The Oil:Water Ratio in the Vertical Centrifuge Separator and Its Influence in Phenolic Compounds in the Virgin Olive Oil and the Olive Mill Wastewater (Alpechín)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Manuscript "Influence of the Oil:Water Ratio in the Vertical Centrifuge Separator on the Phenolic Compounds in the Virgin Olive Oil and Characteristics of the Olive Mill Wastewater (Alpechín)" the authors carried out trials with different oil:water ratios to study the influence of O:W ratio on both the quality parameters of the olive oils and the loss of oil with the olive wastewater. While the authors found no differences observed in the quality parameters of the oils, correct adjustment of the oil:water flow rates reduced the loss of phenols present in the oils by around 30%. Furthermore, the authors show a direct relationship between the soluble effluent and the conductivity of the olive mill wastewater with the loss of oil in the effluent. The authors conclude that both oil quality and the competitiveness of the olive oil value chain can be increased with energy savings, water consumption reduction, and environmental sustainability. The study is well designed and the manuscript is well written. the figures and tables are clear to understand and supports the authors result. the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good

Author Response

We appreciate the feedback received and will take note of the recommendations to improve our next publications.
Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is good, interesting, and useful for mill workers. In general it is fine, except for some corrections or explanations.

The introduction section is correct, with a lot of information.

Line 173: In the first section of the "Industrial Mill Trials" the numbering is not correct. In this section you should put the vertical centrifuge characteristics of lines 238 to 243.

Line 189: after "passed" must be followed by a period.

Line 191: Is OWW or OMWW? The oil content is in the olive paste or in the wastewater?

Line 208, and another lines: the degree symbol is spelled wrong. The degree symbol does not have a hyphen below (°). Please, check all symbols.

Line 297: the number of reference is missing.

Line 310: in my opinion, the word "kilos" is colloquial, it should be use "kilograms".

Line 316: How was the correlation done? Was Pearson's correlation or a different one used?

The conclusions seem to me to be correct and useful for a good operation, in addition to improving the characteristics of the oil obtained and reducing costs and water use.

Author Response

We are very grateful for your comments, corrections and contributions. They will be very useful for this article and also for the next ones.
I send you my replies in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled{Influence of the Oil:Water Ratio in the Vertical Centrifuge Separator on the Phenolic Compounds in the Virgin Olive Oil and Characteristics of the Olive Mill Wastewater (Alpechín)" has comprehensive work.  The present work aimed to define the best working conditions and to establish tools and easily monitored references that will allow the mill staff to control better the process of vertical centrifuge forced decanting to make the process more sustainable, reduce the mill's water consumption, and improve the nutritional quality of the final EVOO produced. The manuscript needs to be polished before it is accepted for publication. My comments:

1)      The title of the manuscript is too long and can be shortened to an attractive one.

2)      The introduction is also long and contains parts far from the subject of the manuscript.

3)      Units for conductivity must be written in the text, not just numbers.

4)      It would be best if the author could compare this work with the other related work.

5)      In Section 2.3, the authors must add a reference to the Soxhelt method in line 192.

6)      The conclusion section is suggested to be concise; and to present the highlights and novelty of the manuscript. The lines that are not important, such as from 372 to 380, should be deleted.

Finally, the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Although we may have different criteria or perspectives in the answers we send you, we are very grateful for your comments, contributions and corrections because you will help us to improve this and future publications. We look forward to receiving feedback in those cases where you do not find our reply sufficient. Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx