Effect of Heat Treatment on Nutritional and Chromatic Properties of Mung Bean (Vigna radiata L.)
, Yu-Tsung Cheng 2,†, Yung-Jia Chan 3, Wen-Chien Lu 4,* and Po-Hsien Li 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript has been improved as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors accepted the reviewers' suggestions, therefore I believe that now the manuscript can be published.
There’s just a little correction to be made, in lines 152 and 153 the unit of measurement must be corrected (µL , not uL).
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented a paper on effect of heat treatment on nutritional and chromatic properties of mung bean. The topic is interesting and well within the aims and scopes of the Journal.
Yet, the manuscript needs some changes and implementations before it can be fully considered for publication.
My requests are listed below one by one:
INTRODUCTION:
Line 50: Please write “Phaseolus aureus” in Italics.
Line 86: insert "NCBI, 2022" in references, citing the website as requested by the Journal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Better description of sampling, indicating from how many plants the samples were collected.
Line 141: How many samples? Replicas?
Line 150: How many samples were analysed?
Line 168, 175 and 190: Better describe these methods, highlighting the changes to the references.
Line 169 and 177: Specify which samples. Those subjected to heat treatment? Supernatants or bottom solids?
Line 180: How much sample (g)? How many ml of solvent?
Line 201: Check the brackets.
Line 218: “The purified chlorophyll dried powder …”
Line 218: How much sample (g)? How many ml of solvent?
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
Line 301,351, 374, 397,429,443, 444, 448,449: There are some words or references written in red.
Line 324, 343, 411: Standardize the manuscript, indicating the references with the number.
Line 367: Write Turkmen et al. (2006)45 .
Line 395: Paragraph 3.9 is missing.
Line 400 and following: SI Units (International System of Units) should be used. To be compliant with SI, the symbol used for hour must be h.
CONCLUSIONS:
This part needs to be improved, highlighting the conclusions better.
Line 461: Correct the unit of measurement (mg?).
REFERENCES:
Adapt the format of the references to the requirements of the Journal (Abbreviated Journal Name, etc.). Standardize all dates in bold.
Line 500: “accessed”
Line 534: replace “n/a (n/a)” with “46 (3)”
Line 535, 541, 556, 562, 579,587, 627, 654, 659: There are 2 references within the same reference number.
Line 568: replace “n/a (n/a)” with “57 (4)”
FIGURES:
All figures are of poor quality and words and numbers are unreadable.
TABLES:
Table 3: Standardize to 2 decimal places “1.547 and 4.9”. To be compliant with SI, the symbol used for hour must be h.
Author Response
The authors presented a paper on effect of heat treatment on nutritional and chromatic properties of mung bean. The topic is interesting and well within the aims and scopes of the Journal. Yet, the manuscript needs some changes and implementations before it can be fully considered for publication. My requests are listed below one by one:
Point 1: Line 50: Please write “Phaseolus aureus” in Italics.
Response 1: Thanks for the mment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Line 86: insert "NCBI, 2022" in references, citing the website as requested by the Journal.
Response 2: Thanks for the comment, we had inserted “NCBI, 2022” in the revised manuscript, and also cited the website as requested by the Journal. “NCBI. "Pubchem compound summary for cid 6266510, chlorophyll'a'." https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlorophyll_a.(accessed on 16 May, 2022)”. “NCBI. "Pubchem compound summary for cid 11593175, chlorophyll b." https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlorophyll-B.(accessed on 16 May, 2022)”.
Point 3: Better description of sampling, indicating from how many plants the samples were collected.
Response 3: Thanks for this positive comment, we had added the information of sampling and collecting in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Line 141: How many samples? Replicas?
Response 4: Thanks for the comment, mung bean samples were whole mung bean, seed coat, and cotyledon via freeze-dry treatment. All experiments were performed in triplicate.
Point 5: Line 150: How many samples were analysed?
Response 5: Thanks for this comment, in the predominant analysis, we had analyzed the seed coat and cotyledons of mung bean samples in triplicate.
Point 6: Line 168, 175 and 190: Better describe these methods, highlighting the changes to the references.
Response 6: Thanks for the comment, we had revised and rewritten these method in the revised manuscript.
Point 7: Line 169 and 177: Specify which samples. Those subjected to heat treatment? Supernatants or bottom solids?
Response 7: Thanks for these comments, the assessed mung bean samples were whole mung bean, seed coat, and cotyledon via freeze-dry treatment. The details of the methods had been rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Point 8: Line 180: How much sample (g)? How many ml of solvent?
Response 8: Thanks for the comment, 2 g of dried sample was used for the experiment. The composition of the solvent was 40 mL acetone, 60 mL n-hexane, and 0.1 g MgCO3. We had rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Point 9: Line 201: Check the brackets.
Response 9: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 10: Line 218: “The purified chlorophyll dried powder …”; How much sample (g)? How many ml of solvent?
Response 10: Thanks for these comments, we had corrected in the revised manuscript. We had corrected into “The purified chlorophyll drier powder was dissolved in methanol (50:50, v/v) diluted to a concentration of 3 mg L-1”
Point 11: Line 301,351, 374, 397,429,443, 444, 448,449: There are some words or references written in red.
Response 11: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Line 324, 343, 411: Standardize the manuscript, indicating the references with the number.
Response 12: Thanks for the comment, we had standardized the number of references in the revised manuscript.
Point 13: Line 367: Write Turkmen et al. (2006)45 .
Response 13: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 14: Line 395: Paragraph 3.9 is missing.
Response 14: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 15: Line 400 and following: SI Units (International System of Units) should be used. To be compliant with SI, the symbol used for hour must be h.
Response 15: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected into SI units in the revised manuscript.
Point 16: This part needs to be improved, highlighting the conclusions better.
Response 16: Thanks for the positive comment, we had improved and rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Point 17: Line 461: Correct the unit of measurement (mg?).
Response 17: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 18: References have been revised with MDPI Chicago-style EndNote template files.
Response 18: Thanks for the positive comment, we had revised with MDPI Chicago-style EndNote template files in the revised manuscript.
Point 19: Adapt the format of the references to the requirements of the Journal (Abbreviated Journal Name, etc.). Standardize all dates in bold.
Response 19: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 20: Line 500: “accessed”
Response 20: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 21: Line 534: replace “n/a (n/a)” with “46 (3)”
Response 21: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 22: Line 535, 541, 556, 562, 579,587, 627, 654, 659: There are 2 references within the same reference number.
Response 22: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 23: Line 568: replace “n/a (n/a)” with “57 (4)”
Response 23: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 24: All figures are of poor quality and words and numbers are unreadable.
Response 24: Thanks for the positive comment, we had upgrated the resolution of all figures in the revised manuscript.
Point 25: Table 3: Standardize to 2 decimal places “1.547 and 4.9”. To be compliant with SI, the symbol used for hour must be h.
Response 25: Thanks for the positive comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Finally, thanks for 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 2 Report
general comments are addressed to:
Manuscript is not prepared according to the journal's instructions.
Word template was not used.
Highlights are not necessary for the submission.
No graphical abstract is provided.
References should be formatted in a following manner [1]…
English should be carefully checked.
The impersonal style of writing should be used through the text.
Topic of the manuscript is interesting, but results are not well presented.
Style of writing should be corrected through the text.
Latin names of the plant should be written in Italic.
Keywords: add those that do not appear in the title and reflect the content of the paper
Abstract – it should be rewritten.
Lines 26-31: text should be shortened in 1-2 introduction sentences
More results should be included in the abstract.
Introduction
Too long description of chlorophyll a and b.
Lines 84-87 are redundant.
Instead of extensive description of chlorophyll a and b, chemical structures could be presented in a figure.
Line 88: …the Mg will be replaced by hydrogen…
I really do not know if this possible. Authors should explain this in more detail or delete it. I suggest the later one.
Line 102: ….causes irregular biochemical reactions and allergies in animals.
Did authors mean in studies on animal? Otherwise it is not important as they report research on the use of mung bean for human consumption.
Lines 108-111: The sentence is too long and not easily understandable. It should be clarified.
Material and methods
For most of the experimental procedures authors wrote that they have done it with modification of literature procedures. So they should briefly describe what are the modifications that they have done.
Clarification of some experimental procedure is missing. Specific comments are given in PDF file.
Line 304: the same style of units presentation should be used through the text. E.a …cyanidin 340 g mol-1, should be presented as g/mol as authors already presented units in the previous lines.
Results and Discussion
It must be improved.
Line 280: …..Under acidic conditions, the Mg in chlorophyll will be replaced by hydrogen,..
How? Please explain or do not mention it.
No statistical (in)significant differences was presented between treatments or studied traits.
It should be done.
Line 357: … what are simple polyphenols?
Line 367: Turkmen, Poyrazoglu, Sari and Velioglu45.. it should be written as Turkmen et al45, or Turkmen and co-workers45.
Similar reference citing do egzist in the text , so it should be corrected.
Other specific comments are given in the PDF file.
Conclusion must represent a brief summary of the achieved results.
Line 460: …pheophytin was formed;
How do you know that?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Manuscript is not prepared according to the journal's instructions.
Response 1: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected according to the journal’s instructons in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Word template was not used.
Response 2: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected the manuscript according to the website template.
Point 3: Highlights are not necessary for the submission.
Response 3: Thanks for this comment, we had added the highlights in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: No graphical abstract is provided.
Response 4: Thanks for this comment, we had added the graphic abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 5: References should be formatted in a following manner [1]…
Response 5: Thanks for this comment, we had formatted the references according to the MDPI Chicago-style EndNote template file in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: English should be carefully checked.
Response 6: Thanks for this comment, some grammatical errors, verb tense, singular/plural, and improper words had been modified and revised.
Point 7: The impersonal style of writing should be used through the text.
Response 7: Thanks for this comment, some impersonal style of writing had been modified in the revised manuscript.
Point 8: Topic of the manuscript is interesting, but results are not well presented.
Response 8: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten and improved the results in the revised manuscript.
Point 9: Style of writing should be corrected through the text.
Response 9: Thanks for this comment, some style of writing had been modified in the revised manuscript.
Point 10: Latin names of the plant should be written in Italic.
Response 10: Thanks for this comment, we had written in Italic in Latin name of the plant in the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Keywords: add those that do not appear in the title and reflect the content of the paper
Response 11: Thanks for this comment, we had added the new keywords in the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Abstract – it should be rewritten.
Response 12: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 13: Lines 26-31: text should be shortened in 1-2 introduction sentences
Response 13: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 14: More results should be included in the abstract.
Response 14: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 15: Too long description of chlorophyll a and b. Lines 84-87 are redundant. Instead of extensive description of chlorophyll a and b, chemical structures could be presented in a figure.
Response 15: Thanks for this comment, we had shortened and deleted the description of chlorophyll in the revised manuscript.
Point 16: Line 88: …the Mg will be replaced by hydrogen…I really do not know if this possible. Authors should explain this in more detail or delete it. I suggest the later one.
Response 16: Thanks for this comment, we had deleted in the revised manuscript.
Point 17: Line 102: ….causes irregular biochemical reactions and allergies in animals. Did authors mean in studies on animal? Otherwise it is not important as they report research on the use of mung bean for human consumption.
Response 17: Thanks for this comment, we had deleted and rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Point 18: Lines 108-111: The sentence is too long and not easily understandable. It should be clarified.
Response 18: Thanks for this comment, we had shortened and rewritten in the revised manuscript.
Point 19: For most of the experimental procedures authors wrote that they have done it with modification of literature procedures. So they should briefly describe what are the modifications that they have done. Clarification of some experimental procedure is missing. Specific comments are given in PDF file.
Response 19: Thanks for this comment, these specific methodologies have been rewritten and revised in the manuscript. These sections are as follows 2.5-2.8.
Point 20: Line 304: the same style of units presentation should be used through the text. E.a …cyanidin 340 g mol-1, should be presented as g/mol as authors already presented units in the previous lines.
Response 20: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected into the same style of units in the revised manuscript.
Point 21: It must be improved. Line 280: …..Under acidic conditions, the Mg in chlorophyll will be replaced by hydrogen,. How? Please explain or do not mention it.
Response 21: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten in line L311-314 of revised manuscript: “The chlorophyll-bound Magnesium is released when the green plant undergoes thermal processing caused by the denaturation of lipoproteins and loses their protective effect, H+ replaces Mg2+ in tetrapyrrole to pheophytin, and the green color vanishes to form a brownish-yellow [41].”
Point 22: No statistical (in)significant differences was presented between treatments or studied traits. It should be done.
Response 22: Thanks for this comment, we had added the statistical differences between treatments in the revised manuscript.
Point 23: Line 357: … what are simple polyphenols?
Response 23: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected the simple polyphenols into polyphenols in the revised manuscript.
Point 24: Line 367: Turkmen, Poyrazoglu, Sari and Velioglu45.. it should be written as Turkmen et al45, or Turkmen and co-workers45. Similar reference citing do egzist in the text , so it should be corrected.
Response 24: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 25: Other specific comments are given in the PDF file
Response 25: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 26: Conclusion must represent a brief summary of the achieved results.
Response 26: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 27: Line 460: …pheophytin was formed; How do you know that?
Response 27: Thanks for this comment. As above, rewritten and completed in the manuscript “L311-314: The chlorophyll-bound Magnesium is released when the green plant undergoes thermal processing caused by the denaturation of lipoproteins and loses their protective effect, H+ replaces Mg2+ in tetrapyrrole to pheophytin, and the green color vanishes to form a brownish-yellow [41].”
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
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- The graphical abstract is of poor quality.
- Lines 175, 176, 177: Correct the unit of measurement (microL).
- Line 180: change with “gallic acid equivalent (mg GAE/ g extract)”.
- Line 218: change with “Alam et al. [27]”.
- Line 395: Replace “1) polyphenols” with “1) phenolic acids”.
- The FIGURES have been improved but are still of poor quality. However, the resolution is sufficient for understanding words and numbers.
Author Response
Point 1: The graphical abstract is of poor quality.
Response 1: Thanks for this comment, we had solve the problem of pool quality in line 42-43 in the revised manuscrip.
Point 2: Lines 175, 176, 177: Correct the unit of measurement (microL).
Response 2: Thanks for the comment, we had correct the unit of measurement in line 166, 167 and 168 in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Line 180: change with “gallic acid equivalent (mg GAE/ g extract)”.
Response 3: Thanks for the comment, we had changed with “gallic acid equivalent (mg GAE/ g extract)” in line 183 in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Line 218: change with “Alam et al. [27]”.
Response 4: Thanks for the comment, we had changed in line 220 in the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Line 395: Replace “1) polyphenols” with “1) phenolic acids”.
Response 4: Thanks for the comment, we had replaced in line 397 in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: The FIGURES have been improved but are still of poor quality. However, the resolution is sufficient for understanding words and numbers.
Response 6: Thanks for the comment, we had improved the quality of all figures again in the revised manuscript.
Finally, thanks for 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 2 Report
Although authors improved the manuscript in some parts there are still some issues that need to be resolved:
Manuscript is still not prepared according to the journal's instructions and template was not used.
Highlights should be deleted.
Graphical abstract is a slightly changed figure already presented in the text.
So, the new GA should me made, following instructions of the journal.
Lines 52-55: Mung bean is repeated three times in the beginning of three consecutive sentences. Please correct it.
Lines 102-103: What is reduced loss of Mg? Not very clear...
Lines 121: We aimed ... should be rephrased as ... This study aimed....
Authors still did not rephrase some sentences in impersonal style as suggested (e.a. lines 121, 123, 137, 141, 384 ..).
Lines 218-219: ....according to Alam, M. K., Z. H. Rana
219 and S. N. Islam [27]
Change into: ...according to literature [27].
Although statistical significance is added in the Tables legends authors did not included it in the Results and discussion section. It should be done.
Check the manuscript and include statistical analysis in the Results and discussion section.
Conclusion should not star with the description of the aim of the work! .Lines 497-498 should be rephrased.
References are not prepared according to the journal instructions.
Author Response
Although authors improved the manuscript in some parts there are still some issues that need to be resolved:
Point 1: Manuscript is still not prepared according to the journal's instructions and template was not used.
Response 1: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected according to the journal’s instructions in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Highlights should be deleted.
Response 2: We had deleted in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Graphical abstract is a slightly changed figure already presented in the text.
Response 3: We had tried to slight change of graphic abstract in line 42- 43 in the revised manuscript. We summarized the main findings of the article from the article which captures the content of the article for readers at a single glance.
Point 4: So, the new GA should me made, following instructions of the journal.
Response 4: We had modified the graphic abstract follow the instructions of the journal.
Point 5: Lines 52-55: Mung bean is repeated three times in the beginning of three consecutive sentences. Please correct it.
Response 5: Thanks for the comment, we had corrected in line 54 and 56 in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Lines 102-103: What is reduced loss of Mg? Not very clear...
Response 6: Thanks for this comment, we have rewritten these sentences in line 105- 108 in the revised manuscript to avoid misinterpretation. Rewritten as '' The studies indicate that green fruits and vegetables show better and more stable colors when treated with alkaline conditions ''.
Point 7: Lines 121: We aimed ... should be rephrased as ... This study aimed....
Response 7: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 8: Authors still did not rephrase some sentences in impersonal style as suggested (e.a. lines 121, 123, 137, 141, 384 ..).
Response 8: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected these impersonal style in line 123, 125, 139, 143-144, and 386 in the revised manuscript.
Point 9: Lines 218-219: ....according to Alam, M. K., Z. H. Rana
219 and S. N. Islam [27] Change into: ...according to literature [27].
Response 9: Thanks for this comment, we had corrected in the revised manuscript.
Point 10: Although statistical significance is added in the Tables legends authors did not included it in the Results and discussion section. It should be done.
Response 10: Thanks for this comment, we had included the statistical significance in line 305- 306, 401, 449, and 461 in the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Check the manuscript and include statistical analysis in the Results and discussion section.
Response 11: Thanks for this comment, we had checked and included statistical analysis in the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Conclusion should not star with the description of the aim of the work! .Lines 497-498 should be rephrased.
Response 12: Thanks for this comment, we had rephrased the conclusion in the revised manuscript.
Point 13: References are not prepared according to the journal instructions.
Response 13: Thanks for this comment, we had rewritten according to the with MDPI Chicago-style EndNote template files in the revised manuscript.
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
