Evaluation of the Nutritional Quality and Shelf Life of Fermented Processed Sheep Salami Inoculated with Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus paracasei
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is interesting but some aspect can be improved:
1. The manuscript include standard methods for assessing product safety. Maybe there are results that also describe changes of qualitative features (color, texture, sensory properties) during storage?
2. the statistical evaluation is very basic, it would be worth enriching it. Look for mutual relations between individual safety factors (e.g. number of bacteria and acidity)
3. statistics for figure 2 are missing
Comments on the Quality of English Languagethe English i s quite ok. Some small changes should be done. Some words are used twice in one sentense.
Author Response
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed of the manuscript titled ‘Evaluation of the nutritional quality and shelf life of fermented processed sheep salami inoculated with Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus paracasei’. This study aimed produce two fermented processed foods made from sheep meat, one of them inoculated with the probiotic Lactobacillus casei and the other with Lactobacillus paracasei, evaluating their microbial growth, viability and the efficiency of these microorganisms as bioconservants.
I performed some comments in order to strengthening the article. My remarks were set as follows:
Introduction
1. Line 37: ‘The functional food market is portrayed as products that influence intestinal health positively’. Suggestion: Add some biological outcomes as examples on how functional food can influence intestinal health positively.
2. Line 42: ‘Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are associated with a diminished risk of developing food allergies’. Suggestion: The Authors could prolong the sentence and mention the specific food allergies that are being reported.
3. Line 43: ‘These lactic acid bacteria contribute to the prevention of infections, in addition to having anticarcinogenic effects’. Suggestion: Add the reference related to the evidence mentioned above.
4. Lines 62-63: ‘Furthermore, the use of probiotics allows the reduction of curing salts (nitrites and nitrates), which makes the possibility of nitrosamine (potentially carcinogenic substances) formation diminish’. Suggestion: This assumption is very important. In the current context, the potential adverse carcinogenic effects of nitrates and nitrites should be further described. Also, I propose that specific probiotics are capable to reduce the formation of nitrosamine could be specified.
5. Line 70: ‘…the goal of this paper…’ could be changed to ‘…the aim of this study…’
Materials and Methods
6. The Authors must add the subsection, namely, Statistical Analysis to the section of Material and Methods.
Results
7. Add p-values to the data presented in Tables 4-6.
Discussion
8. Add the paragraph of limitations, strengths and future directions.
Conclusions
9. I propose that the conclusions could be extended indicating concrete possibilities for applying the results of this study in the daily practice of both the meat producers and meat consumers.
Generally, I was interested in reading this solid scientific work.
Kind regards
Author Response
The requested answers and adjustments are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTwo Lactobacillus strains, Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus paracasei, were used to produce fermented sheep salami. The authors evaluated the nutritional quality and bacterial counts of the fermented products. Several spelling errors are found. The manuscript should be carefully checked for correctness.
The following suggestions are offered for revision.
1. UFC should be corrected to CFU in the manuscript.
2. For example, In line 136, 4 “e” 8. Several spelling errors should be carefully checked in the manuscript.
Line 17~18:
“except for the humidity analysis and water and carbohydrate activity, which had non-standard values”
However, there is a Legislation standard of humidity and water activity in Table 6.
Line 18:
What is carbohydrate activity?
Line 21:
107 UFC/mL should be corrected to 107 CFU/g.
Line 43:
5These
Line 84:
What are the sources of Lactobacillus strains?
Line 96: (Table 1)
1. What is composition of healing salts?
2. What is Papper or pepper?
3. What is the antioxidant used in the test?
4. What is composition of starter culture?
5. Which Lactobacillus strains were used in the test? The authors should provide detailed descriptions in the manuscripts.
6. The Lactobacillus strains used in the test are 0.05%. What are the cell number of the strains? As shown in Line 166, the numbers of viable cells are of 107 CFU/mL (for L. paracasei) and 106 CFU/mL (for L. casei). Please check the correctness.
Line 103:
What is B.O.D. incubator? The full name shall be described.
Line 106:
Why are thirty days? It should be 28 days (7 days + 21 days).
Figure 1
“Storage at 4°C for 90 days.” It should be 84 days.
Line 117~124: Section 2.2
The authors describe the methods of microbiological analyses; however, the reference cited is in Português. The authors should include a description of the methods within the manuscript.
Line 125~133: Section 2.3
Similar to section 2.2, the authors should include a description of the methods within the manuscript.
Line 132:
“0 time and 84 time” should be corrected to “0 day and 84 days”
Line 137:
“0,300g”. The authors should be carefully checked for correctness.
Line 144:
Sacarose should be corrected to sucrose. What is the concentration of sucrose used in the test?
Line 195: Table 4
The data shown in table 4 is same in the Table 3.
Please check the correctness.
Line 206:
“positive Staphylococcus coagulase” should be corrected to “coagulase-positive staphylococci”.
Line 224:
Physical “and” Physicochemical
Line 246:
water activity (Aw)
Line 263:
“The final pH for processed meat can vary between 4.6 and 5.5.”
The data present in the manuscripts (Fig 2 and Table 2) do not support the statement.
Line 277~278:
What is BAL? The full name of BAL shall be described.
Line 284:
“107 e 109 UFC/mL” Please check the correctness.
Line 290:
“After maturation, a decrease in pH values is observed.”
However, in figure 2, all the pH values were increased in three groups. Please check the correctness.
Line 303:
“E. coli e S. aureus”. Please check the correctness.
Line 370:
S2 assay (containing Lactobacillus casei). Please check the correctness.
Line 383:
“3.56 kgf e 5.38 kgf” Please check the correctness.
Line 457~508: section 4.6
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 477
“1015 e 1013” Please check the correctness.
Line 481
“1.82 x 107 e 6.8 x 107” Please check the correctness.
Line 520:
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 540~627:
Several references shall be provided in the English version. For example, reference 9, 14, 16, 26, 35.
Line 575:
Watwater should be corrected to wastewater.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors responded well, but some errors were still found.
The following suggestions are offered for revision.
Line 21:
UFC/mL should be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 226:
Physical “and” Physicochemical
Line 286:
“values higher than 108 CFU/mL”
However, in the S2 and S3 groups at 84 days, the lactic acid bacterial count was lower than 108 CFU/g. Please check the correctness.
Line 284~287:
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 307~311:
What is the F factor? The authors should describe it in the manuscript.
Line 489:
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 497~511:
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Line 570:
UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
no
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer X Comments |
||
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
||
|
1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The authors responded well, but some errors were still found. The following suggestions are offered for revision. Line 21: UFC/mL should be corrected to CFU/g. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. All of these items erroneously described in the text have been corrected. |
||
|
Comments 2: Line 226: Physical “and” Physicochemical |
||
|
Response 2: Agree. We changed the text. |
||
|
Comments 3: Line 286: “values higher than 108 CFU/mL” However, in the S2 and S3 groups at 84 days, the lactic acid bacterial count was lower than 108 CFU/g. Please check the correctness. |
||
|
Response 3: Correct. In fact, in all values ​​of groups S2 and S3 at 84 days, the lactic acid bacteria count was greater than 107 CFU/g. Then we changed the text from 108 CFU/g to 107 CFU/g and that would be correct. |
||
|
Comments 4: Line 284~287:UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g. |
||
|
Response 4: Agree. We changed the text. |
||
|
Comments 5: Line 307~311: What is the F factor? The authors should describe it in the manuscript. |
||
|
Response 5: F is the variation between sample means/variation within samples. Let's write this in the text. |
||
|
Comments 6: Line 489: UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g. |
||
|
Response 6: Corrected. |
||
|
Comments 7: Line 497~511: UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g. |
||
|
Response 7: Corrected. |
||
|
Comments 8: Line 570: UFC/ml shall be corrected to CFU/g. |
||
|
Response 8: Corrected. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
