Design and Functionality of a Prototype for Cold Needle Perforation of Wheat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

MS "Design and functionality of a prototype for cold needle performance of wheat" contains interesting material, quite worthy of publication. The MS is written in good language, the material is clearly new and statistically processed rather correctly. However, it seems useful to make small corrections in the text of the MS, which can contribute to its improvement. The phrase “All trials were conducted using Triticum aestivum … with a water content of 12.57% (w/w) and 12.44% (w/w), respectively” seems too brief, and more information potentially interesting to specialists in the field of crop production should be provided. Here, in order to ensure the greater value of the results, it seems appropriate to include some additional information about the origin of the plant material used in the experiments, e.g. information on the varietal affiliation of the wheat grains with which the work was carried out. Further, the facts are now well known that grains of different wheat varieties differ significantly in hardness, for which a lot of material has been accumulated (see, e.g. review: Pasha I., Anjum F. M., Morris C. F. (2010). Grain hardness: a major determinant of wheat quality. Food Science and Technology International. 16(6): 511-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013210379691), however, nothing is said about this aspect in the MS at all. In technical terms, author’s attention should also be paid to the need to bring the formatting of the list of references to uniformity. For example, pls compare: (5) Toxic effects of mycotoxins in humans versus (6) Health Effects of Mycotoxins: A Toxicological Overview. Also, it is unclear from the text of the MS, for what purpose the reference is used of the following publication [11]. Newton, I., & Chittenden, N. W. (1850). Newton’s Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Geo. P. 200 Putnam. And besides, the citation [10] Stäheli, L., Kinner, M., & Müller, N. (2022). Effectiveness of perforation methods for wheat kernels. Cereal Technology, 3, 132-198 143 contains incorrect link: https://doi.org/10.23789/1869-2303-2022-3

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the development of a cold needle perforation (CNP) prototype for perforating wheat kernels and evaluating its effectiveness for biological detoxification of mycotoxin-contaminated wheat. The results show that the CNP prototype effectively perforates wheat kernels and is a promising approach to reduce cross-contamination during milling of mycotoxin-containing wheat. However some suggestion are given and need to be addressed

Introduction

1.       In line 24, the statement that wheat is one of the most important crops for human nutrition is too broad and should be qualified. Wheat is one of the most important cereal crops for human nutrition.

2.       In line 26, "25% thereof affected by moulds and mycotoxins" should be rephrased to "25% of the harvested wheat is affected by moulds and mycotoxins."

3.       In line 29, "or inhalation of spores" should be rephrased as "or through the inhalation of spores."

4.       In line 32, "unevenly distributed throughout the kernel" should be rephrased as "unevenly distributed in the wheat kernel."

5.       In line 33, "cost-effective way" should be rephrased as "a cost-effective method."

6.       In line 35, "reduces dietary fibre" should be rephrased as "reduces the dietary fiber content."

7.       In line 37, "in milled wheat kernels" should be rephrased as "in wheat kernels."

8.       In line 41, "hydrophobic hyaline layer" should be rephrased as "the hydrophobic aleurone layer."

9.       In line 42, "shown by Stäheli et al. (2022)" should be rephrased as "as previously shown by Stäheli et al. (2022).

10.   The paper could benefit from additional citations to support some of the statements made.

11.   In line 44, it may be helpful to specify the method of image analysis used to determine the penetration of particles into the kernel. This would provide readers with a better understanding of the study's methodology and help to ensure the replicability of the results.

12.   In line 55, The reference to ZHAW, 2021 is not clear. It should be mentioned what this reference is for.

13.   The sentence "It consists of a hopper [Retsch GmbH, DR100, Haan (DEU)] and a 270 mm long 3D printed chute [Extrudr I FD3D, GreenTEC, Lauterach (AUT)] to reproducibly dose and distribute wheat kernels onto a conveyor belt." is too long and complex. It should be broken down into smaller sentences for clarity.

14.   The spelling of "polyurethan" should be corrected to "polyurethane".

15.   The reference to "Hans Werner GmbH, 129.33" is not clear. It should be mentioned what this reference is for.

16.   In line 61, "single-phased frequency converter" should be corrected to "single-phase frequency converter".

17.   In 68, "-1" should be corrected to "-1 mm"

18.   Add a period at the end of sentence in line 80

19.   Clarify the aperture value by providing the unit of measurement. For example, "The aperture was set to f/4.0."

Section 2.5 and 2.6

20.   The section lacks clarity and is poorly organized. It is difficult to follow the methodology used due to the lack of structure and coherence.

21.   The description of the methodology for determining broken grain content is incomplete. It does not specify whether the intact fraction was weighed before or after the sieving process.

22.   The section does not provide enough details regarding the analysis of the data obtained from the experiments.

23.   The description of the equipment used is inconsistent, as some machines are described using the manufacturer's name while others are not.

24.   In line 113, "either" should be replaced with "both" to make the sentence clearer.

25.   In line 114, "7.1" should be "7.0" to match the precision of the other mean pore count value.

26.   In line 117, the sentence is not clear. It could be revised to something like, "The rate of breakage was significantly higher for a gap size of -1 mm (9.2%) compared to 0 mm (4.3%)."

27.   In line 121, "further showed" could be removed to simplify the sentence.

28.   In line 123, "a reduced pressure at 0 mm" could be revised to "a smaller gap size of 0 mm" for clarity.

29.   In line 129, it should say "number of perforation cycles showed a linear increase in the number of pores formed."

30.   In line 131, it should say "between TOP and Wheat I qualities."

31.   In line 133, it should say "consistent with what was observed during the trials."

32.   In line 136, it should say "with <1%, 4-5%, and 9-10% for 1, 5, and 10 cycles, respectively."

33.   In line 129, change "pores formed" to "number of pores formed."

34.   In line 131, change "TOP" to "TOP quality" and add a comma before "and."

35.   In line 133, change "which is" to "as observed in the trials."

36.   In line 136, add commas to separate the percentage values and use a hyphen instead of a dash to indicate a range, as follows: "with <1%, 4-5%, and 9-10% for 1, 5, and 10 cycles, respectively."

37.   In line 139, add a space between "scale" and "CNP" to read "pilot scale CNP device."

38.   The discussion in this section is too brief and lacks explanation.

39.   The explanation for the uneven distribution of pores on the kernels is incomplete.

40.   The reference (11) is not clearly explained or cited.

41.   Provide a more detailed discussion on the effect of kernel orientation on pore count, including the possible factors affecting the uneven distribution of pores.

42.   Consider adding additional figures or diagrams to aid in the explanation of the uneven distribution of pores on the kernels.

43.   In conclusion section, The sentence is too long and should be broken down into smaller sentences.

44.   The term "CNP Prototype" is used without defining it previously in the article.

45.   The throughput unit of measurement is not specified (e.g. Kg per hour or pounds per hour).

46.   The statement "Between 93.3% (TOP) and 99% (Wheat I) of the wheat kernels were perforated 10 times or more after 10 cycles" is ambiguous and lacks clarity.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf