Physical Properties and Molecular Interactions Applied to Food Processing and Formulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present study entitled “Physical Properties and Thermodynamics - The Bedrock of Well-Designed Food Processing” is interesting and has meaningful information. However, focuses only few physicochemical properties. Author should improve some points.

Keywords should be shortened

Authors did not mention studies based on starch-protein interaction in section 4.4. only a general discussion has been described. Authors are suggested to add more studies especially from snacks foods.

I would strongly suggest to add the section of optimization of process through statistical tools such as design expert, PCA, RSM, other optimization techniques. How these can be helpful along with physicochemical properties.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is fine and readable.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

 The authors thank the Reviewer for the careful evaluation of the manuscript. All comments have been taken into account. Each one of them was answered and the modifications were highlighted in the text of the manuscript. The new version of the manuscript is stronger than the former one.

Please see the attachment in the box.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I was tasked to review the manuscript "Physical Properties and Thermodynamics - The Bedrock of Well-Designed Food Processing". This review is dedicated on physical properties of foods and their influence over the final product. I carefully read it and I have some relevant thoughts over its pubblication. I do not appreciated the structure since it is very dispersive and could get the reader confused. It is not clear if it focuses on analytical aspects or on the physical parameter, I find it very difficult to find important informations. I believe this structure is not the best, I think the authors should divide sections based on the type of food (vegetables, fruits, meat, drinks) and discuss them separately. Sections 1 and 2 should be merged and shortened to highlight only relevant informations. My feeling was to read a high-school book chapter rather than a review artilcle. there are few figures and their content is not an added value. A critical discussion by the authors (who are experts on the field) is missing. Some more specific comments are reported below:

Title: it should be changed since it focuses on physical properties even though the whole review is dedicated to their measurement.

Paragraph 2 is named Physical Properties even though it focuses most on the measurment of them. Please correct it.

Table 1. Please, add a couple more columns reporting matrix analysed and average measured values. Tables 1 and 2 should be merged to have a more concise manuscript.

Lines 283 - 292. These lines can be removed.

Paragraph 4.1. This section can be deleted, it does not provide any useful information.

My final opinion is to reconsider this review article after major revisions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank the Reviewer for the careful evaluation of the manuscript. All comments have been taken into account. Each one of them was answered here and the modifications were highlighted in the text of the manuscript. The new version of the manuscript is stronger than the former one.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further concerns.

paper is suitable for publication

Reviewer 2 Report

I received the revised form of the review "Physical Properties and Molecular Interactions Applied to Food 4 Processing and Formulation". The authors revised some parts of the manuscript improving its quality. Even though my principal doubts about the "high-school book chapter" style are still present, the authors clarified their view and I accept it. English is fine and from the scientific point of view the review is suitable to pubblication.

English is fine.