Pomace-Cassava as Antioxidant Bio-Based Coating Polymers for Cheeses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have previously analyzed this paper and submitted comments for the authors. The authors responded to the comments made and improved the paper accordingly.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the opportunity.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has improved largely, but authors still need to consider the following comments.  
1.  The problem of graphic quality. Numbering and letters are really difficult to recognize, please try to increase their sizes and to check  if you have upload the high resolution images.
2. Figure 1 can be splitted into two figues separately, presenting respectively, 1) 6 experiments of the Factorial statical design for cheeses peroxide index, and 2) Pareto graphic bar chart results. 
3. All references should apply the same format to meet the journal requirement. 
Author. (Year). Title. Journal, volume, pages.  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/DOI

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the opportunity.

Since only one reviewer add suggestions, the answers were given in the text below, immediately following the reviewers' suggestions, in bold.

The revised manuscript has improved largely, but authors still need to consider the following comments.  
1.  The problem of graphic quality. Numbering and letters are really difficult to recognize, please try to increase their sizes and to check  if you have upload the high resolution images.

The graphical abstract has been redone and we hope that we have been able to improve the image to to a satisfactory degree.

2. Figure 1 can be splitted into two figues separately, presenting respectively, 1) 6 experiments of the Factorial statical design for cheeses peroxide index, and 2) Pareto graphic bar chart results. 

Figures were split in Figure 1 and 2 as recommended. All modifications due this action were marked in blue (to distinguish from the modifications made for the first revision (in yellow).

3. All references should apply the same format to meet the journal requirement. Author. (Year). Title. Journal, volume, pages.  https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/DOI. References were rewritten (all modifications were also painted in blue).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports a green antioxidant coating polymers using Pomace-cassava for cheeses storage, is interesting, but has major flaws. My comments on this article are as follows.

--Authors did not provide a total outline of the work in the Introduction part. Several issues should be addressed, including the selection criteria for their natural antioxidant additives, merits and shorcomings of similar published studies reporting antioxidant coatings for cheeses,  the gap areas and the new contribution in the paper, the applications and future possibilities of such coating also should take into consideration.

--In Table 1, it's not clear why negative vales are used. The implication of the three numbers (-1, 0, 1) should be explained. 

--Both In-vitro and In-vivo antioxidant capacity were investigated. As in-vivo experiments, according to its definition, are taking place in a living body. Detailed and proved procedures should be clearly described in the 'Material and Method' section., not just citing a reference instead. 

--The reproducibility is difficut to know. Have authors repeated all experiments and got similar results? If so, standard deviations should be added in relevant result presentations. 

--Poor graphic presentation quality. There are only two figures in this manuscript, yet they did not 
add to the readability of the paper. Photos in Fig.1 look like any food, like cakes, bread. Are the coating polymers surrounded the cheese substrate? What's the thickness of the coating polymer on these cheese surfaces? Dimension scale bar is also missing. As for Fig.2a, what's the maning of x-axis? Imbedded texts in Fig.2b  are hardly readable, and bar chart presentation here is not a good choice.

The conclusions should state clearly the new findings of the current work and then give novel insights into the implications in this field for future research. 

Author Response

We thank you for the opportunity to review our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are in the attached file, just below each of your comments, in bold letters for easy location.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a series of investigations into the possibility of replacing synthetic food antioxidants with natural food antioxidants for cheeses.

The authors can consider the following aspects:

- The paper presents a series of results that may be of interest to the scientific community;

- The first part of the summary is very general; it could be supplemented with more information obtained in the research;

- Given that research is concerned with cheese, this should be one of the key word;

- At the end of the introduction, the object of the research and the structure of the paper should be presented;

- The research methodology is not very clearly presented. It is necessary to justify the decision to take the values ​​assigned to the levels chosen for the cabbage, respectively jabuticaba;

- The chosen factorial design is not 22 but 2²;

- Figure 1 shows images with the 6 samples obtained. The best possible characterization is required for the 6 samples;

- Images with the 6 samples should also be presented after the storage period;

- The discussion part needs to be more applied, in such a way as to highlight the novelty brought by the research presented in relation to other research in the field;

- the conclusions should be more concrete and include the practical applications of the results obtained;

- At the end of the conclusions, the future research directions should be specified.

Author Response

We thank you for the opportunity to review our manuscript. Our responses to your comments are in the attached file, just below each of your comments, in bold letters for easy location.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised their manuscript according to my suggestions. Thus the manuscript can be accepted for publication.