Application of Propolis Extract in Gelatin Coatings as Environmentally Friendly Method for Extending the Shelf Life of Pork Loin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached article with comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answer to the Reviewer 1

Authors would like to express thanks to the Reviewers of our paper for the valuable comments and specific remarks. Enclosed, please find explanation to them. All of them we read carefully and considered, as far as it was possible, in the correction of this paper. Manuscript has been improved according recommendations of all Reviewers. Also the English language has been checked by an expert throughout the text.

I am enclosing the answers in a separate file. 

 

Best regards,

In the name of the authors,

Monika Marcinkowska-Lesiak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this work was to the effect of gelatin coating incorporated with selected concentrations of propolis ethanolic extract (1%, 2% and 3%) in preserving the quality of pork stored in refrigerate conditions. In general, it is well written and the structure is suitable for the Coatings journal. In order to improve the overall manuscript, some suggestions must be considering.

 

Introduction

- Line 38: Did authors mean polylactide instead of polyactide? Revise it.

- Lines 47-48: Please add more and current references regarding the following sentence “To date, many types of edible coatings have been applied to the surface of meat to preserve its quality”. The reference number 9 is a review from 2009.

 

Materials and methods

- Line 90: Replace “90.77±1.71 %” by “90.77 ± 1.71%”

- Line 94: delete the dot after 30 min. The same in line 97. Revise in all the manuscript.

- Lines 112- 162: Authors must divide the Section 2.5. in subsections according to the described method or analytical technique.

 - Lines 154-162: Some information about the consumer tests must be added. For example, which kind of vehicle between samples was used? Temperature od samples used for tests?

- Line 156-157. Rewrite the sentence “All samples were run once in order to serve for randomization.” All panellists tasted all samples? Only one?

 

Results and Discussion

- Table 1: Add the symbol * before P<0.05 in the foot table.

- Lines 188-189: Could you explain the relation between the proteolytic changes in muscle proteins with the alkalization of the stored meat? What happens in the proteolysis process?

- lines 191-194: Describe the relation between the antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of propolis with the DPPH and TPC results obtained from the studied extract in section 2.2. Are these results in accordance with the bibliography? That´s mean: Values of 927.32±12.75 mg gallic acid 90equivalent/100 g and 90.77±1.71 % are in accordance with previous reported studies? For example, the reference 31 cited in line 193.

- Line 199: Replace “2 °C” by “2°C”. Revise this in all the manuscript.

- Lines 199-201: Rewrite the sentence “What is more gelatin coating alone and in combination with propolis extract had also significant (P<0.05) effect on values of  analyzed parameter during refrigerated storage”

- line 215: Replace “927.32±12.75” by “927.32 ± 12.75”. The same in line 262.

-  Section 3.3 Could add some image or figure of color results and the main differences between samples?

- line 236: Replace “90.77±1.71 %” by “90.77 ± 1.71%”. Revise this in all the manuscript.

- Line 236: Add references of “probably due to the antioxidant properties of used propolis extract”.

- Section 3.7. Could add some image or figure of samples?

 

Other remarks

It has been detected a high average of self-citations. In particular, references 12, 26, 32 and 33. It is necessary that authors explain reference by reference why it is interesting the citation and the contribution to the present manuscript.

Author Response

Answer to the Reviewer 2

Authors would like to express thanks to the Reviewers of our paper for the valuable comments and specific remarks. Enclosed, please find explanation to them. All of them we read carefully and considered, as far as it was possible, in the correction of this paper. Manuscript has been improved according recommendations of all Reviewers. Also the English language has been checked by an expert throughout the text.

I am enclosing the answers in a separate file. 

 

Best regards,

In the name of the authors,

Monika Marcinkowska-Lesiak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors provided a paper entitled “Application of Propolis Extract in Gelatin Coatings as Environmentally Friendly Method for Extending Shelf Life of Pork Loin”.

The paper has a high scientific soundness since it regards novel techniques to preserve food from degradation using edible surface treatment.

The use of English is quite good, while the bibliography is sufficient to support the information given in the introduction.

Here are some issues:

Line 31. Please, specify “migration” of these odors (molecules) from the inner to the external environment.

 

Line 44. maybe better “the high number/the large number of…”

 

Line 60. A reference could be added here.

 

Line 76. “Propolis was collected from the village in the Mazowieckie voivodship”. Was it collected by the authors, or it was donated/acquired from a farm in this village?

 

Line 77. Define the temperature of freezing.

 

Line 79. “m. longissimus thoracis et lumborum ». this should be reported in italique, as already performed in line 100.

 

Line 87. How did you measure the volume reduction during rotary evaporation running instrument?

 

Line 88. Define DPPH before using acronyms.

 

A list of acronyms and abbreviations could be added to this manuscript.

 

Line 90. “927.32±12.75 mg”. Did this come from an average?

 

Line 94 “30 min. to allow”. the point after “min” is not necessary.

 

Line 113. “recorded”. maybe better “measured”.

 

Line 117. “weight loss” should be directly followed by “(WL)”

 

Line 149. the double point after “min” is probably not necessary.

 

Line 247 “there were no significantly differences”. maybe better “no significant differences”

 

Line 251 “Moreno et al. [41] more yellow color”. there is a double space here after [41]

 

Line 255. I think that this sentence should be re-phrared, since it is not totally clear “Beginning from 4th day the greatest values of analyzed parameter were noted in the case of uncoated meat what means that their color was the least stable”. Especially, “what means” is not correct. Maybe it should be “that means/meaning/resulting in” or something similar.

 

Line 348. Define if 2% and 3% are on mass basis, even if it was declared before.

 

Figure 1. Define in the caption D0, D1, D2 and D3 on the vertexes of this figure.

 

Line 395. “propolis incorporation al level of 2-3%”. maybe it should be “at level”

 

Could it be possible to have visual images of the treated  not treated surfaces.

Author Response

Answer to the Reviewer 3

Authors would like to express thanks to the Reviewers of our paper for the valuable comments and specific remarks. Enclosed, please find explanation to them. All of them we read carefully and considered, as far as it was possible, in the correction of this paper. Manuscript has been improved according recommendations of all Reviewers. Also the English language has been checked by an expert throughout the text.

I am enclosing the answers in a separate file. 

 

Best regards,

In the name of the authors,

Monika Marcinkowska-Lesiak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I received a new version of the paper by authors.

The paper has improved much.

Authors responded point by point to my issues.

I only request the addition of the abbreviation list, since it helps a lot in reading articles.

Regarding the rest, the paper deserves to be published.

Thank you