Gelatin-Based Nanocomposite Film with Bacterial Cellulose–MgO Nanoparticles and Its Application in Packaging of Preserved Eggs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the design of this study has merit, the manuscript is lacking polish. To be accepted for publication, this manuscript must undergo extensive proof-reading for proper English gramma and syntax and make appropriate citations when referring to ideas not belonging to the authors.
In addition, please also address the following:
- Introduce all acronyms before they appear in main text of manuscript (see "BC" in introduction)
- Ensure text in figures is readable and consistent. It is difficult to read Figures 1, 5, 6 and 7. Also, add readable scale bars to Figure 2 and 3
- Why wasn't rheology presented as mean +/- one standard deviation? Is the figure showing "representative" data, and if so indicate such in caption. Discussion of rheology should include statistical terminology. For example, "obvious difference..." is not the same as a detected statistical difference (line 184).
- Throughout manuscript there are citations missing on how chemistry (i.e. bonding) may play a role in the data interpretation done in this work. For example, line 210, 247-251 (there are many others throughout text as well). Note that this manuscript does not prevent any proof of such chemistry insofar as having FTIR, NMR for eg shown, then proper references citing this as a possibility must be included.
- Provide references on methodology-related knowledge. For example, particle size impact on film mechanical properties and zeta potential analysis relevance (lines 215-217), and water contact angle meaning (line 264).
- Provide pictures to show particle aggregation (line 220).
- Spacing is irregular in lines 354-359 compared to rest of text.
- Tables 4 and 5 require more explanation, or could be attached in supplementary file. As presented in the main body of the manuscript there is too much included in the table to clearly indicate what is of interest (and significance).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for a very interesting paper.
Please consider my comments below:
Abstract
Not clear if BC and MgO were used independently or in combination.
English language needs improvement. The phrase ‘films added with’ is wrong. Please amend throughout the document.
Materials and Methods
Section 2.2.1
Please try and rewrite the way solution concentrations are presented, using more conventional means (concentration and volume)
Section 2.2.2
Why was sonication done? Has similar work been done without sonication? What was the difference and reasons for employing such a treatment?
Section 2.2.3.1
How was evaporation of the sample prevented during the test? 1mm gap is quite big, therefore there will be a lot of sample exposed to dehydration…
Section 2.2.5.1
Line 130: You mention ‘Elastic preserved eggs’ what does that mean???
Results
3.2.3 This section is not explained well and is quite vague. Please source additionalreferences intrying to explain the results.
Section3.3.2 Please fix the format with line spacing issues
Section 3.3.5
The statistics in Tables 4 and 5 are wrong, or I do not understand them.
Why is statistcs done in each column and not within the 4 lines (contrl, GF, GBF, GBMF) for each parameter (L,a, b). There is no point comparing, and identifying differnces in values between a and b for example. One idea is to have the table broken down to Table 4a (for L) 4b for (a) and 4c for (b) etc. Accordingly, the relevant discussion needs to change to reflect the new statistical differences identified.
References
Why are the references doubly numbered? Please fix.
Formatting is not consistent (eg Food Hydrocolloids is not abbreviated etc)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper tries to address an interesting topic with a smart solution characterized with common techniques from material science. The experiments are well performed and there is many data regarding the coating.
There are some formatting errors.
Abstract: it only presents the results without presenting the problem, the proposed solution and the methods. In my opinion, it should be completely reviewed.
Results: Figure 1, 5, 6, 7 - text size is too small
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript regards the use of edible coatings made of Gelatin-based nanocomposite film added with bacterial cellulose\MgO nanoparticles for prolonging the shelf-life of preserved eggs. it sounds very interesting to me also because it has been the first time that I heard bout preserved eggs.
Results:
Have the authors analysed the solubility in water and/or swelling degree of the films It shoud be made in the future if you want to continue this kand of approach.
What about the digestibility of these films? It is another point it should be sought.
Introduction:
The authors shoud be mention about the fact that the use of edible coatings is very important because they can be made of different wastes in line with circular economy principles. For example they can mention the following paper:
Giosafatto et al. (2018).Preparation and characterization of bioplastics from grass pea flour cast in the presence of microbial transglutaminase. Coatings 8, Article number 435
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
English syntax and grammar is still poor. It is difficult to tell from the revised manuscript what changes were made based on reviewer's comments (i.e. perhaps not all changes were highlighted?). As a result, the reviewer's concerns about presentation of rheological data and the data in Tables 4 and 5, for example, remain. Until the reviewer's comments are adequately addressed by the authors this reviewer is recommending that this article be rejected.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions, please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for highlighting all changes in most recent version and further clarification of the tabled data.
One small (quick) edit - please do not start sentences with "And" (e.g. see line 25 in abstract). These sentences (line 25 and any elsewhere in text) should be edited.
I will now recommend this article for minor revision.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions, please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
