Utilization of the Nutritional Potential of Wheat Bran Using Different Fractionation Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Utilization of the Nutritional Potential of Wheat Bran Using Different Fractionation Techniques

The manuscript needs some  revision, but a good potetial for the publicationn.

 

Abstract:

clear.

 

1.       Introduction:

1.1.    Overall, many statements made in the introduction need to be cited.

1.2.    I would like to see some information on the genetic background of wheat cultivars.

 

2.       Cereals and their potential nutritional benefits

2.1.    It would be helpful to identify and label the “bran” (the outer layer) in Figure 1 and in the corresponding paragraph (lines 141-151). The term “bran” is not defined until line 149.

2.2.    The connection between the anatomical description of the cereal grain and the “bran” is missing because the description of the “bran” appears in the following paragraph.

2.3.    I would suggest adding a table showing the nutritional composition of wheat bran vs. wheat endosperm + germ.

2.4.    I assume the second figure 2 should be figure 3?

 

3.       Variability of wheat milling and technological potential

3.1.    Lines 359-372: The three methods you’ve listed are quite comprehensive and cover significant approaches to increase desirable fiber content while maintaining technological and sensory properties. Here are a few additional considerations that might enhance your list such as

enzymatic treatment, fermentation, blending with high-fiber ingredients (fortification with fiber additives), genetic modification, ultrasonic milling

 

 The rest of the manuscript is good enough and reads well!

Author Response

RESUBMISSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT ID applsci-3139884, Review: Utilization of the Nutritional Potential of Wheat Bran Using Different Fractionation Techniques

 

COVER LETTER WITH RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS´ COMMENTS

Dear Editorial Office,

we have revised and modified the text according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have responded to reviewers’ comments and remarks as follow:

 

Reviewer 1:

1. Introduction:

1.1.    Overall, many statements made in the introduction need to be cited.

1.2.    I would like to see some information on the genetic background of wheat cultivars.

Authors´ answers:

Ad 1.1 A total of 14 relevant citation references are listed in the Introduction. In our opinion, the number of citations listed in the introduction is sufficient.

Ad 1.2 Generally, the review is related to common batches of wheat processed in industrial mills in Central Europe. These are lots defined by the required quality parameters for mill processing. There is no reason to mention individual varieties, as these are always mixtures calibrated to these parameters.

 

 

2. Cereals and their potential nutritional benefits

2.1.    It would be helpful to identify and label the “bran” (the outer layer) in Figure 1 and in the corresponding paragraph (lines 141-151). The term “bran” is not defined until line 149.

2.2.    The connection between the anatomical description of the cereal grain and the “bran” is missing because the description of the “bran” appears in the following paragraph.

2.3.    I would suggest adding a table showing the nutritional composition of wheat bran vs. wheat endosperm + germ.

2.4.    I assume the second figure 2 should be figure 3?

 

Authors´ answers and corrections:

Ad 2.1 Bran is first mentioned in the text on line 84. Figure 1 describes the anatomical parts of the cereal grain (the different layers). In this context, a distinction must be made between the anatomical parts when describing them and the bran as a by-product of the grain processing. The bran contains the anatomical parts of the grain in their specific representation/portion with a predominance of outer layers.

Ad 2.2 The explanation is given in the previous answer (Ad 2.1).

Ad 2.3 Average nutritional composition of wheat endosperm and germ has been added.

If we compare the composition of the bran with the other parts of the grain, we get the following: the starchy endosperm, besides available carbohydrates, consists of 15% lipids, 13% proteins, dietary fibre (0-5%), ash (1-5%) [25], and wheat germ is rich in proteins (25%), lipids (8–13%) and ash (4–5%).

 

25. Khalid, A.; Hameed, A.; Tahir, M.F. Wheat quality: A review on chemical composition, nutritional attributes, grain anatomy, types, classification, and function of seed storage proteins in bread making quality. Front Nutr. 2023, 10, 1053196.

 

 

3. Variability of wheat milling and technological potential

3.1. Lines 359-372: The three methods you’ve listed are quite comprehensive and cover significant approaches to increase desirable fiber content while maintaining technological and sensory properties. Here are a few additional considerations that might enhance your list such as enzymatic treatment, fermentation, blending with high-fiber ingredients (fortification with fiber additives), genetic modification, ultrasonic milling.

Authors´ answer:

Ad 3.1 In this review, we focus on methods that can separate bran fractions with respect to wheat fibre composition. We are concerned with wheat fibre and its desirable fractions/components. We are interested in comparing methods to access and then use the fractions with beneficial wheat fibre. We are concerned with industrial applications with the possibility of implementation in the mill, how to separate the bran fractions and return them to the wheat flour. The opponent's comment suggests interesting methods and ways (enzymatic treatment, fermentation, blending with high-fiber ingredients, fortification with fiber additives) for processing wheat bran. However, this consideration is not the intent of this review. While the methods presented are interesting, they are beyond our intent. They are about subsequent adjustments and modifications to the properties of the bran, but this was not our aim.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a review regarding the fractionation techniques that can be used to eliminate those components that may cause technological and sensory problems and retain those that represent significant nutritional benefit. Some concerns are as follows:

1.      The title must be related to the summary and the entire structure of the document.

2.      Review the syntax of the document, since many connectors are repeated or unnecessary. For example: lines 102-103 (however).

3.      For topic 5.5 it is advisable to add a scheme of the fractionation or separation procedures of wheat bran, which includes yields, applications, advantages and disadvantages.

4.      Conclusion does not correspond to the title of the work.

5.      The following references could be incorporated:

a.      A comprehensive review on nutraceutical potential of underutilized cereals and cereal-based products https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100619

b.      Arabinoxylans-enriched fractions: From dry fractionation of wheat bran to the investigation on bread baking performance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2019.02.005    

In general the work is acceptable with some corrections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

RESUBMISSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT ID applsci-3139884, Review: Utilization of the Nutritional Potential of Wheat Bran Using Different Fractionation Techniques

 

COVER LETTER WITH RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS´ COMMENTS

Dear Editorial Office,

we have revised and modified the text according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have responded to reviewers’ comments and remarks as follow:

 

Reviewer 2:

1. The title must be related to the summary and the entire structure of the document.
2. Review the syntax of the document, since many connectors are repeated or unnecessary. For example: lines 102-103 (however).
3. For topic 5.5 it is advisable to add a scheme of the fractionation or separation procedures of wheat bran, which includes yields, applications, advantages and disadvantages.
4. Conclusion does not correspond to the title of the work.
5. The following references could be incorporated:
6. A comprehensive review on nutraceutical potential of underutilized cereals and cereal-based products https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100619
7. Arabinoxylans-enriched fractions: From dry fractionation of wheat bran to the investigation on bread baking performance https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2019.02.005    

 

Authors´ answers and corrections:

Ad 1 We believe that the title describes the issue and is related to the structure of the manuscript.

Ad 2 The text of the document has been revised.

Ad 3 We do not consider the insertion of schema necessary for this review. The review describes the methods used in the industrial testing phase. These are prototypes which will vary and therefore comparison is difficult. Yields and other technological parameters depend on the individual equipment used and the testing conditions given. The review summarises the principles of the methods. Going into more detail, the technical and technological parameters would depend on the specific application and is beyond the scope of this review.

Ad 4 From our point of view, the conclusion is apt and corresponds to the focus and title of the article.

Ad 5 The recommended references have been used and inserted.

Rawat, M.; Varshney, A.; Rai, M.; Chikara, A. Pohty, A.L. et al. A comprehensive review on nutraceutical potential of underutilized cereals and cereal-based products. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 12, 100619.

 

Zhang, L.; van Boven, A.; Mulder, J.; Grandia, J.; Chen, X.D. et al. Arabinoxylans-enriched fractions: From dry fractionation of wheat bran to the investigation on bread baking performance. J. Cereal Sci. 2019, 87, 1–8.

English corrections have been made and marked in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author reviewed the utilization of the nutritional potential of wheat bran using different fractionation techniques. The topic is very interesting and well-written. 

Suggestions:

The authors intended to focus on the utilization of the nutritional potential of wheat bran according to the title of the manuscript; however, the authors mentioned cereals (including maize, rice, wheat, barley, sorghum, millet, oat, and rye) and their potetial nutritional benefits in section 2, why? I suggest the authors focus on wheat.

please provide a summary diagram about mill process methods, making the manuscript readable. Additionally, add more subtitles in the whole manuscripe.

Oxford comma should be used, such as, a, b, and c, not a, b and c.

There is a little messy in Line 141-150, please check, what is the meaning of envelope?

Section 5, please add some words before 5.1

 

Author Response

RESUBMISSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT ID applsci-3139884, Review: Utilization of the Nutritional Potential of Wheat Bran Using Different Fractionation Techniques

 

COVER LETTER WITH RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS´ COMMENTS

Dear Editorial Office,

we have revised and modified the text according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We have responded to reviewers’ comments and remarks as follow:

 

Reviewer 3:

The authors intended to focus on the utilization of the nutritional potential of wheat bran according to the title of the manuscript; however, the authors mentioned cereals (including maize, rice, wheat, barley, sorghum, millet, oat, and rye) and their potential nutritional benefits in section 2, why? I suggest the authors focus on wheat.

Authors´ answers:

We agree with the comment. In the article we only deal with wheat. We wanted to emphasise the position and importance of wheat compared to other cereals. But texts relating to cereals other than wheat are a minority.

 

 

Please provide a summary diagram about mill process methods, making the manuscript readable. Additionally, add more subtitles in the whole manuscript.

Authors´ answers:

A summary general scheme of wheat milling converted into a single diagram is difficult to imagine, however similar the standard wheat milling procedures are. Moreover, we do not consider that such a diagram is essential for the present review.

 

 

Oxford comma should be used, such as, a, b, and c, not a, b and c.

Authors´ answers and corrections:

As requested, changes have been made where relevant.

 

 

There is a little messy in Line 141-150, please check, what is the meaning of envelope?

Authors´ answers and corrections:

It has been checked and edited throughout the manuscript.

(outer layers, sub-coat layers)

 

 

Section 5, please add some words before 5.1

Authors´ answers and corrections:

Sentence was added.

The most important separation methods potentially applicable for industrial practice will also be presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf