Influence of Buckwheat Seed Fractions on Dough and Baking Performance of Wheat Bread

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the work has been well written and the results are described clearly. I have some minor comments to improve the manuscript for publication.

1. Fig 1: Some images can be adjusted to be blighter so that the particles are seen clearly and they might appear nicer.
2. 2: The resolution is not good enough; this can be improved by changing with a better image.
3. The label of x-axis and y-axis of Fig. 4 is a bit small now, it is not easy to be seen.
4. On p.2, line 80: “…because there are steel little researches on..”: is it “steel” or “still”?
5. On p.2, line 89-93: please provide the method of these analysis.
6. On p.3, line 105: What is ICC method? Please provide references of this method.

 

Author Response

Comment to the Author

1. Fig 1: Some images can be adjusted to be blighter so that the particles are seen clearly and they might appear nicer.

We modified the images with a high resolution according to referee suggestions.

2. The resolution is not good enough; this can be improved by changing with a better image.

 

We increased the resolution.

3. The label of x-axis and y-axis of Fig. 4 is a bit small now, it is not easy to be seen.

 

We changed the font size of of x-axis and y-axis of Fig. 4 with a higher number.

 

1. On p.2, line 80: “…because there are steel little researches on..”: is it “steel” or “still”?.

 

 We modified „steel” with „still”.

 

1. On p.2, line 89-93: please provide the method of these analysis.

We added the methods used for these analysis.

 

1. On p.3, line 105: What is ICC method? Please provide references of this method.

 

We  added the reference of this methods.

We would like to thank the referee for the close reading and for all the given comments suitable for improving the manuscript. The manuscript was modified according to the suggestions of the reviewer

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussed topic is not new. Enrichment of bread with buckwheat flour or buckwheat grains has been widely described in the literature for many years. In addition, the authors have already published a publication in this field [23], so the current publication seems to be only a supplement to the previous research. The same research material has been used as in the previous work [23]. Dough rheology assessed by Mixolab has been replaced with dough rheology study by the Alveograph. In the present work there is lack of proximate composition of buckwheat milling fractions or reference to the previous work [23]. Moreover, the reader does not know the exact percentage composition (flour, salt, water) of bread dough samples tested with the rheological technique (both the empirical and the dynamic one). In my opinion the research concept is not logical and coherent. It would be more reasonable to examine the chemical composition of bread dough and bread, instead of flour mixtures, the more so as attempts are made to correlate the rheological properties of the dough and bread texture with the content of the determined components. I see no point in determining the FT-IR spectra of flours. Texture Profile Analysis appears in the title of section 2.8, but no such study has been carried out on the bread dough. In fact, the work comes down to the rheological study of the bread dough and the study of the physical properties of the finished bread. The latter include the evaluation of the loaf volume, the porosity and elasticity of the crumb, the colour of the crumb and the crust by means of the instrumental technique, and the evaluation of the texture characteristics measured by the TPA technique. Please provide the principle of the methods used for the bread quality assessment (Romanian SR 90:2007 standard method – not provided in the reference list). What is a difference between elasticity and springiness measured by the above-mentioned standard method and TPA technique, respectively? How was the bread sample prepared for the TPA test and why only 20% of compression strain was applied? In general, the discussion of the results is poor. For example, the results given in lines 212-220 are commented by only one sentence in lines 379-380. Mechanical spectra of the bread dough are commented by a general but not comprehensive statement: “This behavior can be attributed to the presence of different chemical compositions (protein, lipid, carbohydrates) of particle sizes and attractive bonds between molecular structures of starch granules.” Conclusions are in fact a summary of the results. English needs to be improved. More specific comments are given below.

Please explain why the chemical composition of the WF given in Table 1 is different from that given in 2.1. The proximate composition seems to be expressed not as % of dry mass (as authors claim), but as % of total mass. For example, based on the WF composition given in Section 2.1, carbohydrate content of the WH should be about 83%. Please verify.

Explain abbreviations: BL_5, BL_10 etc. and PS.

Please reconsider the explanation notes for the Tables as for means and standard deviations.

“Lower values of Tmax indicate a smaller retrogradation tendency” (lines 422-423) – please justify and/or add reference.

“These changes can be explained by the indirect method that we used in the recipe, which formed a sourdough that changed the texture of the crumb and the pore structure, due to air bubbles.” (lines 441-443) – what is a mechanism of such an influence of the sourdough on the air bubbles forming?

What is the application significance of the PCA results?

Table 3: Consider the validity of reporting the results of modules to two decimal places.

Revise the references in regard of editing correctness.

Author Response

Comment to the Author

1. The discussed topic is not new. Enrichment of bread with buckwheat flour or buckwheat grains has been widely described in the literature for many years. In addition, the authors have already published a publication in this field [23], so the current publication seems to be only a supplement to the previous research. The same research material has been used as in the previous work [23]. Dough rheology assessed by Mixolab has been replaced with dough rheology study by the Alveograph.

                    We would like to thank the referee for the close reading and for all the given comments suitable for improving the manuscript. The manuscript was modified according to the suggestions of the reviewer. In this study we conducted more extensive research of buckwheat flour fractions, in terms of buckwheat fractions structural and molecular characteristics, the chemical composition of mixed flours, chemical compounds present in flour being directly correlated with rheological properties of dough, and technological and texture properties of bread. Also, a complex rheological evaluation was evaluated, as well as the properties of the obtained finished product. 

2. In the present work there is lack of proximate composition of buckwheat milling fractions or reference to the previous work [23].

We linked the proximate composition of buckwheat milling fractions to our previous work [23] in the sucsection 2.2. Milling of Buckwheat Kernels.

3. Moreover, the reader does not know the exact percentage composition (flour, salt, water) of bread dough samples tested with the rheological technique (both the empirical and the dynamic one). In my opinion the research concept is not logical and coherent.

We specified the rheological methods used, and we supplemented with information about the percentage composition (flour, salt, water) of bread dough samples tested.

4. It would be more reasonable to examine the chemical composition of bread dough and bread, instead of flour mixtures, the more so as attempts are made to correlate the rheological properties of the dough and bread texture with the content of the determined components.

Thank you for the opportunity to discover new research topics in our field. We will take into account the offered suggestions in future research.

5. I see no point in determining the FT-IR spectra of flours.

We added some phrases to reinforce the usefulness of this method, as well as explanations. We added supplemented information about functional groups and linkages for dough formation.

6. Texture Profile Analysis appears in the title of section 2.8, but no such study has been carried out on the bread dough. In fact, the work comes down to the rheological study of the bread dough and the study of the physical properties of the finished bread.

Thank you very much for your kind remark. We will take into account for future analysis, and we delete the “Texture Profile Analysis” from the title of section 2.8.

7. The latter include the evaluation of the loaf volume, the porosity and elasticity of the crumb, the color of the crumb and the crust by means of the instrumental technique, and the evaluation of the texture characteristics measured by the TPA technique.

A: Please provide the principle of the methods used for the bread quality assessment (Romanian SR 90:2007 standard method – not provided in the reference list).

We detailed the methods used and we added the reference of Romanian SR 90:2007 standard method.

B: What is a difference between elasticity and springiness measured by the above-mentioned standard method and TPA technique, respectively? How was the bread sample prepared for the TPA test and why only 20% of compression strain was applied?

Elasticity measured by the Romanian SR 90: 2007 method is based on only one compression. We described in the manuscript this method.

Springiness, determined by the TPA technique, resulted from double-cycle compression and is measured by the distance of the detected height during the second compression divided by the original compression distance.

We followed the Perten Instruments Method Description TVT Method 01-03.01 of determining crumb properties - double cycle compression and it is only 20% of compression strain.

8. In general, the discussion of the results is poor.

Thank you for your deeply reading and kind remarks. We tried to supplement the discussion in order to improve the quality of our manuscript.

9. For example, the results given in lines 212-220 are commented by only one sentence in lines 379-380.

We completed with more comments the results.

10. Mechanical spectra of the bread dough are commented by a general but not comprehensive statement: “This behavior can be attributed to the presence of different chemical compositions (protein, lipid, carbohydrates) of particle sizes and attractive bonds between molecular structures of starch granules.”

We added some supplementary information’s.

11. Conclusions are in fact a summary of the results.

We reformulated the conclusions.

12. English needs to be improved. More specific comments are given below.

We improved the English language.

1. Please explain why the chemical composition of the WF given in Table 1 is different from that given in 2.1. The proximate composition seems to be expressed not as % of dry mass (as authors claim), but as % of total mass. For example, based on the WF composition given in Section 2.1, carbohydrate content of the WH should be about 83%. Please verify.

We corrected our mistake, the chemical composition of the WF from section 2.1. Materials.

2. Explain abbreviations: BL_5, BL_10 etc., and PS.

We explain the abbreviations of the samples in the subsection 2.3. Sample’s Formulations.

3. Please reconsider the explanation notes for the Tables as for means and standard deviations.

We changed the explanation notes for the Tables as for means and standard deviations.

4. “Lower values of Tmax indicate a smaller retrogradation tendency” (lines 422-423) – please justify and/or add reference.

We added a reference.

5. “These changes can be explained by the indirect method that we used in the recipe, which formed a sourdough that changed the texture of the crumb and the pore structure, due to air bubbles.” (lines 441-443) – what is a mechanism of such an influence of the sourdough on the air bubbles forming?

We explained in the manuscript the mechanism of such influence of the sourdough on the air bubbles forming.

6. What is the application significance of the PCA results?

The graph describing the grouping of the proximate composition, dough rheological characteristics, and bread physical and textural parameters using the PCA mix represents the distances between the variable categories in the factor space. The smaller the distance between the variables, the more significant the strength of the connections. The PCA was applied to flour proximate composition, dough rheological, and bread technological parameters in order to provide knowledge about the existence of relationships among properties and to reach a preliminary definition of parameters that can characterize and discriminate the flour, dough, and bread samples.

7. Table 3: Consider the validity of reporting the results of modules to two decimal places.

We reported the results of modules at two decimal places.

8. Revise the references in regard to editing correctness.

We revised the references after correctness.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Agronomy

 

 

Title: Influence of buckwheat seeds fractions on dough and baking performance of wheat bread

 

Authors: Ionica Coţovanu and Silvia Mironeasa

 

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1512271

 

Review of the Manuscript

 

I would like to commend this Manuscript, which consider possibilities of application the buckwheat's fraction during production of bread. Any improvement of production and composition of bakery products based on white flour is welcome. Also, the work is very well organized and include many physical and chemical methods significant for dough manipulation and prediction of dough behavior, as well as quality of final product. The applied statistical analysis is also for commend.  I would recommend the publishing of this Manuscript, but with some minor corrections, which will contribute to its final version, according to the following remarks׃

 

Comment 1: Line 26. Please, change and complement the Keywords with words that explain the methods, such as dough rheology, bread quality. The keywords should complement and not repeat the title (remember that the aim of keywords is to increase visibility of your article in the databases, therefore more general words might be relevant, or words that describe the work, but you did not manage to include them in the title). Please modify.

Comment 2: The Introduction is well written, with the good explanation of the aim of this work. Line 66. Please, add the word particle in the sentence: „The size of the flour greatly influences the chemical composition and…”. It should be „ The particle size of the flour greatly influences the chemical composition and…”. Line 76. Cut this sentence, a put the dot after the processes (processes; on the contrary, a too highly viscous batter can restrict its expansion during…). Line 77: It is better to say „in the aim to provide information…” instead of „ The impact of particle size and addition level on dough rheology for providing information...”. Lines 80: Make corrections in the sentence and instead of „little” use „a lack of”.

Comment 3: Lines 90-92. Please, provide some information about used methods. Is this AOAC methods?

Comment 4: Line 98. It is better to use the range M=180–300 μm.

Comment 5: Lines 100–103. Please, in the subsection 2.3. Sample’s Formulations, introduce the samples BL_5, BL_10, BL_15... and explain their content, in the aim to use that marks later during the manuscript.

Comment 6: Line 109. Explain the meaning of color parameters L*, a*, and b* and the meaning of their sign.  

Comment 7: Line 109. Please explain why thirty replicate measurement were done?

 

Comment 8: Lines 129–131. Was there any preparation of the samples before SEM analysis or sample coating?

Comment 9: Line 148. I would like just to suggest for any further analysis to use the serrated plate-plate geometry in the aim to obtain more reliable results. 

Comment 10: Line 159. Please try to use „obtained” before the noun throughout the whole manuscript.

Comment 11: Line 205. Be consistent and use always M, S, L marks instead of whole words.

Comment 12: Line 210. Put „at” instead of „to medium PS”.

Comment 13: Line 215. Please, use the adverbs before the verb „ The lightness L* values significantly (p < 0.01) decreased in all composite...” throughout the whole manuscript.

Comment 14: Tables 1–5. Please, use the adjective before the noun „ Factor I: level of BF addition; Factor II: BF particle size; ± – means values; a-e – indicates significant (p ˂ 0.05) difference between BF addition level; x-z – indicates significant (p ˂ 0.05) difference between BF particle size. L*– lightness; a* – greenness; b* – yellowness, throughout the whole manuscript.

Comment 15: Line 234–236. It is better to say „ Resistance to deformation increased gradually in all samples when BF addition level increased, but at samples with incorporated medium and small PS (except BS_20), it was observed a lower value than the control sample.” Line 243. „... significantly (p < 0.001) lower than for the control sample (21.55%).”

Comment 16: Lines 281–283. „ all the samples presenting highest values than the volume of control bread, while for the bread with small PS, this physical parameter decreased with the increase of BF fractions”. Rephrase this sentence to be clearer and use it as single one.

Comment 17. Line 286. Use „than control bread” instead of „...values of control bread”.

Comment 18: Line 289–290. There are some excessive commas and some joined words.

Comment 19. Line 325. Avoid the phrase „than that of the control bread” throughout the whole manuscript. The expression „ than control bread” or „than for control bread” is enough.

Comment 20. Lines 340–341. Please delete „the probability” from this sentence.

Comment 21. Subsection 4.2. Fourier Transforms Infrared Spectrometry Analysis of Flours. Can you explain the role of these functional groups and linkages for dough formation or for properties of obtained dough?

Comment 22. Lines 405–407. This sentence is redundant, because it repeats already said.

Comment 23. Subsection 4.4.2. Dynamic rheological parameters. Please, complement this discussion with the observations about changes of storage and loss modulus, and try to explain how the increase of storage modulus point to physical properties of the dough. Is there any relation between dynamic modulus and textural properties of obtained bread?

Comment 24. 5. Conclusion. Conclusion must be rephrased and must single out only the most important conclusions that referred to general properties of final product and to achieved goals of whole work. There is no need to repeat obtained results or to explain changes of observed parameters or properties.

Comment 25. References I would like to commend the application of lot of references from the recent years.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to commend this Manuscript, which consider possibilities of application the buckwheat's fraction during production of bread. Any improvement of production and composition of bakery products based on white flour is welcome. Also, the work is very well organized and include many physical and chemical methods significant for dough manipulation and prediction of dough behavior, as well as quality of final product. The applied statistical analysis is also for commend.  I would recommend the publishing of this Manuscript, but with some minor corrections, which will contribute to its final version, according to the following remarks׃

Thank you very much, dear reviewer, for your kind remarks and for your appreciation, which makes to improve our work for the final version.

Comment 1: Line 26. Please, change and complement the Keywords with words that explain the methods, such as dough rheology, bread quality. The keywords should complement and not repeat the title (remember that the aim of keywords is to increase visibility of your article in the databases, therefore more general words might be relevant, or words that describe the work, but you did not manage to include them in the title). Please modify.

We modified the keywords based on your kindly suggestion.

Comment 2: The Introduction is well written, with the good explanation of the aim of this work. Line 66. Please, add the word particle in the sentence: „The size of the flour greatly influences the chemical composition and…”. It should be „ The particle size of the flour greatly influences the chemical composition and…”. Line 76. Cut this sentence, a put the dot after the processes (processes; on the contrary, a too highly viscous batter can restrict its expansion during…). Line 77: It is better to say „in the aim to provide information…” instead of „ The impact of particle size and addition level on dough rheology for providing information...”. Lines 80: Make corrections in the sentence and instead of „little” use „a lack of”.

• We added the word „particle” at line 66.
• We cut the sentence after the processes. „on the contrary, a too highly viscous batter can restrict its expansion during baking”.
• We modified with „in the aim to provide information” instead of The impact of particle size and addition level on dough rheology for providing information...”.
• We corrected the sentence and instead of „little” we used „a lack of”.

Comment 3: Lines 90-92. Please, provide some information about used methods. Is this AOAC methods?

We added the methods used for these analyses („according to the international ICC standard methods”) and we added the reference of this method.

Comment 4: Line 98. It is better to use the range M=180–300 μm.

We used the range M=180–300 μm.

Comment 5: Lines 100–103. Please, in the subsection 2.3. Sample’s Formulations, introduce the samples BL_5, BL_10, BL_15... and explain their content, in the aim to use that marks later during the manuscript.

We explain abbreviations of the samples in subsection 2.3. Sample’s Formulations.

Comment 6: Line 109. Explain the meaning of color parameters L*, a*, and b* and the meaning of their sign.  We  complete the meaning of color parameters.

We explained the meaning of color parameters, L*, a* and b* and the meaning of their sign.

Comment 7: Line 109. Please explain why thirty replicate measurement were done?

We correct our mistake. Three replicate measurements were performed.

Comment 8: Lines 129–131. Was there any preparation of the samples before SEM analysis or sample coating?

We added the sentence „the samples being fixed on double-sided adhesive carbon bands”.

Comment 9: Line 148. I would like just to suggest for any further analysis to use the serrated plate-plate geometry in the aim to obtain more reliable results. 

Thank you very much for your kind suggestion. We will consider it in future research.

Comment 10: Line 159. Please try to use „obtained” before the noun throughout the whole manuscript.

Thank you very much for your kind advice. We replaced the adjective „obtained” before the noun throughout the whole manuscript.

Comment 11: Line 205. Be consistent and use always M, S, L marks instead of whole words.

We used in all manuscript marks (L, M, and S), instead of whole words.

Comment 12: Line 210. Put „at” instead of „to medium PS”.

We changed „at” instead of „to medium PS”..

Comment 13: Line 215. Please, use the adverbs before the verb „ The lightness L* values significantly (p < 0.01) decreased in all composite...” throughout the whole manuscript.

We replaced in all manuscript the adverbs before the verb.

Comment 14: Tables 1–5. Please, use the adjective before the noun „ Factor I: level of BF addition; Factor II: BF particle size; ± – means values; a-e – indicates significant (p ˂ 0.05) difference between BF addition level; x-z – indicates significant (p ˂ 0.05) difference between BF particle size. L*– lightness; a* – greenness; b* – yellowness, throughout the whole manuscript.

We replaced in all manuscript the adjective before the noun.

Comment 15: Line 234–236. It is better to say „ Resistance to deformation increased gradually in all samples when BF addition level increased, but at samples with incorporated medium and small PS (except BS_20), it was observed a lower value than the control sample.” Line 243. „... significantly (p < 0.001) lower than for the control sample (21.55%).”

We corrected the sentences as you kindly suggest.

Comment 16: Lines 281–283. „ all the samples presenting highest values than the volume of control bread, while for the bread with small PS, this physical parameter decreased with the increase of BF fractions”. Rephrase this sentence to be clearer and use it as single one. „all the samples presenting highest values than the control bread, with except of bread with S particle size incorporation”.

Thank you very much or your help to rephrase this sentence.

Comment 17. Line 286. Use „than control bread” instead of „...values of control bread”.

We replaced in all manuscript.

Comment 18: Line 289–290. There are some excessive commas and some joined words.

We delete the inutile commas.

Comment 19. Line 325. Avoid the phrase „than that of the control bread” throughout the whole manuscript. The expression „ than control bread” or „than for control bread” is enough.

We replace the expression or „than for control bread” with „ than control bread” in the whole manuscript.

Comment 20. Lines 340–341. Please delete „the probability” from this sentence.

                We deleted “the probability” from this sentence.

Comment 21. Subsection 4.2. Fourier Transforms Infrared Spectrometry Analysis of Flours. Can you explain the role of these functional groups and linkages for dough formation or for properties of obtained dough?

In subsection Subsection 4.2. Fourier Transforms Infrared Spectrometry Analysis of Flours we added more information and discussions.

Comment 22. Lines 405–407. This sentence is redundant, because it repeats already said.

We deleted this sentence „The viscoelastic behavior of composite dough samples was investigated by oscillation frequency sweep experiments conducted in the linear viscoelastic range, determining storage and viscous moduli.”

Comment 23. Subsection 4.4.2. Dynamic rheological parameters. Please, complement this discussion with the observations about changes of storage and loss modulus, and try to explain how the increase of storage modulus point to physical properties of the dough. Is there any relation between dynamic modulus and textural properties of obtained bread?

We completed the discussion with observations about changes of storage and loss modulus and explained how the increase of storage modulus points to the physical properties of the dough. The relation between dynamic modulus and textural properties of obtained bread was highlighted.

Comment 24. 5. Conclusion. Conclusion must be rephrased and must single out only the most important conclusions that referred to general properties of final product and to achieved goals of whole work. There is no need to repeat obtained results or to explain changes of observed parameters or properties.

We rephrased the general results in order to highlight the achieved goals of the whole work. Thank you for your important observations that help us to improve our work.

Comment 25. References I would like to commend the application of lot of references from the recent years.

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the close reading and for all his comments and suggestions, which have helped us to correct our work and present it in a more acceptable form.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to most of my comments and revised the manuscript. Nevertheless, there are still a few minor changes to carry, as follows:

Line 78: Double dot.

Lines 78-79: Rewrite the sentence.

Line 93: Redundant symbols.

Lines 99-101: Rewrite the sentence.

Line 127: Insert space before “h”.

Line 168: Symbol of degree is in superscript.

Line 203: Redundant space in word “Figure”.

Caption for Figure 1: There is “fo” instead of “of”.

Line 216: There is “interfire” instead of “interfere”.

Lines 233 and 234: Insert units for the values in brackets.

Lines 238 and 348: replace “follow” with “follows”.

Lines 246-247: Influence on what?

Lines 253-255: Continue the previous paragraph.

Lines 268, 269: Insert units for the values in brackets.

Lines 270-271: linked words

Unify the way of presenting values of p in the whole manuscript (text, Tables) – in italic or not in italic (see for example lines 274, 281, 285, Table 5).

Table 3. What is “adim.” below tan d?

Line 317: Double dot.

Line 320: The word “porosity” is redundant.

Line 364: Replace “didn’t” with “did not”.

Lines 403-406, 406-409, and  411-412: Rewrite the sentences.

Author Response

The authors responded to most of my comments and revised the manuscript. Nevertheless, there are still a few minor changes to carry, as follows:

 

Line 78: Double dot.

We deleted.

Lines 78-79: Rewrite the sentence.

We rewrote the sentence.

Line 93: Redundant symbols.

We deleted symbols.

Lines 99-101: Rewrite the sentence.

We rewrote the sentence.

Line 127: Insert space before “h”.

We inserted a space before „h”.

Line 168: Symbol of degree is in superscript.

We changed the symbol of degree.

Line 203: Redundant space in word “Figure”.

We deleted the space.

Caption for Figure 1: There is “fo” instead of “of”.

We corrected.

 

Line 216: There is “interfire” instead of “interfere”.

We corrected.

Lines 233 and 234: Insert units for the values in brackets.

We inserted units for the values in brackets.

Lines 238 and 348: replace “follow” with “follows”.

We replaced.

Lines 246-247: Influence on what?

We completed.

Lines 253-255: Continue the previous paragraph.

We continued the previous paragraph and we deleted these lines.

Lines 268, 269: Insert units for the values in brackets.

We inserted units for the values in brackets.

Lines 270-271: linked words

We added the linked words.

Unify the way of presenting values of p in the whole manuscript (text, Tables) – in italic or not in italic (see for example lines 274, 281, 285, Table 5).

We unified in all manuscripts the way for presenting values of p in italic.

Table 3. What is “adim.” below tan d?

The word „adim.” mean „adimensional”

Line 317: Double dot.

We deleted.

Line 320: The word “porosity” is redundant.

We deleted.

Line 364: Replace “didn’t” with “did not”.

We replaced.

Lines 403-406, 406-409, and  411-412: Rewrite the sentences

We rewrote the sentences.

Thank you very much, dear reviewer, for your kind remarks and for your deep attention to reading the manuscript, which improves our work for the final version.