Advances in Spectroscopic Methods for Predicting Cheddar Cheese Maturity: A Review of FT-IR, NIR, and NMR Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript, a review of spectroscopic methods for predicting the ripeness of cheddar cheese, is a crucial contribution to the field. It is an exciting topic that, with some modifications, will be ready for publication. 

 

1. In Figure 6, a red circled zone is at the top of the graph labeled "prediction error ?" This zone needs to be explicitly explained in the text and filled in. Also, the interrogative form of "prediction error ?" is not appropriate in the paper. Is this an error? I want the authors to specify their estimates precisely based on logical and scientific grounds.

 

2. In '3. Materials and Methods: There are two research questions. Among them, RQ2 is explained in '4.5'. Then, where is the answer to RQ1? It would be best if you created a new chapter to answer the question, such as RQ2.

 

3. In 4.5. RQ2: Most Effective Spectroscopic Methods in Cheese Analysis, three types of spectroscopic methods are compared. To communicate the information effectively, I recommend adding a new table for each of the four characteristics (Time, Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Accuracy) of FT-IR, NIR, and NMR.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your valuable feedback and for recognising the significance of our work on spectroscopic methods for predicting the maturity of Cheddar cheese. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and providing constructive comments.

Comment 1: In Figure 6, a red circled zone is at the top of the graph labeled "prediction error ?" This zone needs to be explicitly explained in the text and filled in. Also, the interrogative form of "prediction error ?" is not appropriate in the paper. Is this an error? I want the authors to specify their estimates precisely based on logical and scientific grounds.

Response 1: We have addressed your concern regarding the red circled zone labelled "prediction error?" by removing it from the figure. Additionally, we have provided a clearer explanation of the presented data, explicitly discussing the variation in prediction accuracy, which is now detailed in the revised text (lines 470-473 and 503-504).

Comment 2: In '3. Materials and Methods: There are two research questions. Among them, RQ2 is explained in '4.5'. Then, where is the answer to RQ1? It would be best if you created a new chapter to answer the question, such as RQ2.

Response 2: We have clarified the sections of the manuscript that discuss RQ1 and RQ2 by explicitly labelling the relevant chapters. This should make it easier for readers to follow our discussion and understand where each research question is addressed.

Comment 3: In 4.5. RQ2: Most Effective Spectroscopic Methods in Cheese Analysis, three types of spectroscopic methods are compared. To communicate the information effectively, I recommend adding a new table for each of the four characteristics (Time, Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Accuracy) of FT-IR, NIR, and NMR.

Response 3: In response to your suggestion to enhance the communication of the four characteristics (Time, Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Accuracy), we have restructured the content discussing RQ2. Given that these characteristics were primarily derived from the literature review rather than our own empirical evaluation, we opted not to include a new table but instead provide a detailed comparative discussion in the revised manuscript.

We believe these revisions, made in response to your insightful feedback, have significantly strengthened the manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive comments, which have been instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sanja Seratlic

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comment for ndt-3186995 is listed as follows,

(1)   In Abstract, please change the "Fourier Transform Infrared (FT‐IR), Near‐Infrared (NIR), and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" into the "Fourier transform infrared (FT‐IR), near‐infrared (NIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)".

(2)   Please correct right words format in the paragraphs and please denote all of abbreviations in firstly used in the sentences of paragraphs, after then use that abbreviation.

lines 57-58: please change the "Fourier Transform Infrared (FT‐IR), Near‐Infrared (NIR), and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" into the "Fourier transform infrared (FT‐IR), near‐infrared (NIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)";

lines 191, 426 and 828: please change the "near‐infrared (NIR)" into the "NIR";

line 368: please change the "spectroscopy (FT‐IR)" into the "FT‐IR spectroscopy";

lines 270: please change the "Principal Component Analysis (PCA)" into the " principal component analysis (PCA)";

lines 274, 518 and 792: please change the "Principal Component Analysis (PCA)" into the "PCA";

lines 270-271: please change the "Partial Least Squares (PLS)" into the "partial least squares (PLS)";

lines 457, 481, 494 and 792-793: please change the "partial least squares (PLS)" into the "PLS";

line 271: please change the "Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)" into the " artificial neural networks (ANNs)";

line 377: please change the "water‐soluble fractions (WSF)" into the "water‐soluble fractions (WSFs)";

lines 310, 315, 547 and 793: please change the "Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)" into the "ANNs ";

line 402: please change the "Support Vector Machine (SVM)" into the "support vector machine (SVM)";

lines 407-407: please change the "Gas Chromatography‐Flame Ionization Detection (GC‐FID)" into the "gas chromatography‐flame ionization detection (GC‐FID)";

line 420: please change the "Direct Orthogonal Signal Correction (DOSC)" into the "direct orthogonal signal correction (DOSC)";

lines 420-421: please change the "Kernel Partial Least Squares (KPLS)" into the "kernel partial least squares (KPLS)";

line 550: please change the "Quality Descriptive Analysis (QDA)" into the " quality descriptive analysis (QDA)";

lines 568, 569, 621 and 829: please change the "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" into the "NMR";

line 580: please change the "Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)" into the " magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)";

line 382, please denote the "PC 1", "TEV" and the above "PC 2" in Figure 3, also check with different forms "PC-1" and "PC-2" in Figure 9;

line 445, please denote the PC 5".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript and your valuable feedback. We appreciate your thoughtful comments, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work.

1. Abstract: We have updated the terminology as suggested, changing "Fourier Transform Infrared (FT-IR), Near-Infrared (NIR), and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)" to "Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), near-infrared (NIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)" in the Abstract and throughout the manuscript.
2. Abbreviation Denotation: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured all abbreviations are denoted at their first use, with the correct formatting applied in subsequent uses. The specific lines you mentioned have been updated accordingly.
3. Denotations: To ensure clarity in the manuscript, we have unified the labelling of the axes in Figures 3 and 9 and provided a better explanation for the "PC5" (line 445).
4. Readability Improvements: We also took this opportunity to enhance the readability of the manuscript by selecting more commonly used synonyms where appropriate, ensuring that the content is accessible to a broader audience.

We have carefully considered and addressed all your comments, making specific changes that we believe have significantly improved the overall quality of the manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable in helping us refine our work, and we are grateful for your contribution.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sanja Seratlic

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Comment for ndt-3186995-v2 is listed as follows,

(1)   Please correct right words format in the paragraphs and please denote all of abbreviations in firstly used in the sentences of paragraphs, after then use that abbreviation.

In line 280, please change the "3.3.1. Principal component analysis (PCA)" into the "3.3.1. PCA".

In line 315, please change the "3.3.3. Artificial neural networks (ANNs)" into the "3.3.3. ANNs".

In lines 592, please change the "4.1.3. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy" into the "4.1.3. NMR spectroscopy".

In Figure 3, please denote the horizontal axis name "PC 1" and the vertical axis name "PC 2".

In line 616, please check the "PC2" is in different form with "PC 2".

In Figure 9, please check the horizontal axis name "PC-1"and the vertical axis name "PC-2" is in different forms with "PC1" and "PC2". Please change and denote them into the same forms, .e.g. the “(PC4 and PC5)" used in line 464.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thorough review.

We have carefully addressed all the points raised in your feedback, as follows:

• In Figures 3 and 9: We have standardised the naming of the axes, changing "PC 1"/"PC 2"  and  "PC-1"/"PC-2" to the uniform format "PC1" and "PC2," as suggested. This also applies to the rest of the manuscript, ensuring consistency across all instances where these terms are used.
• Line 591: We have reviewed the formatting of "PC2" to ensure it matches the uniform format "PC1," "PC2" with "PC4" and "PC5" in line 443.

Regarding the subtitles in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.3, and 4.1.3, we have opted to keep the full names (e.g., "Principal component analysis (PCA)," "Artificial neural networks (ANNs)," and "Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy") in these sub-titles. Since these are formal headings, we believe that using the full names provides clarity and a professional tone for readers who might be unfamiliar with these abbreviations. As per your previous suggestion, we have denoted the abbreviations after the first mention in each section and have consistently used the abbreviations throughout the text afterwards.

Additionally, we noted your suggestion for moderate English editing and have reviewed the manuscript again for potential improvements in clarity and readability. 

We believe the additional changes have further improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sanja Seratlic

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf