Use of Incinerated Eggshells to Produce Pidan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written manuscript with clear objectives and overall report.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer for the great guidance and insightful suggestions to improve the quality of this article, and the author would give the highest tribute.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I am very grateful you for the invitation to review the manuscript sustainability-1697333 by Lin and co-authors "Using incinerated eggshell powder application to produce novel pidan". The aim was to develop an innovative process for pidan processing using incinerated eggshell powder, an abundant by-product that can generate a highly alkaline solution and provide calcium ions (Ca2+). The work is interesting but needs adjustments to increase the quality of the material.

 

Comments:

- Page 1, Line 29: Change the repeated keywords by different words from the title to expand the search system.

-  Review the sentence: “There is an alkaline environment composed of metal ion salts”. Specify which environment it refers to. Better explain the production process.

- Introduction: include information about consumption and waste generation, factors that justify and support the study.

- Page 2, Line 55-58: The two sentences make the text ambiguous. Specify the problem related to eggs produced without the use of lead and whether anti-inflammatory activity is a problem (is confused).

- Page 2, Line 61-69: The problem presented is not clear. The objective must be better presented. The comparison with the usual processes is a little confusing.

- Page 2, Line 83-85: review the sentence “As the reaction of Ca2+ and sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) produces sodium hydroxylate (NaOH) and CaCO3 precipitates”.

- Page 3, 2.7 Sensory evaluation: include Code of approval in the ethics committee for the development of sensory analysis.

- Page 3, Line 149: The sentence “We refrained from the pickled-only condition for this study” is not clear.

- Page 5, 3.4 Mineral analysis: Include information about minerals and their health functions as they are inserted into the product via processing.

- Table 1 and 2: improve formatting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Finally, thanks to the reviewer for the great guidance and insightful suggestions to improve the quality of this article, and the author would give the highest tribute.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The title of the publication should be changed and revise the style. For example: Use of incinerated eggshells to produce pidan.

The experiment is incomplete.

All text should be carefully proofread, paying attention to the use of upper- and lower-case letters, style, line spacing (e.g., compare Chapter 2.4-2.7 with 2.9), fonts and compliance with the journal's editorial requirements.

Studies of the chemical composition of incinerated eggshells are lacking. The chemical composition depends on the feed used and will vary from farm to farm. What about the heavy metals in incinerated eggshells and pidan? The purpose of using shells is unclear. Argumentation is inadequate. How much of the shells from the industry will be used in this way? What is the real cost?

No description of active acidity measurement.

Microbiological testing required for food safety reasons.

Place figures and tables (Section 3.5) in their proper place in the text. Tables should be reformatted. For example – what does “ng” mean in the header of Table 1? The explanations under the tables are too lengthy – some should be moved to the method description.

The bibliography should be thoroughly revised and completed. For example – full or abbreviated name of journal,

 

Detailed comments (verse numbers given):

1. 15 – Change e-mail address style.
2. 16 – Upper-case letters are expected to name of institution.
3. 22,24,26,48, and seq. – Correct the notation of chemical formulas.
4. 29 – Keywords “heavy metal, health” are unjustified by the content of the manuscript, the scope of the experiment, or the results.
5. 34,36,38, and seq – Correct literature references.
6. 50 – What does “16” mean?
7. 87 – Chapter 2.2 should be divided into parts. The end of the chapter should be moved to Section 2.3.
8. 94 – The description is too concise. Include some of the content from Section 2.2.
9. 95 – Which “solution”?
10. 96 – Vague use of the word “phytochemical”?
11. 104 – The context of “16” is unclear.
12. 105 – Which model of CT3?
13. 123 – Spaces around the “=” sign expected.
14. 143 – The chapter title should be revised in accordance with subsequent titles (3.2, 3.3 et seq.). For example, “Hardness and texture”.
15. 243,244 and seq. – Correct the notation of chemical formulas.

Ref. (3) and seq. – Remove the annotations (e.g., “From NLM.”) after doi.

Ref. (19) – What does “ence” mean?

Ref. (32), (36) and others – Complete the reference.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thanks again to the reviewer for the great guidance and insightful suggestions to improve the quality of this article, and the author would give the highest tribute.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The citation in the paper is not proper. When there are more than 2 authors, you should use “et al” after the first name, rather than write all the names. There are many places that have this problem. Please double-check and make them appropriate.

2. Line 87-91: I am not sure how those treatments were decided. Why doesn't A group include 4.2% NaOH? Why does the C group contain MaCl2 and CaCl2.2H2O? This way, we will not be able to tell which components actually make the results different, the % of eggshell or other components?

 

3. Line 95-97: does each pickling treatment have 12 eggs or the 12 eggs are the total number for 25, 30, and 40? Please make this clear. 

 

4. Line 124: What does "Rinsed it twice" mean? what was rinsed since the one slice was eaten by the panelist. It is confusing.

 

5. Line 171-175: here I am confused. In the table, it seems that the gel strength of B (49.13) and D (48.88) is even lower than A and C in terms of pickling, but why did the paper say "its gel strength and chewiness were higher". Maybe I misunderstand somewhere, but better to explain it well.

 

6. For table 1, why does the small value have “ a “and the large value has “c or d”. For example, the cohesivness (pickling) has the letter "a" in B group, but B group has the smallest value. This indication is different from Tables 2 and 3. Would you explain why?

 

7. Format of the references: Make sure to be consistent for all references. For example, some references use abbreviations, but some use the full names.

 

BTW, what is FLM in the reference?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thanks to the reviewer for the great guidance and insightful suggestions to improve the quality of this article, and the author would give the highest tribute.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of paper has improved significantly.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors answered all the questions. Now the paper is in a good shape.