We, the authors, wish to make the following corrections to our paper [
1].
In the Abstract and Introduction sections of the research paper
Appl. Sci. 2020,
10, 2967;
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/8/2967, the authors provide some additional necessary background information about the (spray-dried porcine plasma) SDPP and rephrase several sentences to avoid misleading potential readers to connect the usage of SDPP with the spread of African swine fever virus (ASFV).
Considering that several old expressions might not be rigorous enough, they have all been scrutinized and replaced by new corresponding statements that should be able to meet the rigorous requirements for the academic publication of research papers.
In the Abstract section, “Recent studies have indicated that spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) is a potential transmission route for African swine fever (ASF). Therefore, it is essential to develop rapid, high-efficiency analytical methods to detect SDPP, aiming to both restrict the abuse of SDPP and block the spread of ASF through feed additive.”, “is”, and “control the spread of ASF” have been rephrased as follows: “Since the first proposal to use spray-dried porcine plasma (SDPP) as an animal-based protein source feed additive for piglets in the late 1980s, a large number of studies have been published on the promotion effect of SDPP on piglets. SDPP contains biologically active components that support pig health during weaning stress and may be more economical to use compared to similar bovine-milk-derived protein sources. Unfortunately, animal blood proteins have been suspected as a source for African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) spread in China. Furthermore, there are no officially recognized methods for quantifying SDPP in complex feed mixtures. Therefore, it is essential to develop rapid, high-efficiency analytical methods to detect SDPP.”, “was”, and “identify the use of SDPP in feed mixtures”, respectively.
Additionally, in the Introduction section, “Their findings demonstrated that the ASFV Georgia 2007 strain can easily be transmitted orally; less dosage is required for infection with ASFV for animal-based feeds like SDPP than that for plant-based feeds [
1].”, “control the usage of SDPP in creep feed to prevent further ASF outbreaks”, “Therefore, criminals will take risks for commercial interests, adulterating SDPP into feed protein raw materials, which could be the hidden danger of spreading ASF. Thus, inspecting the usage of SDPP is an effective measure for the prevention and control of ASF”, and “meat and bone meal (MBM)” have been rephrased as follows: “Their findings demonstrated that the ASFV Georgia 2007 strain can easily be transmitted orally when consumed in liquid, but requires a much higher dose when provided in feed [
1].”, “discriminate SDPP from other feed additives”, “Later, the new Regulation 91/2018 was issued and implemented, under which ASFV-genome-free porcine blood products are permitted for use again in feed for swine. Hence, the quantitative analysis of the SDPP concentration detection also becomes meaningful. Thus, inspecting the usage of SDPP is an effective measure for verifying declared ingredients used in commercial feed.” and “ruminant meat and bone meal (MBM)”, respectively.
The authors apologize for those imprecise expressions.
, 