Got Whey? Sustainability Endpoints for the Dairy Industry through Resource Biorecovery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written review focusing on new technologies and moving away from traditional methods of harnessing whey.

Check if the protein and lactose contents informed on line 59 are correct.

The correlation in the text between the impacts caused by covid-19 and the production and disposal of milk is very good. Emphasis on the negative impacts caused to the environment and the ecosystem.

I suggest separating and creating two topics, separating future perspectives and conclusion. They are different foci, as the authors place a figure on this theme, not fitting well into a conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on the review. We appreciate your positive our review.

Regarding your suggestion to check the accuracy of the protein and lactose contents mentioned on line 59, we had reviewed it and we added a range for it.

Your suggestion to separate the future perspectives and conclusion into distinct sections was well-received. We agreed that these are different foci, and separating them into conclusions and future perspectives enhanced the clarity and organization of the article. 

Your feedback was instrumental in improving the quality and readability of our review, and we sincerely appreciate your input.

Reviewer 2 Report

Moderate editing of English language required

 

This manuscript designs a closed-loop biorefinery strategy to assess whey resources while mitigating environmental impacts. This promotes the use of whey, a dairy residue, to further conserve resources.

Some questions here need to be interpreted:

Point 1: It is suggested that the title be revised to make it clearer and more concise.

Point 2: Line-46 Background on this section could be supplemented and focus on what causes the large whey surplus and how it is applied. The study is not well justified and is recommended for refinement.

Point 3: Please revise the headline (Chapter 2); it does not summarize what you've written very well. And check the headlines of each chapter.

Point 4: Is there a need for a detailed description of the evolutionary history of milk processing in Part 2.1?

Point 5: 2.1 The content of the introduction is too scattered, it is suggested to fasten the theme, highlight the key points and shorten the length.

Point 6: 2.2 The use of whey can be divided into points to introduce the use of whey in detail, comprehensive expansion, so that readers can better understand the value of the application of whey.

Point 7: Page 3, line 241 You describe the resulting effects of whey acidification and degradation, but how did whey contribute to such effects? This needs more background information.

Point 8: It is recommended that the content of Part 3.3 be deleted and more literature be consulted and replaced with content related to the environmental impact and management of cheese whey residues.

Point 9: Is it possible to enumerate the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in whey in line 427?

Point 10: The title of 4.1 is not appropriate, and it is recommended to modify it, or add a concise process roadmap.

Point 11: 4.1 The technical process used for the recovery of whey needs to be increased in the technical process-related content; write more technical content so that readers have a general understanding of the process.

Point 12: In lines 516-517, it is written that the study of whey in biogas digesters, but does not elaborate on whey whether it is beneficial for their co-digestion, please clarify further.

Point 13: In lines 557-568, please further explain whether heterotrophic microalgae can utilize the nutrients in whey.  

Point 14: Anaerobic fermentation of whey is not detailed enough, and the content of acidification fermentation is too long.

Point 15: In lines 621-622, please further elaborate on the feasibility of whey suitability for this scheme.

Point 16: Please highlight the focus of the article, "Closed-loop biorefinery strategy", and the implications.

Point 17: Conclusion and future outlook section: it is recommended to have a comprehensive outlook on the future utilization of whey and add relevant outlook content.

Point 18: Lack of depth in the overall content of the article; please check each chapter! For example, can the importance of cheese and the benefits of cheese whey in Chapter 2 only come from these two sources?

Point 19: Please revise the conclusion by repeating too much from the previous and minimizing the sentences. And add the future perspectives on cheese whey.

Point 20: The references in the article are too old and not well referenced; it is recommended that five or six articles from the last three years be added.

Point 21: Your introduction contains all the important information. However, the logic is unclear, unorganized, and too general; please revise and streamline your language.

Point 22: The formatting of the references in the text and at the end of the article is not consistent with FOODS Magazine; please make corrections.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Here are our responses to each of your points:

1. Point 1: We revised the title making it clearer and more concise while accurately reflecting the content of the article.

2. Point 2: We will supplement the background in Section 2.1 to provide more information on the causes of the large whey surplus and its applications, ensuring better justification for the study.

3. Point 3: We  revised the chapter headlines to ensure they accurately summarized the content of each section.

4. Point 4: We reconsidered the level of detail provided in the evolutionary history of milk processing and made adjustments accordingly in Part 2.1.

5. Point 5: We streamlined the introduction in Part 2.1, emphasizing key points and focusing the theme while reducing its length.

6. Point 6: We divided and expanded the content related to the use of whey, providing a more comprehensive overview of its applications.

7. Point 7: We provided additional background information explaining how whey contributes to acidification and degradation effects, addressing this in more detail.

8. Point 8: We removed Part 3.3 and discussed the environmental impact and management of cheese whey residues.

9. Point 9: We included information on the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in whey in line 427.

10. Point 10: We modified the title of section 4.1 

11. Point 11: We  changed the table's technical content related to the recovery of whey, providing a better understanding of the processes.

12. Point 12: We clarified the benefits of whey for co-digestion in biogas digesters in lines 516-517.

13. Point 13: We explained how mixotrophic microalgae can utilize the nutrients in whey in lines 557-568.

14. Point 14: We provided more detailed information on anaerobic digestion of whey.

15. Point 15: We elaborated on the feasibility of whey suitability for the proposed scheme in lines 621-622.

16. Point 16: We attempted to highlight the focus of the article, "Closed-loop biorefinery strategy," and its implications throughout the manuscript.

17. Point 17: We provided a comprehensive outlook on the future utilization of whey and add relevant content to the conclusion and future outlook section.

18. Point 18: We reviewed each chapter to ensure depth and added more sources for the importance of cheese and the benefits of cheese whey.

19. Point 19: We revised the conclusion to avoid repetition, minimized sentences, and included future perspectives on cheese whey.

20. Point 20: We updated and improved the references, adding recent articles from the last three years.

21. Point 21: We revised the introduction to improve its organization, clarity, and focus.

22. Point 22: We ensured consistent formatting of references in both the text and at the end of the article, following FERMENTATION Magazine guidelines.

We greatly appreciate your feedback, which will help us enhance the quality and readability of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The study faced a multi-disciplinary exploration of cheese whey. It touches upon its role in dairying, its environmental impacts, its relation to energy, and its potential for resource biorecovery.

The review addresses an intriguing topic, and it is evident that the authors have thoroughly studied the legislative background, which I consider to be of great importance. However, several aspects require improvement before the publication can be assessed:

• Firstly, the objective of the review needs to be clearly defined. There are numerous subjects covered, making it challenging to follow at certain points.
• The scientific soundness of the review is low. More critical thinking and specific insights should be given.
• Many reviews on cheese whey utilization have been published in the last 5 years, the authors should state the originality and/or novelty of this paper.
• Given the breadth of topics, many are merely mentioned without in-depth exploration. For instance, the historical section should be significantly summarized, with greater emphasis placed on bioprocesses and microalgal cultivation.
• The tables need to be reformatted as they are not appropriately structured.
• Table 1 is insightful, but it should specify the content of each law to provide clearer insights.
• Insufficient attention has been given to microalgae and bioprocesses. An innovative trend worth noting is the use of cheese whey as a substrate for the growth of novel biomasses. In the attached file, I have provided additional suggestions and corrections.
• Generally, the cited references are not very recent, with some dating back 30 years. A review should primarily reference more contemporary studies
• The references are not formatted with the journal style.

With all these corrections i think that the review would be useful for readers.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate English revision.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions. We appreciate your thoughtful review of our study. Here are our responses to each of your points:

1. Objective of the Review: We will work on clearly defining the objective of the review to provide a more focused and coherent narrative.

2. Scientific Soundness: We aimed to improve the scientific rigor of the review by incorporating more critical thinking and specific insights throughout the manuscript.

3. Originality/Novelty: We will explicitly state the originality and/or novelty of our paper in the introduction, highlighting how it differs from other reviews on cheese whey utilization.

4. In-depth Exploration: We addressed the need for in-depth exploration of the topics covered, including the historical section, bioprocesses, and microalgal cultivation, providing more comprehensive insights.

5. Table Formatting: We reformatted the tables to improve their structure and clarity.

6. Table 1: We specified the content of each law in Table 1 to provide clearer insights.

7. Microalgae and Bioprocesses: We added more references regarding microalgal bioprocesses.

8. References: We updated the references to include more contemporary studies and ensure they are formatted according to the journal's style.

We genuinely appreciate your feedback, which helped us enhance the quality and relevance of our review for readers. Your suggestions are valuable, and we tried our best to address each of them in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Add some references from the last five years.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for your input. More references from the last 5 years were added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the review has been improved, there are just some minor modifications that i would suggest.

The future perspective section should be placed before the conclusion. In the conclusion and future perspectives avoid redundant sentences.

Line 605 should be fixed. There are some comments in the manuscript (see Line 723).

Check for typos all along the manuscript.

Some sentences should be improved for clarity.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback, and I appreciate your suggestions for improving the review. I have made the necessary adjustments as follows:

1. I moved the future perspective section before the conclusion for better structure.

2. I thoroughly reviewed the conclusion and future perspectives sections to eliminate any redundant sentences.

3. I conducted a careful proofreading to catch and correct any typos throughout the entire manuscript.

However, I would like to ask for some clarification on the following point:

"Line 605 should be fixed. There are some comments in the manuscript (see Line 723)."

I checked the first manuscript submitted (the one you have kindly made some notes and corrections on it) and line 723 refers to  Acknowledgements and Funding. Line 605  "The prevention of eutrophication usually goes via the biological or chemical removal of phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater (Lee et al., 2014)."  does not have any comments in the manuscript for corrections.

In the corrected manuscript, lines 721-723 "Hence, they are able to grow using the carbon dioxide using photosynthesis as well as an organic carbon source (e.g., cheese whey and its derivatives) [37,38,188]." have been corrected and the suggested references included. 

I have exemplified what the derivatives were for more clarity. 

Line 605 refers to  "... hydraulic retention time, and employing different microbial consortia to enhance resilience during parameter’s fluctuations  [137]."

The only note on that line refers to the year of the publication cited, which has been updated. Could you please tell if there are any additional corrections to be made?

Thank you again for your valuable input.