Survivability of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7 Pathogens and Food Safety Concerns on Commercial Powder Milk Products
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: Dairy-945687
Title: Survivability of Salmonella and Escherichia coli pathogens and food safety concerns on commercial powder milk products
General comments
The manuscript provides a review about the survivability of important foodborne pathogens (Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7) in powdered milk products. Moreover it evaluates the storage stability of dehydrated milk products in relation to food safety.
O157:H7 should be added in the title. English language revision is strongly recommended.
Specific comments
Abstract
The abstract is too much general. It should be rewritten with more focus on the topic of the review (Salmonella and E. coli presence and survivability on powdered milk).
L 69-82. This sentence is not relevant here and should be deleted. However, the same information is reported in paragraph 2.
L 107-108. Check the correct taxonomic nomenclature in brackets.
L 137. The sentence “A number of outbreaks are associated with dry food products and survival of pathogens.” is not relevant here.
L 141. Salmonella enterica. Also in Fig. 1 caption.
L 143. 0.81
L 175 Listeria with capital letter.
L 176-197. The paragraphs about L. monocytogenes and S. aureus report their survival on meat products, but the review is about powdered milk and related products. In my opinion it should be rewritten with more appropriate information, related to the topic.
L 203-262. Only one paragraph here is appropriate, reporting about Salmonella outbreaks due to consumption of powdered milk and related product. Not other foods.
L 263-333. Paragraph 6, providing “chemical” information, appears to be completely separated with respect to the others, that are “microbiological”.
L 400. The Discussion section should be completely rewritten. A discussion should provide a final comment about data reported in the previous sections, not a repetition of phrases already mentioned in previous paragraphs.
Table 1. Delete “This is a table of” in table caption.
Fig. 1 and 2. Figure captions. “This is a figure of” should be deleted.
Some figures adapted seems to be “copied and pasted”.
Author Response
We now have completed the revision on our manuscript ID: Dairy-945687. We found that the reviewers’ comments and remarks are generally excellent and very helpful to improve our manuscript and more focused on the title of the article. We tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the two reviewers’ comments and suggestions as follows:
Responses to the Reviewer #1
- General Comments:
“The manuscript provides a review about the survivability of…. relation to food safety.”
<Ans> Yes, our manuscript is a review article focused on the survivability of two major foodborne pathogens (Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157:H7) in powdered milk products. In addition, we included the discussions on the storage stability of dehydrated milk products in relation to food safety.
“O157:H7 should be added in the title.”
<Ans> We added O157:H7 to the title as suggested.
“English language revision is strongly recommended.”
<Ans> We appreciate the reviewer’s comment on this regard. However, the manuscript has been read by an English-speaking scientist before submission. We checked our manuscript by an individual who has served more than 20 years as the Editor-in-chief for a major traditional journal. He indicated that very little English corrections would be needed for our manuscript. In addition, the reviewer #2 recommended that “English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.” Therefore, we feel the linguistic errors are expected to be very minimal. We have checked the whole manuscript for English language again for this revision.
- Specific comments:
Abstract: “The abstract is too much general. It should be rewritten………powdered milk).”
<Ans> The reviewer has a very good point on this remark. However, this article is a review article, where we feel it should have a general introductory statement in the beginning of the review. In addition, the Reviewer #2 did not mention much about the Abstract. However, Reviewer 1’s comments appear to be valid, so that we have deleted a few statements, added more relevant description and reorganized the Abstract.
“L 69-82. This sentence is not relevant ……………….. in paragraph 2.”
<Ans> We can understand the Reviewer 1’s point on relevancy of these three paragraphs on the title of the paper. We deleted the L69-72, the first paragraph due to the request. However, the next two paragraphs are much relevant to the topic of this review paper, so that we kept these two paragraphs in the revision.
“L 107-108. Check the correct…………in brackets.”
<Ans> We now have corrected the right names of cocktail of Salmonella (Salmonella senftenberg 775W, Salmonella Typhimurium TM1, and Salmonella new Brunswick 1608) in non-fat dry milk powder. We greatly appreciate the great insights of Reviewer 1 in this regard.
“L 137. The sentence…………………not relevant here.”
<Ans> We removed the sentence as the reviewer requested.
“L 141. Salmonella………………….Fig. 1 caption.”
<Ans> We have corrected the error in Fig. 1, as requested.
“L 143. 0.81”
<Ans> The typing error has been corrected. We appreciate the reviewer for the correction.
“L 175. Listeria with capital letter.”
<Ans> The error has been corrected.
“L 176-197. The paragraphs about L. monocytogenes…………….related to the topic.”
<Ans> Although we originally wanted to include and discuss the pathogens in other foods, both reviewers 1 and 2 did not agree with our idea and suggested to focus on Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 only according to the title of our review paper. Therefore, we accepted both reviewers’ good suggestions, and revised with more appropriate information, then removed the previous descriptions and replaced them with the new information.
“L 203-262. Only one paragraph…………………………. Not other foods.”
<Ans> We have seriously thought about this suggestion for the removal of Salmonella outbreak cases in other foods in this review. We agree with both reviewers’ suggestions on this regard, and the remarks seem to be a very good idea. However, in the perspectives of the average readers and consumers, it is good to have reference information on other foods for the sake of food safety of the general public. In addition, the lines 225-232 may need to be kept as before, since the descriptions are concerned about other dairy products, cheeses. For this reason, we want to keep the previous paragraphs as they were, if it is permissible to the Reviewer 1.
“L 263-333. Paragraph 6. Providing……………………microbiological.”
<Ans> The reviewer continuously pointing out some of our description contents are irrelevant or out of context for “microbiology”. However, the survivability of microbes are directly or indirectly related to the stability and/or chemical makeup of the medium or substrates in which the microbes are living. Therefore, we do not think it is right to separate out the microbiology from chemical conditions and stability of the experimental powder milk samples. Consequently, we have decided to keep these paragraphs that the reviewer requested to remove. We hope that the reviewer could generously understand or agree with the authors’ perspectives of views on this important matter.
“L. 400. This Discussion section………………….in the previous paragraphs.”
<Ans> We apologize this big error which was made by the first author (graduate student), who placed wrong words in the manuscript without approval of the corresponding author. The “Discussion” was totally wrong word, which was meant to be “Conclusions.” This was happened by the overlook of the corresponding author before submission of the manuscript. It is entirely the mistake of the corresponding author. Even there were mistakenly added word in the table and a couple of figures captions, which were not caught by the corresponding author due to lack of time. The Reviewer 2 noticed this mistake, and kindly suggested to change the “Discussion” to “Conclusion”. We accepted the Reviewer 2’s suggestion and corrected. The conclusion section may have repetitive descriptions from the previous discussion section.
“Table 1. Delete………………….caption.”
<Ans> As mentioned above, it was an overlooked error. We have corrected this error.
“Fig.1 and 2. Figure captions…………………….deleted.”
<Ans> These mistakes were made by the same reason mentioned above, and they were corrected.
“Some figures adapted…………………pasted.”
<Ans> Yes, the adapted figures were taken from the cited articles.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed a review on the survivability of Salmonella and E. coli in powder milk products and the stability of dehydrate milk during the storage and present two case studies in powdered got milk.
I recommend to reconsider the manuscript after major revisions.
The manuscript is not well organized. Some paragraphs are confusing, repetitive and disconnected and some paragraphs may not be necessary considering the purpose of the review. I suggest to review the manuscript structure.
-There are several information repeated such as:
the phrase from 53 to 54 with the phrase from 207 to 209.
the phrase from 69 to 72 with the phrase from 93 to 96.
the phrase from 235 to 237 with the phrase from 401 to 402
-The paragraph from L149 to 173: revised focusing the survival of E. coli only on powder milk or milk or dairy products.
-The paragraph from L174 to 202: I suggest to focus the survival of pathogens only on powder milk or milk or dairy products.
-The paragraph from L204 to L235: I suggest to make the same paragraph also for E. coli.
-The paragraph from L233 to 262: I suggest to focus the cases of outbreaks on dairy products.
-From L334 to 399: I suggest to compare the studies with other scientific works.
-L400: Change “Discussion” with “Conclusion”
Author Response
Responses to the Reviewer #2
“The authors proposed a review……………………………in powdered goat milk.”
<Ans> Yes, In this review paper, we have reviewed the survivability of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 in powder milk products in relation to the stability of the products during storage.
“I recommend to reconsider…………………………..revisions.”
<Ans> Since both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 recommended significant revision, we have accepted their recommendations, and revised the manuscript according to the remarks and comments.
“The manuscript is not well organized……………........... review the manuscript structure.”
<Ans> We admit some of the contents of the manuscript may not have been well organized and may not have met the reviewers expectations. We tried our best to accommodate the reviewers’ comments to clarify the confusions, disconnected and/or unnecessary statements.
“There are several information repeated such as the phrase from 53…………209.”
<Ans> As the reviewer requested, we have removed the statement in question for the redundancy.
“the phrase from 69…………………96.”
<Ans> Since there was the similarity or redundancy of the statement in lines 69-72, we decided to delete the description (69-72), and kept lines 93-96, as requested by the reviewer.
He phrase from 235……………………..402.”
<Ans> The phrase 401-402 is in Conclusion section, meaning that the statement in the main text could be reiterated in the conclusion. However, we removed the lines 401-402 statement, due to the remark of the reviewer.
“The paragraph from L 149-173……………….dairy products.”
<Ans> Since Reviewer 2 as well as Reviewer 1 requested to focus on powder milk or milk or dairy products, we deleted the last paragraph (lines 171-173). All other paragraphs for the section are directly related to powder milk and other dairy products, so that they were retained in the section 3.2. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in dried foods and other products.
“The paragraph from L.174-202………………………or dairy products.”
<Ans> We (the authors) think it would be better for the average readers and consumers if the cases of other foods are included for discussions in this section as the references, and it would expand their understandings on the survival of pathogens of other foods in comparison with those of powder milk and dairy products. However, we followed the reviewer’s remarks and revised the Listeria monocytogenes section of the paragraph. Due to the requests of the two reviewers on revision/restructuring of the paragraph contents, we have accepted their suggestions and deleted the corresponding paragraphs which are not related to the dairy foods.
“The paragraph from L. 204-235…………….for E. coli.”
<Ans> Because the reviewer’s comment appears to be an excellent one, so that we decided to accept the reviewer’s request, and created another heading as, “Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks studies in milk and dairy products” This is a part of the major revision that the Reviewer 2 has requested. We hope the addition of this section is more focused on the title of our paper, and will be acceptable to the reviewer.
“The paragraph from L 233-262……………..dairy products.”
<Ans> Because all these paragraphs were focused on Salmonella outbreaks in other foods rather than dairy foods, we have decided to delete the whole section of these paragraphs, as the reviewer requested. We also feel that this is the major revision of our manuscript.
“From L 334 to 399……………….scientific works.”
<Ans> It is a very good suggestion by the reviewer. However, there are very few reported cases, and almost none exists in caprine powder milk studies to compare with. Even bovine milk powder as well as other species milk powder with same experimental designs can be found. Some cow milk or skim milk powder studies have been reported with different research conditions. We have added some previous bovine milk and its other dairy products studies in the discussion as the reviewer suggested.
“L 400: Change ………….with Conclusion.”
<Ans> It is an outstanding review comment, because the Reviewer 1 caught our same mistake. It is actually “Conclusions”. The Reviewer 2 also found the error, but suggested to different direction. What happened was that as aforementioned answer to Reviewer 1, the graduate student (the first author) accidently changed the word from Conclusion to Discussion. This is totally the mistake of the corresponding author, due to his careless overlook by lack of time before submission of the manuscript. We apologize this big error. The word has been corrected to “Conclusion”.
Finally, we feel that the reviewers have great insights and knowledge on our review article, and acknowledge their important contributions to improve our manuscript with some major revisions.
Thank you for your attention and kind cooperation.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although reviewer's suggestions have been only partially followed, the manuscript can be accepted in its present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors revised the manuscript and answered to all the reviewer's comments. In my view,the current version is publishable in "Dairy".
