Continuous and Intermittent Drying of Rough Rice: Effects on Process Effective Time and Effective Mass Diffusivity
, Josivanda Palmeira Gomes 1, Alexandre José de Melo Queiroz 1, Rossana Maria Feitosa de Figueirêdo 1, Bruno Adelino de Melo 1, Ângela Maria Santiago 2, Antônio Gilson Barbosa de Lima 1 and Antonio Daniel Buriti de Macedo 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents interesting data, but it should be improved. Below, the authors can find some suggestions
Line 31: Incorrect citation; The reference 2 is not about the influence of moisture content on quality of the product during its storage.
Lines 31-33: Because of this, several techniques are used to reduce the waste of grains and increase their shelf life. Among these techniques, drying is one of the oldest, most simple and most widely used methods in food preservation.
Line 33: Incorrect citation. Authors should review all citations. It seems that the authors cite articles where a certain statement appears in the introduction, instead of mentioning who first stated it or, at least, who stated it based on experimental results obtained.
Line 73-81: The explanation of treatments is confusing. A scheme / diagram would help to understand what was done in the different treatments.
Line 125: “initial moisture content of the grains was relatively low”. The value in line 151 should be hear also. The value 27, 5 % is not considered low.
Line 188: In Figure 3, wouldn't it be better to merge the two graphs into one, to make it easier to compare the two lines (two temperatures)?
Line 195: Same as for Figure 3.
Intermittent drying allows saving effective drying time, but it would be important to have the effect of this drying option on the total drying time. On the one hand, intermittent drying can lead to a longer occupancy of drying facilities. Although energy savings are important, sometimes the occupation of drying facilities is a limiting factor that cannot be prolonged, as this would mean that not all production can be dried. On the other hand, keeping grains with relatively high humidity and temperature during tempering periods can lead to the development of fungi.
There is also the fact that a mass of grains can behave quite differently from a small sample, such as that used in the tests.
These aspects should be addressed in the article.
Author Response
The article presents interesting data, but it should be improved. Below, the authors can find some suggestions
Line 31: Incorrect citation; The reference 2 is not about the influence of moisture content on quality of the product during its storage.
Answer: The reference [2] is the following: Cihan, A., Kahveci, K., Hacıhafızoglu, O. 2007. Modelling of intermittent drying of thin layer rough rice. Journal of Food Engineering 79(1), 293–298.
The introduction of this article cited by us (Ref. [2]) begins with the phrase: “Moisture content is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of rough rice during storage and it is at a high level at the time of the harvest and must be reduced to nearly 14% (d.b.) with an appropriate drying process.”…
Thus, we kindly ask reviewer #1 to keep the reference as it is in our text (lines 32-34), as it is a practically literal quote from the original text given in the reference [2].
Lines 31-33: Because of this, several techniques are used to reduce the waste of grains and increase their shelf life. Among these techniques, drying is one of the oldest, most simple and most widely used methods in food preservation.
Answer: We have modified our text as indicated in lines 34-35 of the current version.
Line 33: Incorrect citation. Authors should review all citations. It seems that the authors cite articles where a certain statement appears in the introduction, instead of mentioning who first stated it or, at least, who stated it based on experimental results obtained.
Answer: We are talking in drying as a method in food preservation. All the references [3-7] use this method (drying) with this objective (food preservation). For the knowledge of Reviewer #1, references 3, 4 and 7, which were published in Journal of Food Engineering (Refs. 3 and 4) and Heat and Mass Transfer (Ref. 7), are authored by the corresponding author of this article.
Line 73-81: The explanation of treatments is confusing. A scheme / diagram would help to understand what was done in the different treatments.
Answer: We have added a new text in lines 97-99, complementing the original text.
Line 125: “initial moisture content of the grains was relatively low”. The value in line 151 should be hear also. The value 27, 5 % is not considered low.
Answer: we have modified the phrase. Please, see lines 142-144.
Line 188: In Figure 3, wouldn't it be better to merge the two graphs into one, to make it easier to compare the two lines (two temperatures)?
Answer: A reader who wants to digitize the experimental points from figure will find it easier if each graph is shown independently; so, we kindly ask referee #1 to keep the graphs as they are. However, we provide three superimposed graphs for each temperature in Figure 5, which shows the effect of intermittency with respect to continuous drying, that is the central objective of this article.
Line 195: Same as for Figure 3.
Answer: Please see the previous answer.
Intermittent drying allows saving effective drying time, but it would be important to have the effect of this drying option on the total drying time. On the one hand, intermittent drying can lead to a longer occupancy of drying facilities. Although energy savings are important, sometimes the occupation of drying facilities is a limiting factor that cannot be prolonged, as this would mean that not all production can be dried. On the other hand, keeping grains with relatively high humidity and temperature during tempering periods can lead to the development of fungi.
There is also the fact that a mass of grains can behave quite differently from a small sample, such as that used in the tests.
These aspects should be addressed in the article.
Answer: We have added a text in lines 336-342. Thank you very much.
Note: Besides the alterations explicitly mentioned in this report for Reviewer #1, other modifications have been made (in red) based on comments and suggestions of other two reviewers. We believe the article is better now than in its old version, but if the reviewer #1 think that new modifications are still necessary, we are ready to make them.
Sincerely,
Wilton P. Silva
Reviewer 2 Report
In the submitted manuscript to review entitled "Continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice: Effects on process effective time and effective mass diffusivity”, the authors try to investigate the effect of continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice at two different temperatures (50° and 70°C). Additionally authors try to describe the processes using empirical and diffusion models to evaluate the saving of effective processing time and energy during drying process.
The topic of the study is interesting and it fits into trends in science as well as in the manufacturing practice. The experiments appear to be well planned and results seem interesting; the ideas and methods are standard and the results solid; the results supported by literature contributions and a critical discussion is provides; overall, English language is acceptable.
In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication in the scientific journal Agriculture after minor revision:
- Describe in more detail the data analysis performed (number of variables, replicates, software) and provide the name of the software that was used. Add to all the parameters listed in Tables the associated standard deviations (where possible).
- The conclusions seem to be descriptive. Please rewrite it clearly stating the facts; focus more on how your research has contributed to knowledge gaps; describe research limitations for future research and restate your major findings.
It was a pleasure to read this manuscript and I wish the author of the best.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the submitted manuscript to review entitled "Continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice: Effects on process effective time and effective mass diffusivity”, the authors try to investigate the effect of continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice at two different temperatures (50° and 70°C). Additionally authors try to describe the processes using empirical and diffusion models to evaluate the saving of effective processing time and energy during drying process.
The topic of the study is interesting and it fits into trends in science as well as in the manufacturing practice. The experiments appear to be well planned and results seem interesting; the ideas and methods are standard and the results solid; the results supported by literature contributions and a critical discussion is provides; overall, English language is acceptable.
In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication in the scientific journal Agriculture after minorrevision:
- Describe in more detail the data analysis performed (number of variables, replicates, software) and provide the name of the software that was used. Add to all the parameters listed in Tables the associated standard deviations (where possible).
Answer: The requested information can be obtained on lines 82-83 (triplicate), 135-136 (LAB Fit Curve Fitting Software), 162-165 (Prescribed Adsorption – Desorption).
Parameters and their uncertainties for the chosen function to represent drying kinetics (Page’s Equation) are provided in lines 195-197, 212-214 and 223-225.
- The conclusions seem to be descriptive. Please rewrite it clearly stating the facts; focus more on how your research has contributed to knowledge gaps; describe research limitations for future research and restate your major findings.
Answer: In the Conclusion Section, we have now tried to maintain a style similar to other articles of this journal and, at the same time, we have also tried to follow reviewer #2's suggestion. Please, see lines 344-364.
It was a pleasure to read this manuscript and I wish the author of the best.
Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We wish the same for Reviewer #2.
Note: Besides the alterations explicitly mentioned in this report for Reviewer #2, other modifications have been made (in red) based on comments and suggestions of other two reviewers. We believe the article is better now than in its old version, but if the reviewer #2 think that new modifications are still necessary, we are ready to make them.
Sincerely,
Wilton P. Silva
Reviewer 3 Report
Many plant materials require drying. This is one of the oldest food preservation techniques and, assuming the use of appropriate parameters, the safest from the point of view of consumer health safety. However, this technique leads to considerable consumption of electricity, which represents a significant cost for any food processing enterprise. In this context, the research carried out by the authors is important not only from the scientific standpoint but above all, from the point of view of practice. The results of the research are presented to the reader in a transparent manner, not raising objections to the achievement of the research goal set by the authors. They were illustrated both numerically in tables and in diagrams using appropriate statistical methods. However, I have some suggestions for the authors.
· The authors conducted the experiment during a continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice grains (about 20 g, each experiment), at constant power, using a fixed-bed dryer with constant power, at temperatures of 50 and 70ºC. How does the choice of these parameters correspond to the research of other authors? Please perform a reliable literature survey and formulate a research gap based on them.
· The literature research carried out based on the 27(!) items is definitely insufficient for a literature review. High-quality journals require a more in-depth analysis of literature. Please correct this shortcoming.
· In the abstract, it is necessary to specify in detail the research methods used and to provide information on the period when the research was conducted.
· There is a lack of broader insights in the Conclusion section as to how this article can contribute to the theory and in particular to the practice in the economic context. What measurable savings do the authors see? This information is particularly important for entrepreneurs.
I hope that my suggestions for changes will encourage both scientists and representatives of food enterprises to read the article and cooperate with the Authors.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Many plant materials require drying. This is one of the oldest food preservation techniques and, assuming the use of appropriate parameters, the safest from the point of view of consumer health safety. However, this technique leads to considerable consumption of electricity, which represents a significant cost for any food processing enterprise. In this context, the research carried out by the authors is important not only from the scientific standpoint but above all, from the point of view of practice. The results of the research are presented to the reader in a transparent manner, not raising objections to the achievement of the research goal set by the authors. They were illustrated both numerically in tables and in diagrams using appropriate statistical methods. However, I have some suggestions for the authors.
- The authors conducted the experiment during a continuous and intermittent drying of rough rice grains (about 20 g, each experiment), at constant power, using a fixed-bed dryer with constant power, at temperatures of 50 and 70ºC. How does the choice of these parameters correspond to the research of other authors? Please perform a reliable literature survey and formulate a research gap based on them.
Answer: About the experimental conditions, our choices are based on the literature (see line 82). Now, we have improved Introduction Section, and the research gap is provided in lines 51-60. Thank you.
- The literature research carried out based on the 27(!) items is definitely insufficient for a literature review. High-quality journals require a more in-depth analysis of literature. Please correct this shortcoming.
Answer: We are not sure about the information provided by Reviewer # 3. If there was a minimum acceptable number, Reviewer # 3 could have said what that number is. Generally, the number of references is variable, being higher in review articles than in research articles, as is our article. So, we kindly ask Reviewer # 3 to keep only our 27 references. If the reviewer doesn't really agree, we can try to increase this number. Note that we strive to improve our article, in particular the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion.
- In the abstract, it is necessary to specify in detail the research methods used and to provide information on the period when the research was conducted.
Answer: We have improved Abstract Section. Please, see lines 15-20.
- There is a lack of broader insights in the Conclusion section as to how this article can contribute to the theory and in particular to the practice in the economic context. What measurable savings do the authors see? This information is particularly important for entrepreneurs.
Answer: Our study was in laboratory level, and now we have discussed this point in lines 336-342. On the other hand, we improved our Conclusion Section as it can be seen in lines 344-364.
I hope that my suggestions for changes will encourage both scientists and representatives of food enterprises to read the article and cooperate with the Authors.
Answer: we thank you for your suggestions.
Note: Besides the alterations explicitly mentioned in this report for Reviewer #3, other modifications have been made (in red) based on comments and suggestions of other two reviewers. We believe the article is better now than in its old version, but if the reviewer #3 think that new modifications are still necessary, we are ready to make them.
Sincerely,
Wilton P. Silva
