Flavor and Functional Analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum Fermented Apricot Juice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 40 explain how the microenvironment modulates.
Line 51 update technical terminology replace micro flora with microbiota.
Suggest mechanisms of action of the benefits of probiotics in foods, include intervention articles, with LAB doses (cfu/mL), days of intervention etc. Suggest making a comparative table with other authors.
Line 66 Update the name of L. plantarum and put reference.
Line 164 should be in italics L. plantarum.
In section 2.2 put each time in correspondence with each letter (S0, S2...).
In results 3.1, do linear regressions instead of mean analysis and obtain the velocities, Figure 1 is not understood, there is no explanation of what each color means.
Line 225 Errors in writing scientific names (italics letter).
In results 3.6, explain first 2A and then 2B. Explain the values compared with values of fresh fruit, the discussion is only about whether it has a positive or negative correlation and not in relation to other fruits or other fermentation processes, enrich with references.
The results 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, put them in a table including the standard deviation, they get lost among the discussions.
In Table 1, the units of the first line are missing. The data are wrong for each line, it is not understood.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to the Author
The manuscript entitled "Flavor and Functional Analysis of Lactobacillus plantarum Fermented Apricot Juice" investigates the effect of slight fermentation of small white apricot juice. The authors conclude that the fermentation of juice by Lactobacillus plantarum LP56 strain, improves its flavors and nutrient value. This work is of great interest as the described method may overcomes the seasonal limitation and storage difficulties and may increase consumer acceptance. A couple of minor concerns about this manuscript are stated below.
Minor concerns
· 1) in line 72 the word “sterilized” should be changed to “pasteurized”, as at 80 oC it is likely occurs pasteurization and not sterilization
· 2) In lines 168-172 where the authors analyzing the effect of fermentation by LP56 strain, the stated that the SSC decreases from 13.6 to 12.4 oBrix and the pH drops from 4.2 to 3.5. A closer look at Figure 1 it can be observed that these values are inconsistent with those in diagram. In Figure SSC range during fermentation is between 13.5 to 12.7 oBrix and pH values between 4.2 to 3.6. I believe that this inconsistency should be eliminated.
Author Response
- In line 72 the “sterilized” should be changed to “pasteeurized”, as at 80 ℃ it is likely occurs pasteurization and not sterilization.
Response 1: Thank you for your idea. We have corrected it as follows: The prepared apricot juice was pasteurized in a water bath (85 ℃) and inoculated with 2% (V/V) Lactobacillus plantarum LP56 inoculum.
- In lines 168-172 where the authors analyzing the effect of fermentation by LP56 strain, the stated that SSC decreases from 13.6 to 12.4 °Brix and the pH drops from 4.2 to 3.5. A closer look at Figure 1 it can be observed that these values are inconsistent with those in diagram 4.2 to 3.6. I believe that this inconsistency should be eliminated.
Response 2: We apologize for our inaccurate language expression. We have modified this part as follows: SSC, one of the key quality indices, showed a downward trend reducing from 13.5 (before fermentation) to 12.7 °Brix, with a decrease of 0.8 °Brix. The pH of fermented apricot juice varied from 3.6 to 4.2 during different stages of fermentation, indicating a minor change.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study describes the flavor and functional analysis of apricot juice fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum. There are many different studies which have described the fermentation of apricot and many other fruit juices with the lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. Authors have not described any novelty in this particular study. The manuscript can be improved and considered for publication after major revisions and answering the following comments.
1. What is the novelty in this study? Many previous studies have described the similar fermentation and flavor enhancement of fruit juices.
2. Line 40: by regulating the human intestinal microenvironment? it is irrelevant here
3. Line 61: Change to Apricot and Microbial Strain
4. Line 65: Why this particular strain was used?
5. Line 73. In which media the Lactobacillus plantarum was grown and how the inoculum was prepared. What was the lactobacillus count/ml of inoculums?
6. Line 77: Enumeration of total bacteria should be a separate heading as microbiological analysis. Why the authors did not count the total lactobacilli along with total bacteria. Since this juice is not a sterile product, other microbes present in juice may also have grown and resulted in increased total viable count. Enumeration of L. plantarum is more appropriate measure. Which media was used for the viable count?
7. Line 164: since the L. plantarum was not enumerated, how authors reached to this result? Authors should enumerate total viable count, Lactobacilli count and L. plantarum count to reach these conclusions
8. Figure 1. Change figure title as Physicochemical and microbiological chemical indicators…….. Viable counts and other bacteria counts should b given as Mean Log10 with S.D.
9. Line 190-191. Lactic acid is not final product of glycolysis here; it is end product of lactic acid fermentation by L. plantarum.
10. Line 196: Since the metabolism of L. plantarum do not enter into the citric acid cycle, increase in citric acid needs solid justification.
11. How the fermentation was stopped in samples collected after specific time? It is also useful to study the physicochemical and microbiological effect of this fermentation during storage, therefore authors should add storage data as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors should prepare and submit a separate file having annotated reply to each comment
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
