Application of Edible Coating Based on Liquid Acid Whey Protein Concentrate with Indigenous Lactobacillus helveticus for Acid-Curd Cheese Quality Improvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. More comprehensive results and discussion are required in results and discussion section.

2.  Kindly improve the keywords used in the article。

3. In discussing some of the results, you can improve the paper by explaining some of their potential environmental implications.

 

 

4. The writing of introduction is  poor. Novelty need to be highlight and evidence must be improve with the results and discussion.

 

5.  There are some typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Hence, the manuscript should be carefully checked and necessary corrections should be done.

6. Figures of the manuscript needs further polishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. Below please find the answers to all reviewers’ questions. All changes in the manuscript have been marked up using the “Track
Changes” function. The pages and lines that are provided in the answers of the authors are only correct when the function “Track changes is on”.

Please find the answers to your comments attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The development of edible/biodegradable packaging materials based on WPI or other animal and plant products should be introduced. Some very recent literatures should be mentioned.

doi:10.3390/foods9040449, doi:10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.11.051, doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2021.110697

2.      Many attempts on encapsulation of lactic acid bacteria had been reported. It might be better to discuss the advantages of present study compared with previous reports.  doi:10.1007/s12602-017-9347-x,  doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2018.07.002, doi:10.3390/polym12071565

3.      it is strongly suggested to indicate at the end of the Introduction section the main employed characterisation techniques in order to achieve their purpose.

4.      What did the decrease in pH mean? As an edible package, did the decrease in pH affect the flavor of the product?

5.      It seems that there is no significant differences in most data for CC and CC+C+Lh (Figure 2 and 4).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. Below please find the answers to all reviewers’ questions. All changes in the manuscript have been marked up using the “Track
Changes” function. The pages and lines that are provided in the answers of the authors are only correct when the function “Track changes is on”.

Please find the answers to your comments attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is interesting and shows novel results for the area. However, some sections of the results need to be improved.

Line 24-25: the authors comment that the pH value decreased when the temperature was 23°C. It is interesting that the authors explain why this drop in pH values occurred.

Line 27-19: The LAB content in the films is documented and shown in figure 1a. It is interesting that the authors explain why the LAB content (CFU/g) shows a tendency to decrease as it approaches 14 days and then increases at 60 days. In figure 1, the data does not clearly show a significant difference, so the authors are advised to add the standard deviation values and statistical data.

 

Table 1: Chemical composition values are higher on day 23 compared to day 1, except for lactose. It is interesting that the authors suggest an explanation for this observed phenomenon.

 

Table 1: Chemical composition values are higher on day 23 compared to day 1, except for lactose. It is interesting that the authors suggest an explanation for this observed phenomenon. Moisture values are not displayed clearly. Are the data statistically compared across columns or across rows?

 

The results of the microbiological profile are interesting (section 3.2.2) but it is suggested that the authors clearly mention what are the allowed/non-harmful values of yeasts, LAB, lypolitic and mold bacteria in this type of products. With the above, the efficiency of the protective film can be assumed.

The results of the sensory profile are also interesting but it is recommended that the authors extend a discussion that reveals the possible causality of improving the flavor and other sensory properties of the coating film.

 

The results of the sensory profile are also interesting but it is recommended that the authors extend a discussion that reveals the possible causality of improving the flavor and other sensory properties of the coating film. Color results are not clearly shown in the manuscript. Texture and appearance are also two very important attributes and are not clearly discussed in the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our manuscript. Below please find the answers to all reviewers’ questions. All changes in the manuscript have been marked up using the “Track
Changes” function. The pages and lines that are provided in the answers of the authors are only correct when the function “Track changes is on”.

Please find the answers to your comments attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors correctly addressed the observations indicated.