Next Article in Journal
Application of Fuzzy Multi-Objective Programming to Regional Sewer System Planning
Previous Article in Journal
Can Direct Subsidies or Tax Incentives Improve the R&D Efficiency of the Manufacturing Industry in China?
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effects of the Sous Vide and Conventional Electric Oven Cooking Methods on the Physio-Sensory Quality Attributes of Arabian Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Meat

Processes 2023, 11(1), 182; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010182
by Ali I. Hobani 1,*, Moath B. Othman 1, Adil A. Fickak 1 and Gamaleldin M. Suliman 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Processes 2023, 11(1), 182; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010182
Submission received: 1 December 2022 / Revised: 30 December 2022 / Accepted: 1 January 2023 / Published: 6 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Process Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Manuscript Title: Effects of Sous vide and Conventional Electric-Oven Cooking Methods on Physio-Sensory Quality Attributes on Arabian Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Meat.

This paper investigated the effects of cooking temperature and cooking time in sous vide and electric-oven cooking methods on the physical and sensory characteristics of camel meat. Forty-eight combinations of temperatures (70, 80, 90, 100 ºC) and times (30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 min) in sous vide and electric oven were managed. The result should also contain 48 groups of data (like Figure 1).  The set of the temperature in each group should be considered to combine with cooking time in each cooking method. The data obtained from each combination of cooking time and temperature should be added to the manuscript to reflect the research completely. I cannot find the data in the supplementary material. Therefore, the findings of this study are not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript presents interesting data regarding the effect of temperature, time and methods of cooking on physical and sensory properties of camel meat. Prior to acceptance, some points should be aprimored in the manuscript. 

Table 2 - It is not clear how the authors obtained each value. What was the temperature and time for "Sous vide" and "Electric oven"? What were the methods applied for the "Cooking temperature" and "Cooking time" evaluation? Moreover, the authors could present this data as a graph to help the data visualization.

Table 2 - Same comments pointed for Table 1.

Conclusion - "using sous vide  method at 100°C for 180 minutes gave the best result for sensory properties." This information is not supported by sensory evaluation. The authors can not say that higher tenderness is a better result, as which is better depends on several conditions (consumer preference, for instance). In conclusion, the manuscript present a interesting result, however, the data interpretation must be better performed prior to acceptance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Manuscript Title: Effects of Sous vide and Conventional Electric-Oven Cooking Methods on Physio-Sensory Quality Attributes on Arabian Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Meat.

 

1. Line 225: Suggest to change “48.,17” to “48.17”.

2. Line 260: Suggest to change “the two cooking methods; sous vide and electric oven” to “the two cooking methods of sous vide and electric oven”.

3. Line 271: Suggest to change “figure 2” to “Figure 2”.

4. Line 273: Suggest to delete “is”.

5. Figures 1-4 have overlap. The format of the figures should be changed. Figures 5-6 have the same problem.

The annotations in the figures should be consistent, suggesting to change “E.oven” in figure 2 to “Elec.oven”.

6. Line 344 and 352: Suggest to change “Sous” to “sous”.

7. The annotations in the figure 8 and figure 10 are incorrect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The time and temperature factor combination can not reflect the research completely. Design Expert Programme can be used for combinetion of process parameters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 23: Replace the following words with some suitable words because they are already in the paper title

Camel meat

Sous vide

Electric Oven

Line 28: Please discuss the importance of camel meat for global prospects, not only for Saudi Arabia, because this Journal is an international Journal not specific to one country. To increase global readers need to relate its importance to food security issues.

 

Line 34: Please give a citation after the following sentence

Camel meat has many qualities and is very close to beef taste, with a great similarity between them in color and smell.

Line 36: Please give a citation after the following sentence

Camel meat differs from other types of meat in its tough nature, especially when produced from older animals, which is a common practice in Saudi Arabia. Thus, it needs a longer time to cook.

Line 61: Please write the name of muscle of shoulder cut used?

Line 61: What was the pH at the time of slaughtering and 24h postmortem????

Line 62: 6-7 months' age is too young for animals. Why you selected such young animals? What was the sex/gender of the animals? What were the live weight and hot carcass weight of the animals?

Line 114: Why was an instrumental colour not recorded for raw samples?

Note:  The main objective of this experiment was to improve the tenderness of the meat, keeping in view the consumer's demand. Why not instrumental tenderness and TPA recorded?

Discussion:

It must be improved by giving more references and citations of the previous related work on these techniques.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This paper invetiaged the effects of cooking time and cooking temperature of sous vide cooking on the physical and sensory quanlities of camel meat in comparison with the oven cooking method. Sous-vide cooking has long been a desirable method for cooking meat in the catering, and the temperautre chosen for this method are commonly below 70 degree, however, much higher temperatures were appliced in this study. More importantly, the effects of cooking time and temperature on the physical properties of different meat species have been extensively studied and the underlying explaniations are quite clear. Therefore, the findings of this study does not add much new knowledge or insight in this field.

 

Specific comments:

The conventiaonal oven method was also chosen to cook the meat, however, the highest cooking method was just 100 degree, which disagree with the actual situation since conventional oven method usually conducted at very high temperature, e.g,

1.      . Please give proper explanations.

2.      How many animals were used in this sutdy? And how to exclude the effects due to the differecnes in animals?

 P42, “uniform and consistent texture”

P101, “gm” to “g”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript titled “Effects of Sous vide and Conventional Electric-Oven Cooking Methods on Physio-Sensory Quality Attributes on Arabian Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Meat” was an interesting topic. However, there are some weaknesses in the Methods and in the Results and Discussion section that need to be addressed.

Specific comments:

Materials and Methods

2.3.1 Cooking loss

The unit of the weight in the sample is “gm”? what is the mean of “gm”?

2.3.5 Color values

Please include the light source, observer angle, and area of view. Please provide the location of the samples.

2.4 Sensory evaluation

Give details of sensory evaluation. Were the referees training enough? Perhaps the training carried out should be better explained. What are the reference materials of each sensory attribute? What is the score of each sensory attribute?  

Results and Discussion

The template of the cited references in the manuscript is not correct.

Table 1

Please use a footnote to identify “SD”.

Table 2 and Table 3

(1) When compared the effect of cooking methods on the properties of camel meat, what is the specific cooking parameters of the samples in sous vide method and electric oven?

(2) Forty-eight combinations of temperatures (70, 80, 90, 100 ºC) and times (30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 min) in sous vide and electric oven were managed. The result might also contain 48 groups of data (like Figure 1). How to get the data of the sample cooked at 70 °C? The set of the temperature in each group of samples should combine with cooking time and cooking method. Please provide all the data.

Line 177: Suggest altering to “had”.

3.4 Variations in Colors of cooked camel meat

The cited reference was not correct in the last sentence. Give details of the authors in the reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Selected parameter values did not reflect the experiment. Such wide values of the parameters design with a design expert. The program is not just a statistical program. It s combined with statistical and experimental design. So, the search is not enough to reflect the factors' effects.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the introduction section, please mention the total camel production of the world. Please enlist top three countries regarding camel production. 

Line 37: Reference is not suitable, please add any other latest reference here.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors has made corresponding revision to the specific comments. However, regarding the novelty and experimental design of this manuscript, little improvement has been made.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript can be publishable.

Back to TopTop