Physicochemical Characterization of Carao Honey Flour (Cassia grandis) and Its Effects on the Sensory Attributes in a Cookie

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction has not been improved enough, the sequence is not clear.  For example: line 39: Food waste has considerably increased over recent years, specifically among fruits  and vegetables...   so, is the Carao a food waste? 

"Cassia grandis"  It is not written in italics.

Line 89: How can environmental pollution be reduced through a gluten-free product?

In Methodology section, How is the flour made? What is the particle size?

Check the position where the tables and figures are placed because some are above the text.

in the results section: There is no difference in the protein, ash or fat content of cookies with and without carao honey, so what would be the nutritional contribution?

 

Author Response

Comment 1: line 39 was corrected with the full paragraph.

Comment 2: Corrected cursive with the scientific name of carao and replaced mostly by the common name to improve the style of writing.

Comment 3: paragraph corrected with line 89.

Comment 4: the methodology was improved.

Comment 5: tables and figures, the numbering was corrected.

Comment 6: the contribution lies in the incorporation of a plant material as carao for its use as a potential functional ingredient and to establish future research using it for the production of substitutes.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

§  Line 155: change 10 grams to 10g

§  Line 149 and 150: correct “aw” to “aW” and in Table 3: correct “Aw” to “aW

 

§  Line 17: “Carao honey is an unknown product” Why an unknown product? Since it has been studied it indicates and confirms its discovery. Kindly revise the word “unknown”

§  Line 457: correct statement “It was highlighted by incorporating Carao honey into cookies to improve the sustainability 457 of the ingredient” to “It was highlighted that by incorporating Carao honey into cookies improved the sustainability 457 of the ingredient”

Author Response

Comment 1: Correction made. Suggested in line 155.

Observation 2: corrections have been made to lines 149 and 150 and table 3.

Comment 3: change has been introduced in line 17. 

Observation 4: line 457 has been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors

Manuscript ID: applsci-3130212

General remarks:

The authors formulated and studied cookies with the addition of carao in terms of proximate composition, colour changes, empirical rheology, thermal properties and viscosity, sensory properties and purchase intention. Although several methods were used to describe the impact of the addition, it remained unclear whether new cookie formulations contain carao honey, carao flour or carao honey flour. The selected analyses are suitable for the research, however, mineral profile, dietary fiber content and basic antioxidant assays should be included in order to support the claims stated in the introduction section.

The authors need to perform language editing throughout the manuscript, improve abstract and conclusion section and widen the discussion in more depth in order to explain obtained results and put them in a scientific context by citing appropriate literature. Typographical and other technical issues are present in the manuscript as well and need addressing (inadequate tables numbering and text interruptions with tables). The reference list need revision to compile with the Journals guidelines.

 

The specific comments are listed below.

Abstract

Line 17: Please rephrase the sentence for clarity, how is carao honey related to waste reduction?

Line 18: This sentence should be moved to introduction; here the authors can point out the main advantages off Carao honey in terms of nutritional value.

Line 21: Please firstly introduce the product which authors intend to develop (cookie) and examined formulation i.e. addition levels of Carao honey in the formulation. Then the authors need to enumerate analysis conducted on the developed product. In summary, sentences from lines 24 and 25 should go before the sentence in line 21.

Line 26-35: The entire section needs revision. Please, include the most important results from the conducted analysis in the same order as they were mentioned in previous sentence where used analyses were enumerated. The concluding sentence based on the all obtained results should be included at the end of abstract not only sensory analysis.

Keywords

Line 36: Please reorder the keywords. Suggestion is to start with Carao and also include rheology or dietary fibres also.

Manuscript

Line 44: The authors did not mention that the developed formulation will be gluten-free. This needs to be included in abstract as well.

Lines 50-60: This section does not have to be so extensive; the focus should be on its nutritional value. Please reduce this section to max three sentences. More beneficial would be to include how Carao extract and honey which were used in the study are obtained instead.

Line 78: Please include appropriate reference.

Line 86: The nutritional value of Carao honey was not mentioned. Nutritional properties of fruit, leaves and seeds were reported. According to the obtention method described in the M&M section, from the fruits, pulp was separated and after mixing with water subsequently lyophilized to obtain flour. The carao honey was not mentioned here. Please clarify, is the carao honey firstly obtained (mix of pulp and water) and subsequently transformed to flour.  

Line 86: Please consider revising this sub heading. Suggestion is Plant material and carao flour preparation in order to compile with the Figure 1 caption.

Line 103: Because the final product is flour, please revise to Flowchart of carao flour obtention process.

Line 106: Please decide which term will be used  carao flour or carao honey powder and use it consistently throughout the manuscript. Furthermore include the addition levels of carao flour in the formulation (0, 2.5, 5, and 10%) instead of treatments. Is the substitution with carao flour in mentioned percentages conducted on entire formulation basis or only the rice flour was replaced, please clarify that.

Line 108: Please revise the Table number to Table 1 and all table numbers in the manuscript accordingly.

Line 111: Please include the conditions during mixing (speed, time) and model and producer of the mixer used.

Line 112: Please include the equipment used for dough thickening, or it was manual operation?

Line 114: Please include model and producer of the used oven.

Line 123: It would be beneficial to include the dietary fibre analysis at least total dietary fibre.

Line 135: Please put the degree of Celsius in superscript.

Line 144: Please revise to degree of softening and remove water absorption which is repeating for the second time.

Line 151: Please include space between 10 and g.

Line 154: Please clarify is the colour measurement performed on 3 cookies and three times on each? Please include the total colour difference (ΔE) and browning index (BI) which can be calculated from the measured parameters. Details on this are available in

 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134300

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.066

 

Line 155: Please instead of grams use g only.

Line 158: Please include the full name and producer of the texture analyser used.

Line 159: Please also include the load cell weight and probe (type of accessories used) in the texture analysis.

Line 201: Please refer to Table 2 here.

Line 221-222: Please improve technical appearance of the text which was interrupted by Table. The table caption needs to go before the table.

Line 224: Please correct the table number to 2.

Line 231: Please correct the table number to 3.

Line 237: Please reduce the text concerning the explanation regarding dough development time and focus more on the explaining the influence of added amount of carao flour on this and other farinograph parameters.

Lines 247-276: Please revise this section in terms of technical aspect. The table caption needs to go before the table.

Lines 286-287: The sentence is incomplete please revise.

Line 297: Please clarify is the carao honey or flour added to cookies and include that here.

Line 339: Please correct the table number in accordance with previous tables and mentioned results.

Lines 339-346:

Line 342-344: Please revise the sentence and instead of highest a values include concrete explanation what does the high a value means in terms of colour. Furthermore, the authors need to compare the obtained results with other studies dealing with innovative cookie formulations. After calculating the Browning index, discussion also must be included here and results compared with other study examining same or similar ingredient use in cookie formulation.

Line 386-387: Please revise this sentence.

Line 395: The table number in the text is not in accordance with  the Table number where results are presented. Please revise.

 

Line 456: The conclusion section must point out the main results of all used methods. Here only impact of carao flour addition on sensory properties was in the focus. Please revise.

Tables

All Tables number need to be checked and in accordance with tables numbers referring in the text

Table 2. Please include the full term for abbreviation DSS in a foot note under the Table.

Table 7. Please check and correct formatting of table 7.

Figures

Please prepare a new flowchart in accordance with the description in 2.1. Clearly state the starting material, phases and intermediate products. The double sided arrow in the figure brings confusion. This needs to be improved to be self-explainable

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing must be performed.

Author Response

Comments 1 and 2: corrections to paragraphs in lines 17 and 18 were made.

Comment 3: changes were made to the paragraph.

Comment 4: Changes in wording.

Comment 5: changes were made to the keywords.

Comment 6: the word gluten-free was added in line 44.

Comment 7: The parting was modified in lines 50 to 60.

Comment 8: line 78 has the appropriate quotation, it is kept in the document.

Comment 9: line 86, amended in the document.

Comment 10: suggestions from line 86 to match figure 1 were added.

Comment 11: paragraph is retained with slight modifications.

Comment 12: The corresponding changes were made to the numbering of the tables.

Comments 13: Furnace type and specifications included

Comment 14: Centigrade was included in the super index.

Comment 15: the word water adsorption which was duplicated was deleted. 

Comments 16 and 17: The comment on line 151 and 155 was corrected.

Comment 18: The name and specifications of the texture analyzer, line 158 was included.

Comment 19: Suggested changes, line 221 to 231.

Comment 20: Suggested, lines 247-276.

Comment 21: the suggestion in line 286 to 297 has been amended.

Comment 22: the suggested line 395 has been amended to 456. 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the physicochemical characterization of carao honey flour was determined and compared with white rice flour. The influence of CHF on the physicochemical properties, rheological properties, and thermal properties of the composite cookie flour was determined. Moreover, they also studied the influence of the usage of CHF on the physico-chemical properties, sensory characteristics, overall liking, and purchase intent of the cookie. The authors have done a lot of work. These comprehensive results would help food engineers in developing CHF-based foods. The merits and novelty of this study meet the requirements of Applied Sciences, and the study was well-designed. Some questions in the manuscript need to be improved.

1. The title should be changed because it can not well include all research content.
2. In the article, carao and cassia were mix-used. It is better to keep consistent in the full text.
3. The abstract is incomplete. Authors should rewrite the abstract to make the objective, the content of the study, and the result more clear. Special attention should be given to the logic of the sentences.
4. There are big problems in the introduction. It’s better to remove some irrelevant sentences, such as sentences in L39-42, and enrich the content which is important to the significance of this article. Authors should reorganize the content and the logic of the background in the introduction. Moreover, the authors should enrich the research progress on the utilization of carao honey flour in the introduction.
5. Data should be shown with their significant analysis results.
6. There are big problems with the typesetting of the manuscript. Table headers should be located above the tables.
7. The content and the figures should be self-independent. So, it’s better to include some data in the discussion in L282-284. The same problem exists in 3.4.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: the title is maintained, it supports the importance of research and brings together what is related to research.

Comment 2: the suggested common and scientific name has been modified, only three paragraphs throughout the document use the scientific name.

Comment 3: the summary was modified.

Comment 4: the paragraph relating to lines 39 and 42 was amended.

Comment 4: the style was improved, mainly tables and figures.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded the previous comments.

Author Response

Comment 1: the authors answered all comments and suggestions 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors

Manuscript ID: applsci-3130212

 

The Authors partially revised the manuscript. Additional revision is needed.

 

Revise the Figure 1 caption to Flowchart of carao flour obtention process.

 

Lines 94, 100, 114, contain typographical errors (missing full stop, small letters…) that need revision.

 

Line 86: Please consider revising this sub heading. Suggestion is Plant material and carao flour preparation in order to compile with the Figure 1 caption.

Line 154: Please include the browning index (BI) which can be calculated from the measured parameters.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English corrections are needed

Author Response

Comment 1. The authors have additionally and carefully reviewed the article we propose for publication.

Comment 2: The flow diagram in figure 1 is correct.

Comment 3; Correction of lines 94, 100 and 114.

Comment 4; Line 86 is changed, as suggested.

Comment 5: The proposal to include in line 154 was not considered by the research team.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Objectives are not clearly stated and the introduction could be better structured to justify the work. There are major problems with the discussion of the results. Overall the writing is confusing. Some suggestions to improve the paper:

 

Abstract

Line 18 – First sentence is incomplete. Also, when the authors say “Carao honey represents a byproduct”, please clarify which production process results in this byproduct.

Line 19 – When the authors say “plant extract exhibit activity”, what is exactly this activity? Please clarify.

Lines 21 and 31 – The authors say the cookies where “fortified”, but this doesn’t seem to be the appropriate description of the work conducted. If so, which micronutrients the authors aimed to increase?

Line 24 – I’m not familiar with the term “proximal analysis”. Should it be “Proximate composition”?

 

Introduction

Lines 49-50 – This sentence is duplicated from the abstract. Reference(s) not cited.

Lines 100-104 – Research objectives are not clearly stated.

The authors do not explain anywhere why the application in cookies was chosen over other food products.

 

Material and methods

The numbers of the subsections need to be reviewed.

Lines109-110 – Which health standards? I’m not sure what the authors are trying to communicate here.

2.1. – A flowchart would be helpful to illustrate this process.

2.2. – This doesn’t describe the sensory study, but hoe the cookies were formulated.

2.3 – Facilities do not perform analysis. Please rephase the sentence. Also, double check the term “Proximal analysis"

 

2.2. starting in line 155 – this can be combined with the 2.2. that starts in line 120.

2.4 consumer sensory study - Were the consumer studies reviewed and previously approved by an institutional review board (ethics in research with human subjects)?

What was the profile of the 90 participants (gender, age)?

 

Results

3.1. –  The discussion here is confusing. Random information that doesn’t seem directly linked to the work is cited.

Lines 229 – 231 -  I do not understand why a standard for corn flours is being cited/used as reference here.

Lines 241-242 – This statement reinforces that “fortification” is not an appropriate term to describe the work done.

Table 1: “White” rice flour instead of “write” rice flour

Lines 273 – 284 – Aren’t the cookies gluten free? This discussion doesn’t make sense.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript needs major revision regarding English grammar and vocabulary.

Author Response

Objectives are not clearly stated and the introduction could be better structured to justify the work. There are major problems with the discussion of the results. Overall the writing is confusing. Some suggestions to improve the paper:

 

Abstract

Line 18 – First sentence is incomplete. Also, when the authors say “Carao honey represents a byproduct”, please clarify which production process results in this byproduct.

Answer: Sentence was improved.

Line 19 – When the authors say “plant extract exhibit activity”, what is exactly this activity? Please clarify.

Answer: Wording was improved.

Lines 21 and 31 – The authors say the cookies where “fortified”, but this doesn’t seem to be the appropriate description of the work conducted. If so, which micronutrients the authors aimed to increase?

Answer: Wording was improved.

Line 24 – I’m not familiar with the term “proximal analysis”. Should it be “Proximate composition”?

 Answer: Wording was improved.

Introduction

Lines 49-50 – This sentence is duplicated from the abstract. Reference(s) not cited.

 Answer: Reference was added.

Lines 100-104 – Research objectives are not clearly stated.

The authors do not explain anywhere why the application in cookies was chosen over other food products.

 Answer: Wording was improved. Research objectives were added.

Material and methods

The numbers of the subsections need to be reviewed.

Lines109-110 – Which health standards? I’m not sure what the authors are trying to communicate here.

 Answer: Wording was improved.

2.1. – A flowchart would be helpful to illustrate this process.

 Answer: Flowchart was added.

 

2.2. – This doesn’t describe the sensory study, but hoe the cookies were formulated.

 Answer: Wording was improved.

2.3 – Facilities do not perform analysis. Please rephase the sentence. Also, double check the term “Proximal analysis"

  Answer: Wording was improved.

2.2. starting in line 155 – this can be combined with the 2.2. that starts in line 120.

Answer: sections were combined.

2.4 consumer sensory study - Were the consumer studies reviewed and previously approved by an institutional review board (ethics in research with human subjects)?

 

What was the profile of the 90 participants (gender, age)?

Answer: Information were added. institutional review board and the profile of the 90 participants (gender, age).

Results

3.1. –  The discussion here is confusing. Random information that doesn’t seem directly linked to the work is cited.

Answer:  discussion was improved.

Lines 229 – 231 -  I do not understand why a standard for corn flours is being cited/used as reference here.

Answer:  discussion was improved.

Lines 241-242 – This statement reinforces that “fortification” is not an appropriate term to describe the work done.

 Answer: Wording was improved.

Table 1: “White” rice flour instead of “write” rice flour

 Answer: Wording was improved.

Lines 273 – 284 – Aren’t the cookies gluten free? This discussion doesn’t make sense.

 Answer: Wording was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction does not have a clear sequence, it is suggested to restructure it in order to give it greater fluidity. For example; there is a lot of talk about the characteristics of the plant as well as the metabolites present, however, the part of its incorporation into a food is not addressed. 


It is suggested to incorporate more references that support the relevant information.

The sentence is not clear, please revise:  "Determination of iron, saponins and porphyrins in Cassia grandis. According to Floripe (2015) [8], the best drug-solvent ratio chosen  by total solids count to extract metabolites in Cassia grandis fruit is one gram of pulp per 5 ml of hydroalcoholic solvent prepared at 70%"

Line 84: Revise grammar

The section: 2.2. Experimental design is not clear, the final formulations evaluated are not mentioned.How is the incorporation of carao honey flour and melon seed flour?

Please, review the format and distribution of the tables. They are placed on the numbering of the lines

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The introduction does not have a clear sequence, it is suggested to restructure it in order to give it greater fluidity. For example; there is a lot of talk about the characteristics of the plant as well as the metabolites present, however, the part of its incorporation into a food is not addressed. 


It is suggested to incorporate more references that support the relevant information.

Answer: introduction was improved.

The sentence is not clear, please revise:  "Determination of iron, saponins and porphyrins in Cassia grandis. According to Floripe (2015) [8], the best drug-solvent ratio chosen  by total solids count to extract metabolites in Cassia grandis fruit is one gram of pulp per 5 ml of hydroalcoholic solvent prepared at 70%"

Line 84: Revise grammar

Answer: grammar was improved.

The section: 2.2. Experimental design is not clear, the final formulations evaluated are not mentioned.How is the incorporation of carao honey flour and melon seed flour?

Answer: Experimental design section was improved.

Please, review the format and distribution of the tables. They are placed on the numbering of the lines

 Answer: tables was improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Abstract

Line 18: “increasing the In many country”. Section isn’t clear, revise accordingly.

Line 22: change ratio to levels or percentages

Line 22-24: revise the section for clarity on the exact parameters investigated. Authors should concentrate on reporting the major findings thereafter rather than repeating aW, color, etc since general terminology had already been used for the investigated parameter (physicochemical)

Line 25-26: Certainly, sensory analysis is done to verify consumers' acceptance or rejection among several other consumers' desired factors of a new product. Key findings of the sensory study must be presented instead of repeating the reason for carrying out the sensory study.

Line 26-27: The section needs a thorough revision. The statement is very unclear

General comment: The abstract is poorly written and demands revision entirely. Key findings should be presented and must be concise to make the study presentable and more scientific.

 

Introduction

Line 45: delete the period after [2].,

Line 44-47: revise and cite appropriately.

Line 52: “drinking the leaf….” Check grammar and use appropriate wording at specific sections for a clear and orderly presentation of knowledge.

Rewrite as “drinking the extract from the leaf….”

Likewise

Line 50: “cooking the leaf with salt is drunk” must be written as “Boiling the leaf with salt is drunk as….”

This is because boiling, frying, roasting etc are cooking regimes so using the word cooking in relation to drinking isn’t coherent. Instead, using the exact cooking method of boiling reveals the connected knowledge of the statement.

Line 54: infused as what?

Line 55: revise the statement. “In Honduras, the leaf is crushed and applied to the skin for fungus, scabies, herpes, joints, and white cloth”. The statement is not clear and somehow incomplete.

Is the crushed leaf applied for fungus and scabies treatment of the skin? Or white cloth production? So confusing.

Line 49-60: needs general revision

Line 75-78: The statement is unclear. E.g., “Determination of iron, saponins and porphyrins in Cassia grandis.”  Has done what?

Line 75-97: The authors seem to present inferences from existing literature to justify the adoption of Cassia grandis in the present study. However, the write-up is disoriented, the knowledge presented isn’t scientifically presented, and citations are poorly affixed where necessary. The section needs to be revised for coherency to meet readers understanding.

General comment: The introduction section demands revision entirely. The presentation of Key findings from kinds of literature inferences is poorly expressed in English. Grammar and technically connecting wordings must be used appropriately where necessary to outshine the scientific quality of the paper.

 

Materials and methods

Line 112: how can a container be filled with boiling water? Rewrite the statement in lines 111-114 for clarity.

Change proximal to proximate

What are the differences between the ashes and fat determination under the proximate analysis section and physico-chemical analysis section?

Why does ashes and fat determination fall under the physico-chemical analysis section?

 

Results and discussion

Fig 1 and 2 resolution is poor revise the figure

Avoid the use of “we” in the write-up

Compliment the section with existing study findings comparable to attain results. Also, authors should present exactly the core findings of the study rather than repeating already existing knowledge which ought to have been reported in the introductory part like lines 232-3-236 which presented information on honey.

The work should be presented scientifically and there must be coherency in the discussion sections.

 

General comment: Authors are required to consider revising the manuscript entirely since it presently doesn’t meet the scientific write-up requirement of this prestigious Journal. Because in many sections there seems to be a difficult presentation of knowledge expression in English. Lastly, although the study is relevant to the food industry and science it would be appropriate for authors to resort to the assistance of English editors for proofreading to enrich the paper for reaching where possible after publication for clear understanding by the wide readers the paper may reach.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the study is relevant to the food industry and science it would be appropriate for authors to resort to the assistance of English editors for proofreading to enrich the paper for reaching where possible after publication for clear understanding by the wide readers the paper may reach.

Author Response

Abstract

Line 18: “increasing the In many country”. Section isn’t clear, revise accordingly.

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 22: change ratio to levels or percentages

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 22-24: revise the section for clarity on the exact parameters investigated. Authors should concentrate on reporting the major findings thereafter rather than repeating aW, color, etc since general terminology had already been used for the investigated parameter (physicochemical).

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 25-26: Certainly, sensory analysis is done to verify consumers' acceptance or rejection among several other consumers' desired factors of a new product. Key findings of the sensory study must be presented instead of repeating the reason for carrying out the sensory study.

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 26-27: The section needs a thorough revision. The statement is very unclear

Answer: wording was improved.

General comment: The abstract is poorly written and demands revision entirely. Key findings should be presented and must be concise to make the study presentable and more scientific.

 Answer: abstract was improved.

Introduction

Line 45: delete the period after [2].,

 Answer: period was deleted.

Line 44-47: revise and cite appropriately.

Answer: citation was improved.

Line 52: “drinking the leaf….” Check grammar and use appropriate wording at specific sections for a clear and orderly presentation of knowledge.

Rewrite as “drinking the extract from the leaf….”

Likewise

Answer: wording was improved.

 

Line 50: “cooking the leaf with salt is drunk” must be written as “Boiling the leaf with salt is drunk as….”

This is because boiling, frying, roasting etc are cooking regimes so using the word cooking in relation to drinking isn’t coherent. Instead, using the exact cooking method of boiling reveals the connected knowledge of the statement.

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 54: infused as what?

Answer: This term refers to integrating additional ingredients into the root and bark to alter or enhance their flavor, aroma, or health properties. These ingredients, often natural and organically sourced, can range from herbs and spices to botanicals, superfoods, and even compounds like CBD.

Line 55: revise the statement. “In Honduras, the leaf is crushed and applied to the skin for fungus, scabies, herpes, joints, and white cloth”. The statement is not clear and somehow incomplete.

Is the crushed leaf applied for fungus and scabies treatment of the skin? Or white cloth production? So confusing.

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 49-60: needs general revision

Answer: paragraph was improved.

Line 75-78: The statement is unclear. E.g., “Determination of iron, saponins and porphyrins in Cassia grandis.”  Has done what?

Answer: wording was improved.

Line 75-97: The authors seem to present inferences from existing literature to justify the adoption of Cassia grandis in the present study. However, the write-up is disoriented, the knowledge presented isn’t scientifically presented, and citations are poorly affixed where necessary. The section needs to be revised for coherency to meet readers understanding.

Answer: paragraph was improved.

General comment: The introduction section demands revision entirely. The presentation of Key findings from kinds of literature inferences is poorly expressed in English. Grammar and technically connecting wordings must be used appropriately where necessary to outshine the scientific quality of the paper.

 Answer: The introduction was improved.

Materials and methods

Line 112: how can a container be filled with boiling water? Rewrite the statement in lines 111-114 for clarity.

Answer: wording was improved.

 

Change proximal to proximate

Answer: wording was improved.

What are the differences between the ashes and fat determination under the proximate analysis section and physico-chemical analysis section?

Why does ashes and fat determination fall under the physico-chemical analysis section?

 Answer: the ashes and fat determination were deleted in the physico-chemical analysis section

Results and discussion

Fig 1 and 2 resolution is poor revise the figure

Answer: Fig 1 and 2 were improved.

Avoid the use of “we” in the write-up

Answer: discussion were improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The few changes and poor author's response did not change my opinion about rejecting this paper. The report is confusing and not well written.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It needs improvement.

Author Response

The few changes and poor author's response did not change my opinion about rejecting this paper. The report is confusing and not well written.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It needs improvement.

Answer: Manuscript was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not clear, it is understood that the authors talk about rice to justify its use in the product, but the sequence is not clear.

It is suggested to improve Figure 1 quality

Line 140: with "melon seed flour" Do you mean "carao honey flour"?

Table 3.  What does CP mean? and, At what point is the chocolate added?

Table 3. Physical-chemical properties and sensory characteristics of chocolate cookies with CP replacement levels. 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The few changes and poor author's response did not change my opinion about rejecting this paper. The report is confusing and not well written.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It needs improvement.

Answer: Manuscript was improved.

 

In the introduction, Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not clear, it is understood that the authors talk about rice to justify its use in the product, but the sequence is not clear.

Answer: introduction was improved.

 

It is suggested to improve Figure 1 quality

Answer: Figure 1 was improved.

 

Line 140: with "melon seed flour" Do you mean "carao honey flour"?

Answer: wording was improved.

 

Table 3.  What does CP mean? and, At what point is the chocolate added?

Table 3. Physical-chemical properties and sensory characteristics of chocolate cookies with CP replacement levels.

Answer: wording was improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

·      Generally, most sections weren’t revised instead authors just highlighted in yellow. For example, Line 28-30: Certainly, sensory analysis is done to verify consumers' acceptance or rejection among several other consumers' desired factors of a new product. Key findings of the sensory study must be presented instead of repeating the reason for carrying out the sensory study. Also, lines 52-62: “Celiac disease is characterized by poor intestinal absorption secondary to atrophy of the small intestine mucosa and chronic inflammation caused by the consumption of gluten that affects genetically predisposed comsumers”. This statement is unclear

·      Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver…..maybe authors meant “Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver disease treatment”

·      Line 70: why will the intake of Carao extract by pregnant women cause abortion?

·      Line 81: bring space “0.56 mg/100g.Accord”

·      Line 90: “is” or “was” check the tense in which the work is reporting and fix accordingly.

·      Line 89: “results opposite to those of the Chinandegan samples. 0.98 mg/l of iron and 8.10 g/l of total saponins” statement is unclear

·      Flow chart isn’t clear, improve the figure resolution

·      Line 110: is Carao honey a by-product? How? is it a by-product?

·      Line 94: “Chemical composition of Cassia grandis.” Incomplete statement

·      Line 105: “in vitro” italicize to “in vitro”

·      Line 138: “Formulation to produce cookies” Incomplete statement

·      In line 132: “melon seed flour to the cookie formulation in substitution of rice flour” and lines 139-140: “Subsequently, the ingredients were mixed (melon seed flour, rice flour, margarine, sugar, stevia, cranberry, vanilla, soda, and egg)”

·      Authors inform melon seed flour substitute rice flour at the point and at other section melon seed is mixed with rice flour. There seem to be inconsistencies at these sections.

·      The experimental design description is poorly presented and difficult to understand. I recommend authors complement the section with a schematic flow diagram to aid the scientific understanding of the design.

·      Line 142: the thickness of the cookies obtained was 0.55 cm thick rewrite as “the thickness of the cookies 142 obtained was 0.55 cm”

·      Line 145: “minutes” line 167: “min” Which format are authors adopting “minutes” or “min”? kindly use one format entirely.

·      Line 146: after packaging the cookies in a Ziploc bag how were the samples shelved till the completion of various analyses during the experiment? Revise the section accordingly to make the presentation more scientific

·      Line 167: Check the degree Celsius symbol and fix appropriately “oC” must be “^oC”

·      Line 260: what is exotic product?

·      Check and fix the font size of Table 2

·      Although the authors respond to have improved the resolution of figures in the manuscript the clarity isn’t all that best. Maybe the system did affect the quality of the graphics during the uploading of figures in the journal system. Maybe authors can try converting the figure to another format of the picture to keep the resolution intact.

·      Line 366-367: “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower hardness when compared to cookies made without carao honey” rewrite as “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower compared to cookies made without carao honey”

·      Line 371: “The L* values changed the cookies' color when carao honey was added to darker colors.” Rewrite as “The L* values changed the cookies' color to darker colors when carao honey was added.” Authors should take critical notice of fixing these simple misrepresentations of the content discussed and rather have time to write findings clearly for perfect understanding by readers. These types of unclear statements are found across the manuscript. Authors should seek assistance from other sources to improve the use of English. For example, lines 376-377: “By analyzing the a* data, it was verified that the cookies, even without carao's contribution, tend toward shades of green. These are the lowest values emitted by the colorimeter”. What is the meaning of “even without”. Also, in which tense is the study presented “are” or “were”. Authors should pay critical attention to these simple grammar errors to enrich the paper.

·      Line 379: “They” who or what are you referring to

·      What is the pigment of Carao that aided in color decrease from yellow among formulated products? The authors should highlight further the color change mechanisms. Images of developed products could be presented for readers to understand the color difference secured among formulated products.

·      Line 388: change “aw” to “aW”

·      Line 415: Balasubramanian et al. (2012) [30], Line 417: Abou-Zaid et al. (2012), and line 352: Mohamed [25] and Roos [26]. Which of the citation styles is deemed appropriate per the journal requirement? Authors should revise accordingly and take critical note of these simple errors entirely.

·      Line 407: “links” or “liking” which is correct

·      Line 419: “In this case, ground fungal micelles grown on sorghum or wheat grains, to obtain food products” statement is unclear and has no correlation with the previous statement. The authors should revise.

·      Line 420-424: statement contradicts the discussed findings. Authors meant 63% of trained sensory assessors preferred 0% Carao incorporated products whereas 37% of untrained sensory assessors preferred cookies formulated with Carao. If so, then how could authors accept the statement “The study demonstrates that Carao flour can be included to produce sensorial accepted cookies at a 2.5% addition”

·      Authors were recommended to change proximal to proximate entirely for scientific coherency of the minerals determined since proximal wording has a different contextual meaning which seems inappropriate to be used. Yet section 2.3 was only considered.

·      “General comment: Authors are required to consider revising the manuscript entirely since it presently doesn’t meet the scientific write-up requirement of this prestigious Journal. Because in many sections there seems to be a difficult presentation of knowledge expression in English. Lastly, although the study is relevant to the food industry and science it would be appropriate for authors to resort to the assistance of English editors for proofreading to enrich the paper for reaching where possible after publication for clear understanding by the wide readers the paper may reach.” The authors did not have time to revise the manuscript as recommended. Some recommendations were left unconsidered, and the ones considered too were not carefully addressed. It seems the authors were in haste to reply to the reviewer for a swift acceptance consideration of the manuscript to meet the authors' graduation, faculty, personal or other reasonable factors demands. However, the integrity of the Journal needs to be held in high regard as far as publishing scientific findings is concerned. There still seem to be technical hitches despite the scientific novelty and contribution the findings of the study deem to address. It would be greatly appreciated if the authors took the time to work on the manuscript critically. Also, the assistance of an English editor is required to help present the study findings in scientific manner and concisely.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The assistance of an English editor is required to help present the study findings in scientific manner and concisely.

Author Response

Generally, most sections weren’t revised instead authors just highlighted in yellow. For example, Line 28-30: Certainly, sensory analysis is done to verify consumers' acceptance or rejection among several other consumers' desired factors of a new product. Key findings of the sensory study must be presented instead of repeating the reason for carrying out the sensory study. 

Answer: Key findings of the sensory study were added.

 

Also, lines 52-62: “Celiac disease is characterized by poor intestinal absorption secondary to atrophy of the small intestine mucosa and chronic inflammation caused by the consumption of gluten that affects genetically predisposed comsumers”. This statement is unclear

Answer: statement was improved.

 

• Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver…..maybe authors meant “Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver disease treatment”

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 70: why will the intake of Carao extract by pregnant women cause abortion?

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 81: bring space “0.56 mg/100g.Accord”

Answer: space was added.

 

• Line 90: “is” or “was” check the tense in which the work is reporting and fix accordingly.

Answer: the tense was improved.

• Line 89: “results opposite to those of the Chinandegan samples. 0.98 mg/l of iron and 8.10 g/l of total saponins” statement is unclear

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Flow chart isn’t clear, improve the figure resolution

Answer: figure was improved.

• Line 110: is Carao honey a by-product? How? is it a by-product?

Answer: statement was improved.

• Line 94: “Chemical composition of Cassia grandis.” Incomplete statement

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 105: “in vitro” italicize to “in vitro”

Answer: “in vitro” was italicized

• Line 138: “Formulation to produce cookies” Incomplete statement

Answer: statement was deleted.

• In line 132: “melon seed flour to the cookie formulation in substitution of rice flour” and lines 139-140: “Subsequently, the ingredients were mixed (melon seed flour, rice flour, margarine, sugar, stevia, cranberry, vanilla, soda, and egg)”

Answer: wording was improved.

• Authors inform melon seed flour substitute rice flour at the point and at other section melon seed is mixed with rice flour. There seem to be inconsistencies at these sections.

Answer: wording was improved.

• The experimental design description is poorly presented and difficult to understand. I recommend authors complement the section with a schematic flow diagram to aid the scientific understanding of the design.

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 142: the thickness of the cookies obtained was 0.55 cm thick rewrite as “the thickness of the cookies 142 obtained was 0.55 cm”

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 145: “minutes” line 167: “min” Which format are authors adopting “minutes” or “min”? kindly use one format entirely.

Answer: min was adopted.

• Line 146: after packaging the cookies in a Ziploc bag how were the samples shelved till the completion of various analyses during the experiment? Revise the section accordingly to make the presentation more scientific

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 167: Check the degree Celsius symbol and fix appropriately “oC” must be “^oC”

Answer: Celsius symbol was improved.

• Line 260: what is exotic product?

Answer: wording was improved.

• Check and fix the font size of Table 2

Answer: Table was improved.

• Although the authors respond to have improved the resolution of figures in the manuscript the clarity isn’t all that best. Maybe the system did affect the quality of the graphics during the uploading of figures in the journal system. Maybe authors can try converting the figure to another format of the picture to keep the resolution intact.
• Line 366-367: “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower hardness when compared to cookies made without carao honey” rewrite as “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower compared to cookies made without carao honey”

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 371: “The L* values changed the cookies' color when carao honey was added to darker colors.” Rewrite as “The L* values changed the cookies' color to darker colors when carao honey was added.” Authors should take critical notice of fixing these simple misrepresentations of the content discussed and rather have time to write findings clearly for perfect understanding by readers. These types of unclear statements are found across the manuscript. Authors should seek assistance from other sources to improve the use of English. For example, lines 376-377: “By analyzing the a* data, it was verified that the cookies, even without carao's contribution, tend toward shades of green. These are the lowest values emitted by the colorimeter”. What is the meaning of “even without”. Also, in which tense is the study presented “are” or “were”. Authors should pay critical attention to these simple grammar errors to enrich the paper.

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 379: “They” who or what are you referring to

Answer: wording was improved.

• What is the pigment of Carao that aided in color decrease from yellow among formulated products? The authors should highlight further the color change mechanisms. Images of developed products could be presented for readers to understand the color difference secured among formulated products.
• Line 388: change “aw” to “aW”

Answer: wording was improved.

• Line 415: Balasubramanian et al. (2012) [30], Line 417: Abou-Zaid et al. (2012), and line 352: Mohamed [25] and Roos [26]. Which of the citation styles is deemed appropriate per the journal requirement? Authors should revise accordingly and take critical note of these simple errors entirely.

Answer: Citation was standardized.

• Line 407: “links” or “liking” which is correct

Answer: wording was improved.

 

• Line 419: “In this case, ground fungal micelles grown on sorghum or wheat grains, to obtain food products” statement is unclear and has no correlation with the previous statement. The authors should revise.

Answer: statement was improved. A more appropriate reference was placed.

• Line 420-424: statement contradicts the discussed findings. Authors meant 63% of trained sensory assessors preferred 0% Carao incorporated products whereas 37% of untrained sensory assessors preferred cookies formulated with Carao. If so, then how could authors accept the statement “The study demonstrates that Carao flour can be included to produce sensorial accepted cookies at a 2.5% addition”

Answer: wording was improved.

• Authors were recommended to change proximal to proximate entirely for scientific coherency of the minerals determined since proximal wording has a different contextual meaning which seems inappropriate to be used. Yet section 2.3 was only considered.

Answer: wording was improved.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, only a few words were changed, it basically has the same content as the previous version.

The quality of Figure 1 still does not improve

 

Author Response

The few changes and poor author's response did not change my opinion about rejecting this paper. The report is confusing and not well written.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

It needs improvement.

 

Answer: Manuscript was improved.

Yellow and red highlights

 

In the introduction, Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not clear, it is understood that the authors talk about rice to justify its use in the product, but the sequence is not clear.

Answer: introduction was improved.

Lines: 54-75

It is suggested to improve Figure 1 quality

Answer: Figure 1 was improved.

Lines: 121-122

 

Line 140: with "melon seed flour" Do you mean "carao honey flour"?

Answer: wording was improved. Melon seed flour was changed to "carao honey”.

Line: 143

Table 3. What does CP mean? and, At what point is the chocolate added?

Table 3. Physical-chemical properties and sensory characteristics of chocolate cookies with CP replacement levels.

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 247-249

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors did not consider the line-by-line response of the revised manuscript addressing the reviewer’s comment. Also, the reviewer is unable to assess the specific responses to their comment with the exception of the red highlights in the manuscript. Authors are recommended to provide responses to the second time comments of the reviewer by quoting the exact lines where revisions have been affected for easy assessment and consider the following observations.

 

Observations

·      Line 176: 10 grams and line 173: 5g authors should consider one format and use entirely either grams or g

·      General responses “wording was improved” is seen but where in the manuscript? The exact lines where the changes occurred should be pointed out for easy access.

·      Table 3: T2 (₂.5%) is it 2.5% or what? Check the font size.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the study is relevant to the food industry and science it would be appropriate for authors to strongly encourage using a professional language editing service to enrich the paper.

Author Response

Observations

• Line 176: 10 grams and line 173: 5g authors should consider one format and use entirely either grams or g

Answer: Formatting was done as suggested.

Lines: 173-176

• General responses “wording was improved” is seen but where in the manuscript? The exact lines where the changes occurred should be pointed out for easy access.

Answer: Lines were placed in responses

 

Also, lines 52-62: “Celiac disease is characterized by poor intestinal absorption secondary to atrophy of the small intestine mucosa and chronic inflammation caused by the consumption of gluten that affects genetically predisposed comsumers”. This statement is unclear

Answer: statement was improved.

Lines: 57-59

• Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver…..maybe authors meant “Take a glass of fresh fruit three times a day for cough and liver disease treatment”

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 70: why will the intake of Carao extract by pregnant women cause abortion?

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 81: bring space “0.56 mg/100g.Accord”

Answer: space was added.

Line: 78

• Line 90: “is” or “was” check the tense in which the work is reporting and fix accordingly.

Answer: the tense was improved (Present tense).

Lines: 87

• Line 89: “results opposite to those of the Chinandegan samples. 0.98 mg/l of iron and 8.10 g/l of total saponins” statement is unclear

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Flow chart isn’t clear, improve the figure resolution

Answer: figure was improved.

Lines: 121-122

 

• Line 110: is Carao honey a by-product? How? is it a by-product?

Answer: statement was improved. The expression by-product was deleted.

Lines: 105-106

• Line 94: “Chemical composition of Cassia grandis.” Incomplete statement

Answer: statement was deleted.

• Line 105: “in vitro” italicize to “in vitro”

Answer: “in vitro” was italicized

Line: 101

• Line 138: “Formulation to produce cookies” Incomplete statement

Answer: statement was deleted.

• In line 132: “melon seed flour to the cookie formulation in substitution of rice flour” and lines 139-140: “Subsequently, the ingredients were mixed (melon seed flour, rice flour, margarine, sugar, stevia, cranberry, vanilla, soda, and egg)”

Answer: wording was changed from melon seed flour to carao honey flour.

Lines: 127, 131

• Authors inform melon seed flour substitute rice flour at the point and at other section melon seed is mixed with rice flour. There seem to be inconsistencies at these sections.

Answer: wording was improved. wording was changed from melon seed flour to carao honey flour.

Lines: 127, 131

• The experimental design description is poorly presented and difficult to understand. I recommend authors complement the section with a schematic flow diagram to aid the scientific understanding of the design.

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 126-138

• Line 142: the thickness of the cookies obtained was 0.55 cm thick rewrite as “the thickness of the cookies 142 obtained was 0.55 cm”

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 133-134

• Line 145: “minutes” line 167: “min” Which format are authors adopting “minutes” or “min”? kindly use one format entirely.

Answer: min was adopted.

Lines: 136-158

• Line 146: after packaging the cookies in a Ziploc bag how were the samples shelved till the completion of various analyses during the experiment? Revise the section accordingly to make the presentation more scientific

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 137-138

• Line 167: Check the degree Celsius symbol and fix appropriately “oC” must be “^oC”

Answer: Celsius symbol was improved.

Line: 158

• Line 260: what is exotic product?

Answer: wording was deleted.

• Check and fix the font size of Table 2

Answer: Table was improved.

Lines: 272-287

• Although the authors respond to have improved the resolution of figures in the manuscript the clarity isn’t all that best. Maybe the system did affect the quality of the graphics during the uploading of figures in the journal system. Maybe authors can try converting the figure to another format of the picture to keep the resolution intact.
• Line 366-367: “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower hardness when compared to cookies made without carao honey” rewrite as “The carao honey's hardness on cookies was reported to be significantly (p<0.05) lower compared to cookies made without carao honey”

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 351-353

 

• Line 371: “The L* values changed the cookies' color when carao honey was added to darker colors.” Rewrite as “The L* values changed the cookies' color to darker colors when carao honey was added.” Authors should take critical notice of fixing these simple misrepresentations of the content discussed and rather have time to write findings clearly for perfect understanding by readers. These types of unclear statements are found across the manuscript. Authors should seek assistance from other sources to improve the use of English. For example, lines 376-377: “By analyzing the a* data, it was verified that the cookies, even without carao's contribution, tend toward shades of green. These are the lowest values emitted by the colorimeter”. What is the meaning of “even without”. Also, in which tense is the study presented “are” or “were”. Authors should pay critical attention to these simple grammar errors to enrich the paper.

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 356-357

• Line 379: “They” who or what are you referring to

Answer: wording was improved.

Line: 365

 

• Line 388: change “aw” to “aW”

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 375

 

• Line 407: “links” or “liking” which is correct

Answer: wording was improved.

Line: 389

• Line 419: “In this case, ground fungal micelles grown on sorghum or wheat grains, to obtain food products” statement is unclear and has no correlation with the previous statement. The authors should revise.

Answer: statement was improved. A more appropriate reference was placed.

Lines: 399-400

• Line 420-424: statement contradicts the discussed findings. Authors meant 63% of trained sensory assessors preferred 0% Carao incorporated products whereas 37% of untrained sensory assessors preferred cookies formulated with Carao. If so, then how could authors accept the statement “The study demonstrates that Carao flour can be included to produce sensorial accepted cookies at a 2.5% addition”

Answer: wording was improved.

Lines: 400-403

 

• Table 3: T2 (₂.5%) is it 2.5% or what? Check the font size.

Answer: font size was improved.

Lines: 379-384