Recent Developments in Seafood Packaging Technologies
and Cosmas I. Nathanailides 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 124 (EO) should be defined because the abbreviation is used in the manuscript
Line 139 ¿total volatile count? Check if this is correct. In the manuscript the TVC is used for referring to Total Plate Counts of mesophilic microorganisms
Line 140 SSO or SSB, if use SSB take into account that must be changed in the whole text.
Line 199 Listeria monocytogenes only for the first time in the text, the followings must be written like L. monocytogenes. This is valid for all the names of microorganisms in the manuscript
Line 244 “The product is usually packaged in a barrier material along with a mixture of gases, the composition of which depends on the product properties, the expected shelf life and the storage conditions” Although you refer to a barrier material the composition of gases during storage also depends on barrier properties of the package. In line 249 the authors refer to this.
Line 273 “Clostridium botulinum” change by C. botulinum
Line 532 The authors should refer to species, because all the genus species (example Listeria) are not pathogens
568 “1000 mbar (1 atm) to 100 millibar” change by “1000 mbar (1 atm) to 100 mbar”
648 TBARS should be defined
749-919 It is a large description of “Active packaging”, It should be summarized because it diverts the content of the review into active packaging. References should only be made to those active packaging developments with applications to fish and fishery products because the Tittle of the Review is “Recent developments in seafood packaging technologies”
Line 990 Eschershia change by Escherichia
Line 1013 -1014 when reference to malondialdehyde is made, should be noted that it is the same that TBARS
Line 1203 and 1205 “Clostridium botulinum” change by C. botulinum
Line 1361 Reference of the maximum limits recommended should be provided
Line 1591 St. aureus or S. aureus, check the manuscript and always write it in the same form (line 1551, 1555)
Line 1610 CO2 or CO2, always write it in the same form
Line 1838 References
- Scientific names in references must be in italic form
- Reference 198, check if it is correct
- There is only one 2020 reference, the most recent developments should be discussed. Example https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10020250
Author Response
Reviewer 1
comment
Line 124 (EO) should be defined because the abbreviation is used in the manuscript
Response
The term (EO) is not mentioned anywhere close to l.124. It was found for the first time on l.359 were it was abbreviated.
comment
Line 139, total volatile count? Check if this is correct. In the manuscript the TVC is used for referring to Total Plate Counts of mesophilic microorganisms
response
TVC stands for total viable count. See correction l. 153
comment
Line 140 SSO or SSB, if use SSB take into account that must be changed in the whole text.
response
SSO stands for specific spoilage organisms. See correction l.153-154
comment
Line 199 Listeria monocytogenes only for the first time in the text, the followings must be written like L. monocytogenes. This is valid for all the names of microorganisms in the manuscript
Response
Corrected. See l. 241
comment
Line 244 “The product is usually packaged in a barrier material along with a mixture of gases, the composition of which depends on the product properties, the expected shelf life and the storage conditions” Although you refer to a barrier material the composition of gases during storage also depends on barrier properties of the package. In line 249 the authors refer to this.
Response
Corrected. See l.288
comment
Line 273 “Clostridium botulinum” change by C. botulinum
Response
Corrected. See l.315
comment
Line 532 The authors should refer to species, because all the genus species (example Listeria) are not pathogens
Response
Corrected. See l.571
comment
568 “1000 mbar (1 atm) to 100 millibar” change by “1000 mbar (1 atm) to 100 mbar”
Response
Corrected. See l.606
comment
648 TBARS should be defined
Response
Done. See l.686
comment
749-919 It is a large description of “Active packaging”, It should be summarized because it diverts the content of the review into active packaging. References should only be made to those active packaging developments with applications to fish and fishery products because the Tittle of the Review is “Recent developments in seafood packaging technologies”
Response
We have made an effort to shorten the ‘active packaging’ section. However in this section we basically present the principle of each active packaging technology. In the following sections we refer to the application of these techniques to seafood packaging.
comment
Line 990 Eschershia change by Escherichia
Response
Done see l.1040
comment
Line 1013 -1014 when reference to malondialdehyde is made, should be noted that it is the same that TBARS
Response
Done. See l.1064
comment
Line 1203 and 1205 “Clostridium botulinum” change by C. botulinum
Response
Done. See l.1266, 1268.
comment
Line 1361 Reference of the maximum limits recommended should be provided
Response
ICMSF, 1986. Microorganisms in Foods 2. Sampling for Microbiological Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications (2nd ed.), University of Toronto Press, New York.
Directive 95/149/EC, 1995. Fixing the total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N)
limit values for certain categories of fishery products and specifying the
analysis methods to be used. Official Journal of the European
Communities.
Above references have been included in the text. See l.1424.
comment
Line 1591 St. aureus or S. aureus, check the manuscript and always write it in the same form (line 1551, 1555)
Response
Done. See l. 1617, 1619, 1623, 1651, 1659.
comment
Line 1610 CO2 or CO2, always write it in the same form
Response
Corrected. See l.1678.
Line 1838 References
comment
Scientific names in references must be in italic form
Response
Corrected. See changes in red color in reference list
comment
Reference 198, check if it is correct
Response
Reference checked and corrected. See ref. 218
comment
There is only one 2020 reference, the most recent developments should be discussed. Example https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10020250
Response
We have included the suggested ref. as well as some other very recent references in the revised text. See l.181-200, 206-212, 771-801, 1129-1143, 1432-1437.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review is dealing with the important food issue. My comments are the following:
- The abstract is written too broadly; the aim should be clearly defined in the abstract same as the conclusion.
- The review is not having the introduction part. It should be written,
- Table 1 is containing well known information; it should be deleted. It seems that it is added only to fill the manuscript.
- Line 128: the part MICROBIAL SPOILAGE should be rewritten since it is not dealing at all with biogenic amines content. The following reference among others should be used: Đorđević, Đ., Buchtova, H., & Borkovcova, I. (2016). Estimation of amino acids profile and escolar fish consumption risks due to biogenic amines content fluctuations in vacuum skin packaging/VSP during cold storage. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 66, 657-663.
- Line 169: the part OXIDATION AND HYDROLYSIS should be updated with the information about primary and secondary products of oxidation. Certain table can be made.
- Vacuum skin packaging should be a separate chapter.
- Line 734: this chapter is not necessary to be alone. It should be merged with the previous chapter.
- Figure 3: is there reference for it?
- Figure 4: is there reference for it?
- Figure 5: is there reference for it?
- Freshness indicators: more research about pH indicators edible films should be included.
- Figure 6: there is no reference.
- Line 1228: missing reference.
- The manuscript is missing the conclusion part.
- Authors should also consider to perform certain meta analysis.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Top of Form
comment
- The abstract is written too broadly; the aim should be clearly defined in the abstract same as the conclusion.
Response
the Abstract has been revised clearly defining the aim of the work. A conclusion was also added to the text. See l.10-23, 1873 and 1885-1888.
comment
- The review is not having the introduction part. It should be written,
Response
A short Introduction has been added to the text. See l.26-41.
comment
- Table 1 is containing well known information; it should be deleted. It seems that it is added only to fill the manuscript.
Response
Table 1 has been deleted as suggested by the reviewer.
comment
- Line 128: the part MICROBIAL SPOILAGE should be rewritten since it is not dealing at all with biogenic amines content. The following reference among others should be used: Đorđević, Đ., Buchtova, H., & Borkovcova, I. (2016). Estimation of amino acids profile and escolar fish consumption risks due to biogenic amines content fluctuations in vacuum skin packaging/VSP during cold storage. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 66, 657-663.
Response
A short paragraph has been added to the text on Biogenic amines. See l. 181-197. The article by Dordevic et al., (2016) has been used in the chapter on Vacuum Packaging. See l. 787-793.
comment
- Line 169: the part OXIDATION AND HYDROLYSIS should be updated with the information about primary and secondary products of oxidation. Certain table can be made.
Response
We have updated information on secondary oxidation products as suggested by the reviewer. See l. 206-212, and 215-217.
comment
- Vacuum skin packaging should be a separate chapter.
Response
Since Vacuum skin packaging is a type of vacuum packaging we believe there is no need to have a separate chapter for the former.
comment
- Line 734: this chapter is not necessary to be alone. It should be merged with the previous chapter.
Response
The only reason why we have placed this small chapter separately is that we distinguished fish from fishery products preservation exactly as done for MAP. In essence there is no difference between the two. Just for homogeneity purposes we have retained this chapter separately.
comment
- Figure 3: is there reference for it?
Response
Reference has been added. See l. 894.
comment
- Figure 4: is there reference for it?
Response
Fig 4 has been deleted based on the suggestion of reviewer 1.
comment
- Figure 5: is there reference for it?
Response
Figure 5 is now Figure 4 in the revised text. References have been added. See l.942.
comment
- Freshness indicators: more research about pH indicators edible films should be included.
Response
Additional information on pH sensitive, freshness indicators has been included in the texty. See l.1129-1143.
comment
- Figure 6: there is no reference.
Response
Figure 6 is now Figure 5 in the revised text. Reference has been added. See l. 1293.
comment
- Line 1228: missing reference.
Response text between l.1254 and 1262 (of the revised text) refers to ref. Tsironi et al.[141] already provided.
comment
- The manuscript is missing the conclusion part.
Response
We have slightly modified the “Future outlook ‘ section to also serve as a ‘Conclusion ‘ section. See l.1874-1900.
comment
- Authors should also consider to perform certain meta analysis.
Response
‘A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error’.
Based on this ‘definition’ of meta-analysis we do not believe it is feasible to run such a statistical analysis on data presented in the present work since we do not have access to respective statistical data.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no further comments.
