Properties and Fractal Analysis of High-Protein Milk Powders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1.     Objectives and methodology need to be stated more clearly.

2.     Fractal analysis should be explained in more detail since the work has heavy emphasis on this topic. 

3.     What are the applications of the powders analyzed?

4. Addition of some functional applications of the powders will lift the paper overall and make it more useful. Why did the authors not consider including that?  

5. Other specific changes can be found in the file attached

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All of the Reviewers suggestions regarding additions, corrections or deletions were taken into consideration in the revision process. In the manuscript, the suggested changes were introduced in red color font. Our detailed responses to the Reviewers’ comments and the proposed alternative solutions (to enhance the scientific quality of the article) are presented below.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We took into account all comments according to the Reviewer's instructions. We have supplemented the introduction, description of methods and results and conclusions. We have included a statistical study of the results. We left the references because we believe they contribute to science or they are methodological items.

 

Remark:

1. Objectives and methodology need to be stated more clearly.

Response: We responded to these comments when correcting according to detailed comments.

 

Remark:

2. Fractal analysis should be explained in more detail since the work has heavy emphasis on this topic.

Response: Detailed complements are in the introduction, methodology and discussion.

 

Remark:

3. What are the applications of the powders analyzed?

Response: the following fragment has been added “The use of high-protein preparations as additives to non-fermented milks is one of the ways to modify the nutritional value and sensory attributes of the end products” (same publication as in the comment above).

 

Remark:

4. Addition of some functional applications of the powders will lift the paper overall and make it more useful. Why did the authors not consider including that?

Response: in the manuscript was added the information that the addition of protein powders was used in the production of non-fermented milk drinks (Kiełczewska, K.; Dąbrowska, A.; Bielecka, M.M.; Dec, B.; Baranowska, M.; Ziajka, J.; Zhennai, Y .; Zulewska, J., 2022, Protein preparations as ingredients for the enrichment of non-fermented milks. Foods 11 (13), pp. 1-16, art no. 1817, doi: 10.3390/foods11131817). In addition, high-protein powders have also been successfully used in products such as ice cream and cottage cheese, which will be published soon.

 

Remark:

5. Other specific changes can be found in the file attached

Response: A correction has been made according to the Reviewer's instructions contained in the manuscript.

Regarding the note "mention the details on how the powders were produced here rather than section 3.1." regarding the transfer of the production description to the subsection materials and methods:

We decided to leave a detailed description of the production in the Results and discussion section, because the publication concerns the preparation of high-protein powders and their characteristics, which is the result of the experiment.

The discussion was supplemented with a description.

Regarding the comment on the value of ash in WPH, there was a mistake, thank you very much for pointing it out.

The following sentences have been removed:

„An additional important objective was to use the fractal dimension of the preparations as an objective additional tool for microstructure comparison.” (Abstract)

“Depending on their composition, dairy powders should be characterized by desirable properties which are generally obtained through the selection of optimal technological processes and their parameters. Various food powders, including milk powders, milk concentrates and their mixtures, are available on the market, and detailed information about their production technology, as well as physicochemical properties is needed.” (Introduction)

„Pasteurization temperature was kept as low as possible to reduce the risk of serum proteins denaturation.” (Subsection Results and discussion)

„Dairy powders containing 80% or more protein are also highly hydrophobic, which compromises their wettability, dispersibility, and solubility in water [24, 25].” (Subsection Results and discussion)

„The low solubility of MCC could be explained by protein denaturation caused by excessive inlet and outlet air temperatures during spray-drying. „ (Subsection Results and discussion)

 

“The applied fractal analysis of the microstructure of milk particles enabled the unambiguous detection of subtle differences in the microstructure of the analyzed samples, which could not be detected during visual assessment.”(Conclusion)

 

We are very grateful to the Reviewers for the valuable comments which have enabled us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper. We believe that the Reviewer’s suggestions allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

- The statistical study of the results is missing (table1 and table2)

- References are too old

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remark:

- The statistical study of the results is missing (table1 and table2)

 

Remark:

- References are too old

Response: Thank you for review. We took into account all comments according to the Reviewer's instructions. We have included a statistical study of the results and new references were added. We left the older references because we believe they contribute to science or they are methodological items . In the manuscript, the suggested changes were introduced in red color font.

 

Thank you very much for all constructive comments and suggestions contained in the reviews. Once again, we thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper. We believe that the Editor’s and Reviewers’ suggestions allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, this manuscript studied some of physical properties for high-protein milk powders producing (MCC, SPC), and comparison them with industrially produced powders (WPC, CH, WPH, WPI). then use the fractal dimension of the preparations as an objective additional tool for microstructure comparison.

I think this manuscript need minor revision before publishing, and there are comments need to revise as following:

 

-Title

-I think It is possible to rewrite a title that is more expressive of that manuscript.

-Abstract

       - Line 8-9- It is the first time to mention those abbreviations, so you should write the meaning of those abbreviations before writing them.

     - Why you make comparison between industrially (WPC, CH, WPH, WPI) and produced powders (MCC, SPC) while the same time it is not the same materials. That is mean if you want to make a comparison you should use the same materials...????

        - line 13. Methos- Bold please.

        -Lines 13- 14. please, re-write the methods part again.

         -Lines 14-18. Please add quantitative information for you results. In its current for properties  only good or very good.

-      Lines 24- 27- Key words can be shortened such as membrane filtration instead of membrane separation of milk protein.

 

-Introduction:

               There is a comment as following:

        - line 8 – “such as their ability to form gels, foams, or emulsions and bind water” instead of “  such as the ability to form gels, foams or emulsions, and bind water [6-8].”

                 -Please re-write from line 38 to 42.

           -please re-write or shorten from lines 50 to 62. Also, make a connection between sentences.

               -please improve the part from line 72 to 80.

-Materials and Methods:

        - I would rearrange the section of materials and methods as follows: 

       2.1. Materials " From lines 83 to 86 and 88 to 90.

       2.2. Please add the part under-titled '' Production of Micellar Casein Concentrate and Serum Protein Concentrate" cut this part from results and discussion section. You can also draw a figure to help your explanation this section.

        2.3. proximate analysis of high protein powders. from lines 90 to 94. and Then rearrange the rest of this section.

    -Line 98. Please explain how you determined the wettability and insolubility of research 

           materials.

-Line 110-113. please explain the steps you did to show the microstructure of high protein milk powders and support this part with a reference.

-Lines 115-121. Please, support this part with a reference.

-where is the part related to statistical analysis??

-Results and discussion>> the discussion needs more improving and supported with more a reference…

- Table 1. please write under table you used a standard error or standard division.

-Lines232. why poor???do you have wettability index for that?

-Lines 241-243. Do you have a reference support this discussion about low insolubility of MCC compared with the rest of materials???? Because I am not sure it is correct scientifically.

Table 3. i think this table should be put in the materials and methods section related to flowability determination. And then rearrange the tables number.

Table 4. why you did not add the standard error or standard deviation and letters of the least significant difference (L.S.D) test??

Table 6. please, write the abbreviations mean, DL and R2 under the table.

Lines 336-337. please write the figure or table which mentioned this result??

please re-write this paragraph because it is not easy to understand. (from lines 336 to 344. Also, add a reference explain what you say.

References:

please add a recent reference related to your manuscript which there is not any references in the last five years. Also, support whole manuscript specially results and discussion section by a new reference.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for all constructive comments and suggestions contained in the review. We took into account all comments according to the Reviewer's instructions. We have supplemented the introduction, description of methods and results and conclusions. We have included a statistical study of the results. We left the references because we believe they contribute to science or they are methodological items. Some new references were added.

In the manuscript, the suggested changes were introduced in . In the manuscript, the suggested changes were introduced in red color font. Our detailed responses to the Reviewers’ comments and the proposed alternative solutions (to enhance the scientific quality of the article) are presented below.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Remark:

-Title

-I think It is possible to rewrite a title that is more expressive of that manuscript.

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

-Abstract

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

       - Line 8-9- It is the first time to mention those abbreviations, so you should write the meaning of those abbreviations before writing them.

Response: The meaning of the abbreviations is explained.

 

Remark:

     - Why you make comparison between industrially (WPC, CH, WPH, WPI) and produced powders (MCC, SPC) while the same time it is not the same materials. That is mean if you want to make a comparison you should use the same materials...????

Response: The purpose of the research was not to compare the production of high-protein powder in industry and on a pilot scale using the same raw material, but rather to expand knowledge and possibilities regarding the preparation and characterization of high-protein powders with a high content of casein or whey proteins, respectively Fragments have been added in the introduction section, which explains the purpose of the research, and in the conclusions, which are a response to the purpose of the research undertaken.

 

Remark:

        - line 13. Methos- Bold please.

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

        -Lines 13- 14. please, re-write the methods part again.

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

         -Lines 14-18. Please add quantitative information for you results. In its current for properties  only good or very good.

Response : corrected, ranges of values are given instead of "Good" and "very good".

 

Remark:

-      Lines 24- 27- Key words can be shortened such as membrane filtration instead of membrane separation of milk protein.

Response: corrected

 

 Remark:

-Introduction:

               There is a comment as following:

        - line 8 – “such as their ability to form gels, foams, or emulsions and bind water” instead of “  such as the ability to form gels, foams or emulsions, and bind water [6-8].”

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

                 -Please re-write from line 38 to 42.

Response: thank you for your comment, this fragment really does nothing and should be deleted.

The following fragment has been removed.

“Depending on their composition, dairy powders should be characterized by desirable properties which are generally obtained through the selection of optimal technological processes and their parameters. Various food powders, including milk powders, milk concentrates and their mixtures, are available on the market, and detailed information about their production technology, as well as physicochemical properties is needed.”

Fragment “Dairy powder, depending on their composition…” added to the previous sentence

 

Remark:

           -please re-write or shorten from lines 50 to 62. Also, make a connection between sentences.

Response: corrected and supplemented, a fragment between the sentences indicated by the Reviewer was added.

 

Remark:

               -please improve the part from line 72 to 80.

Response: A fragment was added in the introduction before the purpose of the research that explains the purpose of the research and in the conclusions that are a response to the purpose of the research undertaken.

 

Remark:

-Materials and Methods:

        - I would rearrange the section of materials and methods as follows: 

       2.1. Materials " From lines 83 to 86 and 88 to 90.

Response: Fragment left unchanged

 

Remark:

       2.2. Please add the part under-titled '' Production of Micellar Casein Concentrate and Serum Protein Concentrate" cut this part from results and discussion section. You can also draw a figure to help your explanation this section.         2.3. proximate analysis of high protein powders. from lines 90 to 94. and Then rearrange the rest of this section.

Response: We decided to leave a detailed description of the production in the Results and discussion section, because the publication concerns the preparation of high-protein powders and their characteristics, which is the result of the experiment.

 

Remark:

    -Line 98. Please explain how you determined the wettability and insolubility of research 

           materials.

Response: the methodology includes literature on the subject. These are methods commonly used to characterize spray-dried powders.

The wettability is defined as the time in seconds required for all the particles of dry milk sample to become wetted (to sink below the water surface or assume a 'typical' wet appearance) when placed on the surface of water.

The insolubility index is based on the measurement of the sediment after centrifugation of the reconstituted milk powder. Sediment volume is the volume of undissolved powder particles.

 

Remark:

-Line 110-113. please explain the steps you did to show the microstructure of high protein milk powders and support this part with a reference.

Response: Observations and recording of micrographs were made according to the methodological instructions of the apparatus used for this type of samples. The description was supplemented in the manuscript.

 

Remark:

-Lines 115-121. Please, support this part with a reference.

Response: The measurement of particle size was performed according to the methodological instructions of the apparatus used with an attachment for dry/loose products, intended for this type of sample. The measurement results were interpreted according to the formulas presented in subsection 2.4.

 

Remark:

-where is the part related to statistical analysis??

Response; the part related to statistical analysis has been supplemented.

 

Remark:

-Results and discussion>> the discussion needs more improving and supported with more a reference…

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

- Table 1. please write under table you used a standard error or standard division.

Response: supplemented

 

Remark:

-Lines232. why poor???do you have wettability index for that?

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

-Lines 241-243. Do you have a reference support this discussion about low insolubility of MCC compared with the rest of materials???? Because I am not sure it is correct scientifically.

Response: supplemented

 

Remark:

Table 3. i think this table should be put in the materials and methods section related to flowability determination. And then rearrange the tables number.

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

Table 4. why you did not add the standard error or standard deviation and letters of the least significant difference (L.S.D) test??

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

Table 6. please, write the abbreviations mean, DL and R2 under the table.

Response: corrected

 

Remark:

Lines 336-337. please write the figure or table which mentioned this result??

Response: supplemented

 

Remark:

please re-write this paragraph because it is not easy to understand. (from lines 336 to 344. Also, add a reference explain what you say.

Response – corrected

 

Remark:

References:

please add a recent reference related to your manuscript which there is not any references in the last five years. Also, support whole manuscript specially results and discussion section by a new reference.

Response: supplemented

 

We are very grateful to the Reviewers for the valuable comments which have enabled us to improve the quality of the manuscript. Once again, we thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper. We believe that the Reviewer’s suggestions allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Yours sincerely,

Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Pls see the attached pdf for suggested corrections

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All the reviewer's comments in the pdf file were taken into account and the correction was made in the revised manuscript.

The fragment of the text concerning the pilot production has been moved to the subsection materials and methods. This part of the manuscript has been rewritten.

In the manuscript, the suggested changes have been introduced in red color font. Language proofreading and rewriting has been marked in green.

Thank you very much for all constructive comments and suggestions contained in the reviews. Once again, we thank you for the time you put in reviewing our paper. We believe that the Editor’s and Reviewers’ suggestions allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx