Rheological Approaches of Wheat Flour Dough Enriched with Germinated Soybean and Lentil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Revision of the manuscript entitled: Rheological approaches of wheat flour dough enriched with germinated soybean and lentil

Authors: Mădălina Ungureanu-Iuga , Denisa Atudorei, Georgiana Gabriela Codină ,* and Silvia Mironeasa

In my opinion the article is interesting and the novelty is adequate. However, must be rejected for the following reasons:

1) The whole paper, in particular the introduction section, need to be revised from a native speaker (especially the first part of the intro). I’m sorry but I can’t really correct it . too many correction needed.

2) main problems in materials and methods:

Line 159: fundamental? I think you definitely wrong word here. Maybe you can call the section storage modulus (G’) and loss modulus (G”) assessment (or something else). Please remove fundamental or change word here.

Line 179: please specify every single level (i.e. the different percentages) tested here.  

3) Results :

In my opinion results are not easy to read for the readers. I was expecting what promised by the authors (i.e. 1) results of a two-way anova regarding the two different tested flours and the different levels, and successively 2) a modeling using RSM.

What I see, instead, is messy sections regarding Diagnostic checking of the models and the fitting on the model only. What about the single results for the parameters you mentioned in the M&M section? I don’t see the data and I cant (for example) clearly understand the anova results and the factors interaction.

Maybe is only a my problem but I think this section is definitely bad organized

4) Discussion:

The explanations of the obtained results are not sufficiently thorough and need a significant improvement.

According to the previous comments I can only reject the paper in the current status

Author Response

Revision of the manuscript entitled: Rheological approaches of wheat flour dough enriched with germinated soybean and lentil

Authors: Mădălina Ungureanu-Iuga , Denisa Atudorei, Georgiana Gabriela Codină ,* and Silvia Mironeasa

In my opinion the article is interesting and the novelty is adequate. However, must be rejected for the following reasons:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the close reading and for the proper recommendations.

 1) The whole paper, in particular the introduction section, need to be revised from a native speaker (especially the first part of the intro). I’m sorry but I can’t really correct it . too many correction needed.

We revised the English errors.

2) main problems in materials and methods:

Line 159: fundamental? I think you definitely wrong word here. Maybe you can call the section storage modulus (G’) and loss modulus (G”) assessment (or something else). Please remove fundamental or change word here.

We replaced “fundamental” by “dynamic”.

Line 179: please specify every single level (i.e. the different percentages) tested here.  

Table 1 has been added and the levels were mentioned.

3) Results :

In my opinion results are not easy to read for the readers. I was expecting what promised by the authors (i.e. 1) results of a two-way anova regarding the two different tested flours and the different levels, and successively 2) a modeling using RSM.

What I see, instead, is messy sections regarding Diagnostic checking of the models and the fitting on the model only. What about the single results for the parameters you mentioned in the M&M section? I don’t see the data and I cant (for example) clearly understand the anova results and the factors interaction.

Maybe is only a my problem but I think this section is definitely bad organized

We chose to present the results of the investigation as an optimization of various parameters in order to identify the optimal combination of germinated lentil and soybean flours that can be added to wheat flour, instead of presenting only the effects of these ingredients. This is why we did not show the data only by reporting the ANOVA results. RSM is a useful tool that can provide more valuable information about the effects of factors and their interactions on the considered responses, allowing the interpretation of the results in a complex manner. RSM helped us to interpret the interaction between two independent factors affecting the response and it established a nonlinear relationship between factors and responses arising from the simultaneous variation within the factors.

 4) Discussion:

The explanations of the obtained results are not sufficiently thorough and need a significant improvement.

The discussion section was completed with some more explanations.

According to the previous comments I can only reject the paper in the current status

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript submitted for review deals with a very interesting topic: optimizing the formulation of germinated soybean and lentil flour that can be added to a refined wheat flour with low alpha-amylase activity to improve the rheological properties of the dough.

• The title covers the main aspects in this paper, it reflects the aim and scientific purpose of the experiment conducted.
• The abstract explains the meaning of the paper and includes the background, results and conclusion parts.
  • Line 19: In the sentence "... optimal and control samples microstructures being also investigated" it is necessary to add information about the method by which the microstructure was analysed.
• The introduction provides a good general background to the topic and gives the reader an idea of the wide range of possible applications of this technology.
• The methods used in this paper are appropriate to the aim of the study.
  • The standard methods listed in the Materials and Methods section (e.g., ICC; AACC; ...) should also be cited in the Literature section.
  • In the chapter "2.3. Dough Microstructure" it is necessary to give a little more detail about the method used.
  • Just a quick review of the information in line 178: "on a trial version of the Design Expert software". What solution do authors have when reviewers ask for corrections in this area and the trial version has expired? Unfortunately, many authors find themselves in this unenviable situation.
  • The manuscript does not show the experimental design created with the DE software. Therefore, the Materials and Methods chapter needs to be supplemented with essential information about the RSM performed.
  • Line 179: The authors state the data: "with two factors varied at five levels." This should be stated in the table.
  • It would be good to write information about the number of replicates of the performed analyses. It is not clear from the manuscript how often and in what way the measurement was repeated, which is very important for the reliability of the statistical analysis.
• The conclusions presented in this paper are consistent with the results found. Given the volume of results presented, there is a need to improve the conclusions section: focus more on how your research contributed to knowledge gaps and describe research limitations for future research.

Author Response

The manuscript submitted for review deals with a very interesting topic: optimizing the formulation of germinated soybean and lentil flour that can be added to a refined wheat flour with low alpha-amylase activity to improve the rheological properties of the dough.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the appreciations and proper recommendations. We really appreciate your suggestions in order to improve the manuscript.

• The title covers the main aspects in this paper, it reflects the aim and scientific purpose of the experiment conducted.
• The abstract explains the meaning of the paper and includes the background, results and conclusion parts.
• Line 19: In the sentence "... optimal and control samples microstructures being also investigated" it is necessary to add information about the method by which the microstructure was analysed.

We added the method used.

• The introduction provides a good general background to the topic and gives the reader an idea of the wide range of possible applications of this technology.
• The methods used in this paper are appropriate to the aim of the study.
• The standard methods listed in the Materials and Methods section (e.g., ICC; AACC; ...) should also be cited in the Literature section.

The standard methods were listed in the references, according to the suggestion.

• In the chapter "2.3. Dough Microstructure" it is necessary to give a little more detail about the method used.

More details of the method were added.

• Just a quick review of the information in line 178: "on a trial version of the Design Expert software". What solution do authors have when reviewers ask for corrections in this area and the trial version has expired? Unfortunately, many authors find themselves in this unenviable situation.

The algorithm of the experimental design used for regression and numerical optimization do not change from one software version to another. If the reviewers request changes in the design of the experiment, the softer on which it was made will be purchased.  

• The manuscript does not show the experimental design created with the DE software. Therefore, the Materials and Methods chapter needs to be supplemented with essential information about the RSM performed.

Table 1 was added to the manuscript in order to complete the information.

• Line 179: The authors state the data: "with two factors varied at five levels." This should be stated in the table.

The levels have been included in Table 1 and in the text.

• It would be good to write information about the number of replicates of the performed analyses. It is not clear from the manuscript how often and in what way the measurement was repeated, which is very important for the reliability of the statistical analysis.

The number of replicates were mentioned in the Statistical Analysis section.

• The conclusions presented in this paper are consistent with the results found. Given the volume of results presented, there is a need to improve the conclusions section: focus more on how your research contributed to knowledge gaps and describe research limitations for future research.

The conclusions were completed, according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript (applsci-1464482) submitted for review is very interesting and well written. Therefore, I recommend an article for publication in the Applied Sciences Journal.

The sections Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion are well written and the authors explain well how the experiment was conducted.

Conclusion

What should be the directions of further research in this range?

 Limitation

Are there any possible limitations to these findings?

References

References are cited according to journal rules.

Most of the references (44 out of 59) come from the last 11 years.

I am pleased to recommend this manuscript for publication. I believe it addresses an important area of research in an international context.

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Authors,

The manuscript (applsci-1464482) submitted for review is very interesting and well written. Therefore, I recommend an article for publication in the Applied Sciences Journal.

The sections Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion are well written and the authors explain well how the experiment was conducted.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our work.

Conclusion

What should be the directions of further research in this range?

 Limitation

Are there any possible limitations to these findings?

The conclusions were completed with further research and limitations, according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

References

References are cited according to journal rules.

Most of the references (44 out of 59) come from the last 11 years.

I am pleased to recommend this manuscript for publication. I believe it addresses an important area of research in an international context.

 Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The present paper is in the scope of Applied Sciences.

It deals with the impact of germination on the rheological properties and application potentials of lentil and soy flour.

The ms is very well prepared. The figures and their legends are comprehensive. 

The results are clearly exposed and the conclusions are firmed and supported by these latter. 

From my point of view, the ms is acceptable in its present form for publication in Applied Sciences.

Just a little remark: the authors should avoid cutting the Figure from its legends (example given is the figure 4).

Author Response

The present paper is in the scope of Applied Sciences.

It deals with the impact of germination on the rheological properties and application potentials of lentil and soy flour.

The ms is very well prepared. The figures and their legends are comprehensive. 

The results are clearly exposed and the conclusions are firmed and supported by these latter. 

From my point of view, the ms is acceptable in its present form for publication in Applied Sciences.

Just a little remark: the authors should avoid cutting the Figure from its legends (example given is the figure 4).

We would like to thank the reviewer for the appreciation of our work.

We would like to thank to Reviewers for all their comments and suggestions which have helped us to correct our work and present it in a more acceptable form. All the modifications are marked with Track Changes function.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I've carefully read the comments provided by the authors and they didn't addressed my comments, so i continue to recommend to reject the paper.

in particular:

1) I didn't ask to the authors to correct the English errors; i recommended a complete revision of the English by a native speaker. as i see several errors are still present . in particular you i have not even used the spelling and grammar check tool of word (as you can see from errors like the one at line 39) a clear indication that you have not taken seriously the English correction needed.

2) i agree that RSM is a very powerful tool but, in my opinion, you need to:

• first report the results of the ANOVA
• discuss these results (using referenced paper) explaining why you have this change in dough rheology (in a detailed manner)
• then show the model and the RSM results

Author Response

I've carefully read the comments provided by the authors and they didn't addressed my comments, so i continue to recommend to reject the paper.

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

in particular:

1) I didn't ask to the authors to correct the English errors; i recommended a complete revision of the English by a native speaker. as i see several errors are still present . in particular you i have not even used the spelling and grammar check tool of word (as you can see from errors like the one at line 39) a clear indication that you have not taken seriously the English correction needed.

We have corrected the English errors by using a specific software.

2) i agree that RSM is a very powerful tool but, in my opinion, you need to:

• first report the results of the ANOVA
• discuss these results (using referenced paper) explaining why you have this change in dough rheology (in a detailed manner)
• then show the model and the RSM results

We revised the manuscript according to the referee suggestions. We added the ANOVA results for the SGF and LGF addition levels effects and we completed the discussion section, according to the suggestions.

 Author Response File: Author Response.pdf