2) filtering drum….etc
Line 109: add correct indentation format
Line 109: was designed
Line 111: 2000 and 2500 rpm
Line 111: 10 and 15 min
Line 113: correct subtitle…. Determining the Power Required for Pressing
Line 120: correct subtitle…. Statistical Analysis
Line 123: indicate the mean comparison test that was used
Line 126: correct subtitle…. Determination of Centrifuge Capacity Depending on Centrifugation Duration and Rotation speed
Line 130-139: It is necessary to build a layout with figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 in order to build a single figure; Within the layout you can differentiate them with the letters (A), (B), (C) and (D).
Line 131: Centrifugation time (min)
Line 132: modify text…. time.
Line 140: was observed
Line 141: was rotated
Line 141: 5 min
Line 142: was observed
Line 142: was rotated
Line 142: 15 min
Line 154: Table 1.
Line 154: modify text…. experiment.
Line 154: respect table content… did you mean 57.78 or 5778…etc
Line 161: insert space…. 5 min
Line 164: remove indentation format
Line 164: correct subtitle…. Physical Modeling of the Process of Centrifugation of Meat-bone Cracklings
Line 169: remove space…. [19,20]
Line 170: correct subtitle…. Derivation of the 1st Criterion Equation
Line 264: F = 0.0…
Line 266: Table 2.
Line 266: 10.
Line 266: in table content k = -x
Line 266: in table content, did you mean 38,507…etc
Line 280: correct subtitle…. Derivation of the 2nd Criterion Equation
Line 281: add indentation format
Line 282: remove space…. [19,20]
Line 293: was applied?
Line 301: add indentation format
Line 309: add indentation format
Line 317: add indentation format
Line 323: correct subtitle…. Derivation of the 3rd Criterion Equation
Line 324,332,334,etc: add indentation format
Line 364-365: use parentheses in the numbering of each equation
References section
According to the authors' guide, the format of the name of the journal in each reference is abbreviated, while the year of the reference must be in bold text format. Also use (–) instead of (-) for the page numbering range. Check that the text format of the title is in lowercase
Note: could you include images of how the samples are processed in the equipment?
Note: could you compare your work with research by other authors?
Note: according to the authors' guide (see Microsoft word template), vertical lines should not be used in the content of the table
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
All modifications of the text were corrected according your comments
Highlighted in red color
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors focused on the effects of different drum speeds and centrifugation times on animal fat and meat-bone cracklings in this study, which describes the design of a centrifuge for the separation of fat from animal bones for dry animal feed. In spite of the fact that the introduction part is adequate for this type of study, there are important points that need to be corrected in other sections.
This study has a major concern regarding the statistical analysis. One-way ANOVA is inappropriate and increases the risk of type II error. Factorial arrangements (2 x 2) are the best option here, as there are two factors, drum speeds (1500, 1500, 2000, 2500 rpm) and dietary centrifugation durations (5, 7, 10, 15 minutes). Although one-way ANOVA was performed, no statistical differences were highlighted in the graphs or tables, and no p values were provided.
Presenting Figure 1 beforehand results in a minor delay in processing the textual information in our memory. Combining Figure 2 as 'a' and Figure 1 as 'b' within a single composite image would enhance our comprehension of the overall centrifuge layout along with the schematic diagram, providing a more coherent and clear depiction.
In the results section, each figure should be cited in the text and briefly explained. Moreover, it would be helpful to discuss all estimated parameters in more depth. The discussion should also be bolstered with possible attributions.
Throughout the entire document, it is crucial to uphold uniform text justification on both sides, along with the consistent usage of the same font type.
L140-143: Figure 3 shows that this statement needs to be corrected. In addition, the expression given here must be compatible with Table 1's optimal conditions.
L28: “…lettuce…” ?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached answers to your comments and revised manuscript
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled "Physical modeling of the process of centrifugation of crushed bovine bones to separate animal fat and meat-bone cracklings" is of significant interest and relevance to professionals working in the field of feed industry. However, the provided content lacks sufficient depth and appears to indicate that the authors have not adequately identified the existing gap in knowledge or the remaining tasks that need to be addressed within this particular research domain. The quality of the writing needs to be enhanced, and additional references should be incorporated into certain paragraphs to strengthen the arguments. Hence, I propose that it be declined based on these grounds, unless it undergoes revision accordingly.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are various aspects pertaining to the English language that are of significance, including grammatical rules, sentence structures, and the incorporation of words from different languages.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached answers to your comments and revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research group actively works in the given area, which is confirmed by several recent publications. The authors used the recent references in their review, as well as few references are very old. However, its explanation and scientific designing have needed more attention. The revision is needed, aimed at improvement of the final version.
Comments
1. Authors need to show future perspective of this research.
2. Authors should need to maintain the consistency of abbreviation
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The format and language of English requires for modification.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached answers to your comments and revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study by Shayakhmetova et al. describes a centrifuge design to separate fat from animal bones. The study is good and deals with new fat extraction techniques from bone cracklings. The manuscript needs revision.
Reviewer comments:
L12: dry animal feed or fat-extracted animal feed?
L17: what is this yield?
L72: meat scraps? Or bone cracks? Or meat-bone cracks. Please mention the aim of the study in detail.
The authors should mention whether the cracks were taken from the processor or dried before centrifugation. Please, What was the form of meat in the meat-bone crackling?
L77: rephrase. What is fat cutting?
L76: 2.1. Study objects: please mention the bone source or the industry from which bones are obtained.
L83-95: please delete all numbers present beside the parts of the centrifuge. This is enough for the figure footnote.
L123: one-way ANOVA is not suitable for comparing the data. There are two factors (the drum speeds and centrifugation durations). The data should be analyzed using TWO-WAY ANOVA to evaluate the single effects and interactions.
Table 1: Please revise the optimal time for the 2000 round, 7 or 5 minutes. Also, the yield percentage should be revised compared with what is mentioned in the text.
What was the composition of yield obtained? Fat only or a mixture of other constituents?
L164-364: the authors should rearrange this part; methodology and equations should be transferred to the methods section, and the results obtained should be clarified with an explanation of these results.
The authors should support their results with previous studies and compare them with previous research.
The authors should mention the possibility of application of these methods of extraction in the field and their economic value.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
moderate
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please find attached answers to your comments and revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe observations were addressed
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have been carefully reviewed your revised article with the id number "applsci-2671138". In my opinion, this revised article incorporates all of the points raised in the original draft to the best of my knowledge. Best wishes to all of the authors who contributed to the production of this wonderful work and congratulations on their future endeavors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article that has been submitted has undergone significant revisions, and based on these revisions, we are now able to consider it for publication. However, this article will prove to be valuable for readers and researchers who are interested in the field of the feed industry.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno further comments
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor editing
