An Evaluation of Pig Type Regarding the Quality of Xuanwei Ham

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research work presents interesting results with practical application. However, the abstract and the introduction section must be thoroughly revised in order to clarify them. I made several suggestions for corrections which can be seen on the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that the manuscript should be revised by a native english speaker.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments on the manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the relevant parts of the manuscript in relation to the suggestions answered below.

Comment 1: [Please rephrase the abstract for greater clarity]

Response 1: Sorry for not clearly addressing the abstract. We noticed that you marked to clearly address the summary question. We noticed that you tagged [electronic] and gave a brief introduction. In the revised manuscript, this change can be found - page 1, line 10.

 

Comment 2: [Delete marked sentence]

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have deleted the sentence "The essence value of Wujin pig ham is obvious and the value of Mingchang Changyi". This change can be found in the manuscript - page 1, line 16 .

 

Comment 3: [Consider using italics]

Response 3: Thank you very much. We apologize for the formatting error. We have reviewed the manuscript and apologize for the formatting errors. We apologize for the formatting error according to the reviewer. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 1, lines 21-22.

 

Comment 5: [References must be indicated by numbers in square brackets. See author notes.

Response 5: Thank you very much for pointing out the format of the references in our manuscript. We have corrected the citation format of the manuscript.

 

Comment 6: [The sentence is confusing, please rewrite it.

Response 6: Thank you very much for pointing out the sentence structure issue, we have rephrased the sentence to make it clearer. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 1, line 39.

 

Response 7: Thank you for your hard work. We apologize for this language error and the statement" has been corrected ". This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 1, line 42.

 

Comment 8: [Please revise and clarify the sentence]

Response 8: Thank you very much for pointing out the semantic confusion of the sentences in our manuscript, and we acknowledge that there are indeed unclear areas in our description. We have reorganized the relevant paragraphs to make the sentences clearer. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 2, lines 66-75.

 

Comment 9: [Please modify and improve the detailed information of the 17 amino acid mixture standard products]

Response 9: Based on the reviewer's comments. Details of the 17 mixed amino acid standards have been added to the manuscript. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 2, lines 88-91.

 

Note 10: [W P and Z must be defined in the legend of all figures.

Reply 10: Thanks for your valuable opinion, we have noted the meaning of W, P, and Z below the chart. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6.

 

Note 11: [45 ºC always separate numbers from ºC]

Reply 11: We apologize for this formatting error, which we have corrected based on the reviewer's comments. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 5, lines 185,191,193,200,203-207.

 

Comment 12: [were]

Response 12: We apologize for this language error and the statement "was" has been corrected to "were". This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 5, line 194.

 

Comment 13: [Needle activated in air inlet for 20 minutes at 250ºC]

Reply 13: Thank you very much for pointing out the sentence structure and grammatical issues, the statement "The needle is activated at the air inlet for 20 minutes" was corrected to "The needle is activated at the air inlet for 20 minutes at 250 ºC". This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 5, lines 202-203.

 

Comment 14: [Missing??? information]

Reply 14: Thank you for your hard work. We apologize for our negligence. The company information is missing here and has been added. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 6, line 210.

 

Comment 15: [Please explain how the taste activity value is obtained]

Reply 15: Thanks for pointing this out. We did not mention this in the manuscript, and we modified it in the paper to add details on the definition of TAV and provide a calculation formula. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 7, line 261.

 

Comment 16: [Amino Acids]

Response 16: We apologize for this language error and the statement "thing" was corrected to "amino acid". This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 7, table 4, line 284.

 

Comment 17: [Please define OAV and explain how to measure it]

Response 17: Thanks for pointing out this issue, we have revised the paper to detail the definition of OAV and provide a calculation formula. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 9, lines 309-311.

 

Comment 18: [Why “the benzaldehyde content of Wujin pig ham is significantly higher than any other ham type, indicating that its amino acid content is significantly higher than any other ham type”?

Response 18: Based on the reviewer's comment, my interpretation of this sentence is as follows. We mentioned before that the degradation of amino acids is one of the reactions that affects the generation of aldehydes. When the aldehyde content is high, there are more amino acids involved in aldehyde degradation, which is consistent with the highest amino acid content of the 3.2 types of Wujin pig hams. This change can be found in the revised manuscript - page 9, 3.4. Volatile flavor compounds of raw ham.

 

Comment 19: [Are smell and taste different perceptions? Yo means: most smells are weak, and most have no taste]

Response 19:Thank you for your valuable comment, the original intention was to express that "most of their odors are weak or even non-existent", which is not related to taste. We made a mistake in our expression and made a correction in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 9, line 344.

 

Comment 20: [what you mean by processed by ouzo?]

Response 20:Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are sorry for this language mistake.The statements of “processed by ouzo” were corrected as “Wujin pig ham”. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 9, line 348.

 

Comment 21: [N-Octanol]

Response 21:We are sorry for this language mistake, the statements of “N-OCTANOL” were corrected as “N-Octanol”. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 11,Table 5.

 

Comment 22: [Define UGP]

Response 22: Thank you for your careful work. We are sorry for this language mistake. the statements of “Alpha diversity of hams processed by the UGP” were corrected as “Alpha diversity of Wujin pig ham”. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 12, line 358.

 

Comment 23: [Define OTU]

Response 23:Thank you for pointing out this issue. We did not mention this point in the paper., we have made revisions to the paper and provided corresponding explanations. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 12, line 369-376.

 

Comment 24: [Fig. repeated]

Response 24:Thank you for your careful work. We are very sorry for our negligence, we have replaced the duplicate images in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 13, 3.5.3.1.Relative abundance of phyla and genera.

 

Comment 25: [P < 0.05]

Response 25:We are sorry for this mistake. The statements of “P&& lt;0.05” were corrected as “P < 0.05”. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - line 447,463.

 

Comment 26: [Some sentences in the discussion repeat information present in the introduction.]

Response 26:Thanks to Reviewer for reminder, we have made modifications to the entire discussion section to make it more complete. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 18, line 498-500.

 

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.

 

Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Best regards,

Yiling Wen

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Dear Editor,

The work is very interesting. However, it has shortcomings which, if corrected, can be published.

I have some questions/suggestions:

 

 

2.3.3., 2.3.4. please add details

please give information to all methods about replication and about equipment, in some point You have informations, and for example in point 2.3.5. You haven't

line 177 - the highest

line 187 - without "="

line 185-192 - this is probably, and You can next tie make the measurement of myoglobin, this is very important informations for researchers (authors), in this place this is a discussion because You cited another authors, please give this informations to discussion

line 247 - please correct the annotation, and in all text

3.5.1. - please give the information for example what was the highest, the lowest, and give a statistical letter

3.5.3.2. I think that the figures are not described at all or very poorly, it is important to add a good description

line 341 - what is this "(P&& lt;0.05);"

line 356 - what is this "(P&lt;0.05)"

Discussion - I think the discussion is too weak. The authors attributed several works, e.g. when it comes to amino acids in ham, it can be compared to another one if there is no research on it. The discussion does not outline what is already in the literature. It needs to be improved.

I believe that the conclusions should be more developed considering the amount of research at work.

 

 

 

Good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

 

Comment 1:[2.3.3., 2.3.4. please add details:please give information to all methods about replication and about equipment, in some point You have informations, and for example in point 2.3.5. You haven't]

Response 1: We are sorry for not addressing the information on relevant methods and equipment clearly.We have added the details. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 3-4, 2.3.3., 2.3.4., 2.3.5.

 

Comment 2: [line 177 - the highest; line 187 - without "="]

Response 2: Thank you very much. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - line 224, the statements of “were highest” were corrected as “the highest”; line 234, “=”was deleted. 

 

Comment 3:[line 185-192 - this is probably, and You can next tie make the measurement of myoglobin, this is very important informations for researchers (authors), in this place this is a discussion because You cited another authors, please give this informations to discussion]

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. Your suggestion of "make the measurement of myoglobin" is very meaningful for our research, and we will continue to focus on this issue in our future work. However, unfortunately, we are unable to supplement a separate test for myoglobin in the short term. The reason is as follows:

 

The ham raw materials used in this research institute have been fermented for 12 months. As of today, the ham raw materials have been fermented for 21 months. If a new experimental group is carried out, the consistency of the raw materials cannot be guaranteed. If the raw materials used in the myoglobin experimental group are not from the same batch as those used in the previous experimental group, the experimental results are not comparable.

line232-239, The aim is to discuss the factors that may affect the color of ham meat, which may be caused by differences in the content of myoglobin in the samples. We have added three relevant references in this revision to support the impact of myoglobin on meat color, providing a basis for the discussion of the results.

 

Thank you again for your valuable comments! We will conduct targeted research based on the ideas you provide in our subsequent work.

 

Comment 4:[line 247 - please correct the annotation, and in all text]

Response 4:We deeply apologize for not understanding your comment. If you are referring to the annotations of W.P.Z.,we indicate the meaning of W, P, Z below the figures and tables in all text.

 

Comment 5:[3.5.1. - please give the information for example what was the highest, the lowest, and give a statistical letter]

Response 5: Thank you very much, according to your comment we have added information about the lowest alpha. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 12, 3.5.1, line 351-362. The statistical letter will be uploaded as an attachment, please check it. 

 

Comment 6:[3.5.3.2. I think that the figures are not described at all or very poorly, it is important to add a good description]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out this issue., we have made modifications to the description of this section and provided corresponding explanations for several concepts. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 14, 3.5.3.2, line 412-432.

 

Comment 7:[line 341 - what is this "(P&& lt;0.05);" line 356 - what is this "(P<0.05)"]

Response 7: Thank you for pointing out this issue, we are sorry for this mistake.the statements of “P&& lt;0.05, P<0.05” were corrected as “P < 0.05”. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 15, line 447,463.

 

Comment 8:[Discussion - I think the discussion is too weak. The authors attributed several works, e.g. when it comes to amino acids in ham, it can be compared to another one if there is no research on it. The discussion does not outline what is already in the literature. It needs to be improved.]

Response 8: Thank you for conducting an in-depth review of our discussion, as you suggested that the can be compared to another one and overview of content in literature. We really agree with your viewpoints. we have reorganized the relevant paragraphs to make the discussion section clearer and more understandable. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 18. 

 

Comment 9:[The conclusions should be more developed considering the amount of research at work.]

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. Based on the research workload, we have supplemented the incomplete conclusions. In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 18-19, Conclusions, line 543-555. 

 

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.

 

Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Best regards,

Yiling Wen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript still needs some minor corrections. It can now be accepted if the corrections are introduced during proofs revision. Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

 

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

 

Comment 1: [characteristics of equipment (describe equipment: brand, supplier etc)]

Response 1: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the model and supplier information of the colorimeter in section 2.2., In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 2, 2.2. Instruments and equipment, line 95-96.

 

Comment 2: [eliminate PX]

Response 2:Thank you very much. We are sorry for format errors, the statements of “Yang P X et al.” were corrected as “Yang et al.” In the revised manuscript this change can be found - page 6, line 242.

 

A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.

 

Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

 

Best regards,

Yiling Wen