Effects of Individual and Block Freezing on the Quality of Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) during Storage under Different Pretreatment Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Pretreatment and Repeated Freezing-Thawing on the Quality  of Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) during Storage” is a study  on the effect of repeated freezing-thawing cycles on the quality of oysters. The manuscript is characterized by originality and can be considered innovative in the specific sector.

The manuscript, for its aims, the analyzed parameters, and the obtained results, does not fit in with the aims of the Journal “Sustainability”, with special reference to the “Subject Areas”.

   

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Please see the attachment thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript of “Pretreatment and Repeated Freezing-Thawing on the Quality 2

of Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) during Storage”, pacific oysters (Crassostrea Gigas) were used as raw material to explore the freezing methods and different immersion liquids on the quality of oyster, which provides some guidance for oyster meat preservation and has certain practical significance. However, there are some problems in article writing and grammar, please pay attention to the language logic of the full text, and it is suggested that the author should seek the help of the English-speaking professionals to revise the language of the manuscript. The detail suggestion will be as followed:

1. Please carefully revise the introduction to highlight the innovation and research significance of this study.

2. As the author “The main reasons for causing the quality of oyster to reduce, fall on fat oxidation and protein decomposition during storage, a large amount of drip loss after thawing, and the rapid growth of micro-organisms.” However, this study did not measure changes in fat oxidation, protein structure, and microbial species and content. In order to improve the scientific value of the study, it is recommended that the authors conduct supplementary experiments.

3. Please supplement the instrument model, manufacturer and other information.

4. L193: “The data gained from two trials (three replicates for each trial) was subjective”. Whether to conduct parallel experiments and repeat experiments?

5. Why is only a* value measured in color measurement? If L* and b* values were determined, please list the data.

6. Please mark the drip loss and pH graphs in detail or plot them separately. In addition, this part of the data is important, please add a significant analysis, or use a table to make the data clearer.

7. “which indicates the color changing from green to red as time grows, and this can be inferred that it is caused by fat oxidation, freezer burn and acidification due to the water loss from oyster’s body during freezing”. How to get it?

8. L20: “compare” to “compared”.

9. L101: “individual” to “individually”

10. L149: Carefully check and revise this sentence.

 

11. L211: “Additionally, not until about the 24th week, did the changes in VBN, recorded from all subgroups, started to become more obvious.”, check this sentence. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Please see the attachment thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study is related to evaluate the quality changes of Pacific oysters after different treatment methods and freezing-thawing cycle times. The VBN, color, drip loss, WHC and APC were assessed. The manuscript need subject to amendments being made in response to the following comments.

 

Title

Maybe the title should be changed to "Quality Changes Assessment of Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) during Storage after Pretreatment and Repeated Freezing-Thawing".

Abstract

Abstract was well written. Lines 24-25, Please add the P value of drip loss, WHC and cooked taste changes. Then, “drip loss%” and “WHC%”, should be typed as “drip loss”, and “WHC”. Same in Line 346.

Keywords:

Line 28: “aerobic plate count” should be revised to “total aerobic plate count”. The reviewer suggests that “APC” should be changed to “TAPC (total aerobic plate count) or “TPC”.

Introduction

Introduction was well written, but some changes/additions should be made.

Line 38: World Food organization? Maybe “Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations” is correct here.

Line 75: “the Philippines” should be typed as “ Philippines”.

Line 85: “freezing-thawing during...” should be revised to “ freezing-thawing times during...”.

Line 87 : “protein decomposition” should be typed as “protein degradation”.

Material and Methods

Line 121: Change “is” to “was”.

Line 122: Change “freeze” to “frozen”.

Line 137: Add a space between 1 and ml.

Line 140: Change “meat extract” to “meat extraction”.

Lines 144-145: “0.02 H HCl” should be typed as “0.02 N HCl”.

Lines 147: Please add the description of “S”.

Line 149: Change “5 grams” to “Five grams”.

Line 152: Change “Determination of total aerobic count” to “Determination of total aerobic plate count (TAPC)” or “Determination of TAPC”.

Lines 171-175: Please check this equation. W2 should be the weight after thawing. Besides, W1 should be give the same description in text and equation. “initial weight” or “original weight”? The authors need to choose only one.

Results and discussion

The results and discussion section was not well written.

Line 209: “Table 1, it finds that...” ? Do pay attention of the English writing. Same in Line 297 “Notice that from the...”.

Line 254: The results of b* and L* should be given in this section, as well as Hunter whiteness.

Line 265: “3.4. Total aerobic plate count, APC” should be revised to “TAPC”.

Lines 269-270 “ in the total plate count...” should be revised to “in the TAPC...”.

Figure 1 and 2: If there are (is), please add the significance level markers between the different treatment methods.

Table 4 : The “BFOM” line should be deleted.

Suggestion: The author should discuss the results by citing the latest research findings. The past three years references should be cited more.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion was well written.

References

Line 445: The publish year of this reference was missed.

References should be checked again according to the journal format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer Please see the attachment thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The work is good and has been well done but presentation of work in form of a research article is not upto the mark. It has been written as a popular article not as a research paper. The tables should be re-checked and should follow similar pattern throughout the manuscript. Discussion section must also be improved. Kindly go through research papers of reputed journals to find out the pattern of scientific writing.

Work is good. Kindly reframe it with changes in Tables

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

    Thank you very much for reviewing this research manuscript in detail, and for your comments and suggestions on the revised content of the manuscript. We will revise one by one and attach the revised clauses. Your valuable suggestions will make this manuscript more complete, and your encouragement will give us greater motivation to move forward and to engage in research more deliberately and vigorously. Thank you again.

1. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is good and has been well done but presentation of work in form of a research article is not upto the mark. It has been written as a popular article not as a research paper. The tables should be re-checked and should follow similar pattern throughout the manuscript. Discussion section must also be improved. Kindly go through research papers of reputed journals to find out the pattern of scientific writing.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion, we have made the appropriate changes.

2. Work is good. Kindly reframe it with changes in Tables

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made appropriate changes according to your correction

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer raised some sharp questions, and the author gave a better answer or a more reasonable explanation. Through the modification, the article has been improved greatly. However, the author should list several references on the production of surimi by frozen fish fillets.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this research manuscript in detail, and for your comments and suggestions on the revised content of the manuscript. We will revise one by one and attach the revised clauses. Your valuable suggestions will make this manuscript more complete, and your encouragement will give us greater motivation to move forward and to engage in research more deliberately and vigorously. Thank you again.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

 Through the modification, the article has been improved greatly. However, the author should list several references on the production of surimi by frozen fish fillets.

Response: According to your suggestion, 2 articles about the factors that affect the quality of frozen surimi during frozen storage have been added (Reference 8 and 9).

Reviewer 3 Report

Please do pay attention the spelling issues of WHC and drip loss.

Lines 20,  346,  347, 352, 354 and 364: WHC%; 

Line 251: Looking at Table 2?  Same in Line 261;

Lines 325, 330, 363, 380, 382, 383: WHC%;

Table8:WHC%, drip loss%

Line 379 "water holding capacity (WHC)" should be typed as "WHC" directly.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing this research manuscript in detail, and for your comments and suggestions on the revised content of the manuscript. We will revise one by one and attach the revised clauses. Your valuable suggestions will make this manuscript more complete, and your encouragement will give us greater motivation to move forward and to engage in research more deliberately and vigorously. Thank you again.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please do pay attention the spelling issues of WHC and drip loss.

(a) Lines 20, 346, 347, 352, 354 and 364: WHC%;

(b) Line 251: Looking at Table 2?  Same in Line 261;

(c) Lines 325, 330, 363, 380, 382, 383: WHC%;

(d) Table8: WHC%, drip loss%

(e) Line 379 "water holding capacity (WHC)" should be typed as "WHC" directly.

Response: According to your suggestion, corrections have been made.

Reviewer 4 Report

The corrections have been incorporated and the manuscript has been improved

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed reading and review of the manuscript we have uploaded, making this manuscript more complete and perfect. Thank you again.