Effect of Sonication Associated with Pasteurization on the Inactivation of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Milk Cream
, Madian Johel Galo Salgado 2,3, Katherine Gutierrez Alzate 1,2, Joseane Cardoso Gomes de Alencar 1,4, Iuri Lima dos Santos Rosario 2, José Givanildo da Silva 2,3, Bruno Nicolau Paulino 1,4 and Marion Pereira da Costa 1,2,3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsa. The results in images must be incorporated
b. Make a graph among processed parameters used in this study
c. conclusions should be re-written, must be quantitative.
d. I feel there is no novelty in this work
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed polish for english language throughout the manuscript
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful critique of our manuscript. We believe that we have fully addressed all of these concerns and comments, which has increased the overall impact of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis communication titled “Effect of sonication associated with pasteurization on the inactivation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in milk cream” has certain significance and application value. The manuscript can be published after the following revisions and improvements:
1. The Abstract section used too much space to introduce the research background and methods. Only the last sentence briefly introduces the study results without providing any data, which is unreasonable. Authors should rewrite this section and use more space to present the details of the findings.
2. Line 76: please provide more information about the dairy industry, at least the name and address should be included.
3. Line 92: Why didn’t the authors use the ice-water bath? In fact, the cooling effect of ice-water bath is better and faster than ice bath.
4. Line 110: UFC.mL-1 ? There are some problems here:
(1) The author used "/mL" throughout the manuscript but suddenly used "mL-1" here, which seems inconsistent. Thus, "mL-1" should be changed to "/mL";
(2) Should it be "UFC" or "CFU" here?
(3) Why is Staphylococcus aureus in the “IUNT” group only 6.82±0.04 CFU/mL? Should the unit here be "log CFU/mL"?
(4) In the “Results” column, “0,04” Should be “0.04”. The same bellow.
5. In the thermosonication with slow pasteurization, there is no significant difference between treating for 5 min and 25 min, which indicates that the treating time can be further shortened. Therefore, the author should try the effects of treating for 3 min, 2 min, or even 1 min.
6. The frequency range of ultrasound that can be used for sterilization is usually from 20 to 50 kHz. Why did the authors choose 20 kHz ultrasound only? Did they try other frequencies of ultrasonic treatment?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful critique of our manuscript. We believe that we have fully addressed all of these concerns and comments, which has increased the overall impact of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and topical. I think that correlating the results with the physico-chemical properties would bring more impact. Some improvements should be made which are marked in the document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful critique of our manuscript. We believe that we have fully addressed all of these concerns and comments, which has increased the overall impact of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is now may be considered for publication in this journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the manuscript well and greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.
