Magnetic Fields in Food Processing Perspectives, Applications and Action Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors wrote a review paper about magnetic field applications in the food industry. 

Why is this categorized as opinion paper? I would recognize it as a review paper, but this is for the Editors to decide.

Please correct the literature in the whole text, the instructions for authors are clear on how to cite literature in the text and in the reference list (literature in the tables). There is no need to state the year besides the authors if you have the reference number in the text. 

Please italicize the microorganism names. 

Author Response

Why is this categorized as opinion paper? I would recognize it as a review paper, but this is for the Editors to decide.

Thank you very much. We will ask the Editor about it.

Please correct the literature in the whole text, the instructions for authors are clear on how to cite literature in the text and in the reference list (literature in the tables). There is no need to state the year besides the authors if you have the reference number in the text. 

All the references were corrected as required.

Please italicize the microorganism names. 

All microorganism names were italicized.

Moderate English changes required 

English proofreading was performed 

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the manuscript titled "Magnetic Fields in Food Processing Perspectives, Applications and Action Models" shows a new look into the future and accurately indicates a new method to extend the life of a food product. The work has been well prepared, however, some concerns regard to the work are listed below.

1. The authors of the study confirm that the new proposed method is compatible with sustainable development, however,  there is no clear confirmation of this.

2. In my opinion, the authors should supplement the introduction with information indicating the benefits of this method and carefully compare it with other currently used methods of food preservation. That is to answer the question what is the advantage of the proposed method over other methods, e.g. over freeze-drying, freezing or using other radiation methods.

3. In Table 1 I propose to introduce “selected food products” instead of “foods”.

Author Response

1 - The authors of the study confirm that the new proposed method is compatible with sustainable development, however,  there is no clear confirmation of this.

We agree with this important observation and the Main opinion section was rewired. 

2. In my opinion, the authors should supplement the introduction with information indicating the benefits of this method and carefully compare it with other currently used methods of food preservation. That is to answer the question of what is the advantage of the proposed method over other methods, e.g. over freeze-drying, freezing, or using other radiation methods.

We intend with this communication to show the challenges that arise when we apply the magnetic field in food processing. It is this aspect that we want to draw attention to in the manuscript. To make this clear, we added the following in the text: "Compared with other techniques, the main advantage of the magnetic field is the way it interacts with the food that encompasses both  thermodynamic aspects and quantum effects"

3. In Table 1 I propose to introduce “selected food products” instead of “foods”.

Table 1 was corrected as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

The present study about the “Magnetic Fields in Food Processing Perspectives, Applications and Action Models” is very interesting and informative and suggests the future implication of MFs in biological/clinical field. However, the authors should address the following points.

• Authors are suggested to expand acronyms when they first appear in the text such as Eq.
• Please correct conclusion and perspective / conclusion and future perspecptives
• Authors are suggested to write limitations and suggestions also comment on MFs in clinical applications.

Author Response

• Authors are suggested to expand acronyms when they first appear in the text such as Eq.

        All the acronyms were expanded as suggested.

• Please correct conclusion and perspective/conclusion and future perspectives

        The change was made as required 

• Authors are suggested to write limitations and suggestions also comment on MFs in clinical applications.

       Thank you for your suggestions. We found interesting results in literature about clinical applications. But we don't have enough manuscript space to do that.