The Experimental Development of Bread with Enriched Nutritional Properties Using Organic Sea Buckthorn Pomace

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article under review focuses on the valorization of sea buckthorn pomace in bread production, which is a topic of interest due to its potential for reducing food waste and enhancing the nutritional value of bread. While the article provides valuable insights into the structural, nutritional, and sensorial characteristics of the resulting products, there are some areas for improvement.

The introduction section could benefit from a more comprehensive review of relevant literature to provide sufficient background and context for the research topic. In particular, the authors could discuss the current state of research on using pomace in food production and the potential benefits of incorporating sea buckthorn pomace in bread-making.

Additionally, the producers of all materials used in the experiment should be stated to enhance the reproducibility and transparency of the study. Moreover, the authors should provide a detailed explanation of the pomace powder preparation process, including the devices used for drying and grinding, as well as the initial and final water content of the pomace.

One area of improvement is the presentation of statistical results. The authors did not include ANOVA results or use different letters signifying statistical differences in all tables with the results. This information is important for readers to evaluate the significance of the findings and draw meaningful conclusions.

Finally, the discussion section could be improved by providing more detailed reasoning and analysis of the results. The authors should provide a clear interpretation of the findings and their implications, as well as suggestions for future research.

 

Overall, while the article is interesting and valuable.

Minor corrections are required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the article interesting and suitable for publishing after minor revision.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor English language corrections are needed. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript (applsci-2354720) entitled (Experimental development of bread with enriched nutritional properties by using organic sea buckthorn pomace) has been reviewed.

The topic is original and relevant in the field. It addresses a novelty with the valorization of organic sea buckthorn pomace by an experimental development of bread with enriched nutritional properties. 

- The experimental design and methodology are clear with sufficient data and details.

- The results well presented and discussed.

- The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question.

- The references appropriate, mostly new and support the discussion of the findings.

However, few minor changes will be required before acceptance of the present paper.

- Comparison with previous studies should be added in the discussion section. this is required to show the novelty of your study.

- the choice of 6, 8 and 10% sea backthorn pomace powder should be justified. based on what?

- Citations and references should be checked throughout the text and the references list.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript "Experimental development of bread with enriched nutritional properties by using organic sea buckthorn pomace" is well organised and provides interesting information. However, it needs a major revision in order to be accepted for publication. Below you can find my detailed comments.

- Introduction is too short. Please include more background information.

- How much sea buckthorn pomace powder did you use in bread making?

- It is a common practice to employ more than one methods when assessing the total antioxidant activity of a food system, as antioxidant compounds act via different mechanisms. Please explain why you used only one method.

- Please provide the results of the statistical analysis. How many replicates were analysed and what was the overall sample size? Correlation tests of the studied parameters would be of value too.

- Statistical significance indicators are missing in tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and figures 5 and 6.

- Although there is an extended mention of the existing literature it is not compared with the results of the manuscript. More in depth discussion is needed. 

- Some values in Table 5, especially those of Cr content (e.g. M8 and S8) are not very consistent. Same for K content of C8.  Please explain. 

- The microbiological evaluation is incomplete. Please explain and rephrase.

- Lines 685-687: Please cite that claim as you haven't performed total phenolic content and antioxidant analysis during the storage period. You also need to rephrase the lines 766-767 in the conclusion section 

Language needs some refinement; it would be of value if you had the manuscript proofread by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

This is an example of a very well-planned work with clear information. However, in order to further improve the quality of this work, I would recommend implementing some changes. Specifically, I suggest adding more detail to certain sections, including the methodology and analysis, in order to provide a more complete picture of the research process. Overall, this is excellent work, and with some minor revisions, this work has the potential to be even more impactful. Please consider the following:

 

 Abstract:

1.          The objective is not related to the title. I consider that both should be checked.

2.          The abstract should be informative and include the main findings. I believe that there should be more emphasis placed on the use of waste within the circular economy. By finding ways to repurpose and reuse waste materials, we can reduce our reliance on virgin resources and minimize our environmental impact. This shift towards a more circular approach to resource management is essential for creating a more sustainable future for ourselves and future generations.

Introduction

3.          To complete the information on "food by-products and waste" I suggest referencing the manuscript "Food Waste and Byproducts: An Opportunity to Minimize Malnutrition and Hunger in Developing Countries" https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00052 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.009. These manuscripts are very relevant in the area and complement the idea of the introduction.

4.          I am unsure if there are previous studies on the use of Sea buckthorn residue in the bread formulation. Please, could the authors mention more information about the background of the project?

5.          Improve the aim to match the title of the article

Materials and Methods

6.          Figure 1 was made in this investigation.

7.          Please put the particle size in microns

8.          Please cite the authors of the original methodologies and mention if the methodologies used have changed and who carried them out.

9.          Please put the methodology of the microbiological analysis in the methodology section

Results and discusión

10.        Please include the letters given by the Tukey analysis in the tables, this is very important to understand the discussion of significance.

11.        The discussion on the increase in fiber is very short, there is a lot of literature that can enrich the work.

12.        Please check the y-axis of all figures

13.        In figure 5 put the letters of significance on the bars and on the "y" axis put the units in parentheses

14.        Do the authors have reports of the phenolic profile of the residues?

15.        “whereas the M10 sample had the lowest value” how is this explained?

 

16.        Figure 10 does not have control?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been greatly improved after the revision. However, there are still a couple of changes needed before it can be published.

- Lines 74-102: I believe this section is too long. I'd suggest to make it shorter and move some of the information in the discussion part.

- The information regarding the statistical analysis that has been added in the tables needs to be removed below the tables and not incorporated into them.

- I'd suggest The 'Future prospects' section to keep it shorter and add it to the 'Conclusion' part.

A minor editing of the language is still needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx