Fleur de sel: How Does a Pinch of Suitable Choice Practices Value This Sustainable Natural Resource?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper provides a method of how to carry out a proper selection of Fleur de sel according to four traits, with the aim of supplying the market demand. The paper is well researched based on a systematic protocol and is very comprehensive.
It shows not only the specific applications that the researcher made, but also how he technically understood the flor de sel market in Portugal. There is something interesting to find for many researchers interested in applications of this market. In addition, the manuscript is well organized and is a good read and fits the nature of the journal.
There are also some drawbacks. The graphics need to be improved. In some areas, the manuscript becomes too general. It would have been nice to have a more in-depth view of the study area. The geographical context of the area is not given, it is known to be in Portugal, but not where it is located? Correct the structure of some sentences and improve the overall readability of the text at some points.
In conclusion, the authors delivered a good application, but should improve some aspects.
Problems needed to be addressed:
· Contextualize and locate the area of work or analysis.
· Support with more reliability the statement 59 -60 "but also a healthier alternative due to its enriched natural composition".
If not eliminate it for the following reason:
The unproven benefits of sea salt. Because of its mineral content, which differs in comparison to table salt, sea salt has been attributed many health benefits. However, many of these properties were exaggerated at the time and are now mostly disproven.
· Complement the Literature Review by including the most relevant aspects of the following article "Sodium".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951800/
· Figure 1 should be improved with a more descriptive graphical accompaniment, in recent years the schematic graphs are being replaced by graphical schemes generally self-explanatory, could be used real images of the process at each stage that is described in the graph.
· Figure 2. It has an ample description in text, but the graphic is very schematic, being an important graphic to define fundamental aspects of the work, it should also be accompanied by images or real images of what is being described in the graphic.
· The information regarding microplastics should be expanded, not only mentioning a paragraph, but this is also a growing problem in coastal marine aspects.
Monitoring for microplastics is gaining importance worldwide, and doing so for salt flower is also mandatory 177-178
· It should be highlighted as a relevant aspect of the summary results mentioned in 229 - 230 Thus, in order to get flower of salt it is necessary to gather four fundamental weather conditions, empirically perceived as: sunny day, warm air temperature above 30ºC, no wind or just a light breeze, and low atmospheric moisture.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper evaluates the production process of Flower of salt showing conditions that affect the quality of this salt. The paper is strongly focused on technological aspects trying to respond to the customer (trader) demand.
First the authors illustrate the Flower of salt as properties (ingredients such as sodium, iodine) while explaining the process for getting high quality Flower of salt. The criteria for evaluating the flower of salt are explained: visual aspect, cleasing, moisture, color, size and shape of salts.
Second, the author make an analysis over a sample and they grade results according to the previous criteria. A weighted comparative matrix for AHP is employed.
Third, the authors focus on the importance of meteo conditions in order to get high quality flower of salt while reporting the flower of salt production of a Portoguese producer.
Four a discussion, which reports the guidelines to get a good quality flowe of salt and dietary properties. The market is described qualitatively.
The paper is structured quite well the research objective is clear. Conclusions are enough.
The paper is well written. The English is good.
However, there are some critical points
Major revisions
The first point is about the methodology. The authors did an analysis over a sample extracted from 12 traders. Is this sample representative? I suggest authors to explain the experimental design. The idea that arise when reading the paper is that these analysis were done in one producer only. If yes, the authors should better explain why.
The authors should also better explain the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) priority weighting calculation. It should be done in the methodology section
The second point is about the market of flower of salt and the demand. The authors say that it is a niche market (page 3 row 101), scarcity and market demand (page 3 row 128), value of salt in the market (page 13 row 373). The demand “The flower of salt is in a growing demand worldwide” is repaeted (page 2 row 58; page 4 row 136) but no statistics are reported.
The market analysis should be extended. The authors report salt alternatives such as Hymalalyan one. However looking in the eAmbrosia database of European Union (EU) there are 6 PDO salts (eg. Sal de Tavira / Flor de Sal de Tavirain Protugal or Oriel Sea Minerals in Ireland) and 2 PGI (eg. Fleur de sel de Guérande in Provence). These salts can enjoy a EU protection and their production must follow rules which are fixed in the disciplinary of production (book of rules). In my opinion, this EU certification may be a strong way to ensure the quality of flower of salt while meeting trader’s demand.
A third point is about scarcity. Are there any data showing the positive relation between scarcity and price? Or, how strong is the impact of scarcity on the price? Are there some critical point of scarcity where the demand for flower of salt shuts down?
The fourth point is about the discussion. The idea when reading the paper, is that authors continue to report the same results without comparing this analysis with another ones. The authors should better explain this point. It seems that the salt market is strongly differentiated even for high quality salts. I suggest authors to discuss their results by comparing the flower of salt with other competitive products (if there is a literature)
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been lightly improved. However, some point remains critical
1. The term sustainable sounds inappropriate in the title. This word “sustainable” or “sustainability” appears in the title only. This paper reports a technical analysis aimed at improving the quality of the salt. Actually, the salt is produced through a process which is renewable but this is missing in the paper.
2. The analysis comes from one producer only. This is a not representative study. This is actually a case study The authors should substitute “Contextualization and location of the study” with ”The case study”. Thus, all results should be addressed to this case study.
3. No data are reported for this market, at all.
4. The author added the PDO salt productions in page 12. However, the author did it to reply to the reviewer but he did not catch the reason for doing it. I suggest the author to read carefully the first revision “….These salts can enjoy a EU protection and their production must follow rules which are fixed in the disciplinary of production (book of rules). In my opinion, this EU certification may be a strong way to ensure the quality of flower of salt while meeting trader’s demand”
5. The author’s reply “…The question of the phrase being repeated – as the reviewer says – is not exactly a repetition because the phrases are different, although with identical meaning. It was decided to leave the sentences as they were. Although identical, they are found in two different sections of the manuscript, hence the choice to do so.” Please read carefully this answer which meaning can be hardly understood. What the reviewer understands is that author does not want to make any changes.
Author Response
The author would like to thank once again the reviewer for this second round of revisions as well as the useful comments provided to improve the manuscript entitled “Fleur de sel: How does a pinch of suitable choice practices value this sustainable natural resource?”.
It is believed that after this second round of revisions, all the previously remaining comments have been addressed accordingly, as can be found below:
Reviewer: The paper has been lightly improved. However, some point remains critical
Author: Thank you for insisting on this point. Critical points will be addressed as much as possible.
1. The term sustainable sounds inappropriate in the title. This word “sustainable” or “sustainability” appears in the title only. This paper reports a technical analysis aimed at improving the quality of the salt. Actually, the salt is produced through a process which is renewable but this is missing in the paper.
A1. Thank you for the excellent observation that actually went unnoticed. Because the expressions “sustainable” or “sustainability” and "renewble" were internalized, there was no framework in this sense.
In this context to address this point, a paragraph was added in section 3.4. and an additional sentence at the conclusion.
2. The analysis comes from one producer only. This is a not representative study. This is actually a case study The authors should substitute “Contextualization and location of the study” with ”The case study”. Thus, all results should be addressed to this case study.
A2. The reviewer focused on a very important aspect that had really been left out. The reviewer's suggestion was followed and the change was made as suggested.
3. No data are reported for this market, at all.
A3. Only one reference was found, but in gray literature and with aggregation of several salts in “Gourmet Salt Market” where it is mentioned “These salts are of various types such as fleur de sel, sel gris, himalayan salt, flake salt, specialty salt and others.” There is a phrase that stands out and that perhaps is in the sense that the reviewer expected as ipsis verbis “Gourmet Salt market size was valued at $ 3,938 million in 2020, and is anticipated to grow at a CAGR of 4.81% during the forecast period 2021-2026.”.
It is much appreciated reviewer's suggestion that detected a gap in the literature and gives clues for a future study on the subject.
4. The author added the PDO salt productions in page 12. However, the author did it to reply to the reviewer but he did not catch the reason for doing it. I suggest the author to read carefully the first revision “….These salts can enjoy a EU protection and their production must follow rules which are fixed in the disciplinary of production (book of rules). In my opinion, this EU certification may be a strong way to ensure the quality of flower of salt while meeting trader’s demand”
A4. Once again, thanks to the reviewer for detecting the flaw that had been left behind. Thus, this aspect was added to the discussion in accordance with the suggestion made by the reviewer.
5. The author’s reply “…The question of the phrase being repeated – as the reviewer says – is not exactly a repetition because the phrases are different, although with identical meaning. It was decided to leave the sentences as they were. Although identical, they are found in two different sections of the manuscript, hence the choice to do so.” Please read carefully this answer which meaning can be hardly understood. What the reviewer understands is that author does not want to make any changes.
A5. In order to correspond to the critical analysis made by the reviewer, and because the sentence(s) in question were somehow controversial, based only on empiricism (i.e., anecdotical evidence) without having been found any kind of literature reference to support, it was decided to remove the expression in both places where it appeared: “1. Introduction” and “3. Materials and Methods”.
