From a Single-Stage to a Two-Stage Countercurrent Extraction of Lipids and Proteins from Full-Fat Chickpea Flour: Maximizing Process Extractability and Economic Feasibility
, Zhiliang Fan 1 and Juliana Maria Leite Nobrega De Moura Bell 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really appreciate the manuscript of Machida, Furlan Goncalves Dias, Fan and Leite Nobrega De Moura Bell.
The manuscript is well written, with the merit of combining innovative solutions with more pragmatic studies of economic feasibility.
Just two minor corrections:
All the acronyms require the exact name just before...
i.e. Line 58 … flammable solvent-free extraction processes such as the aqueous (AEP)…
Line 48 please convert pounds in kg
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ comments
We are thankful to the Editor and the reviewers for their thorough review. We have revised the present research paper in light of the useful suggestions and comments. We hope the revision has improved the paper to a level of their satisfaction. All answers and modifications in the manuscript are highlighted in red.
Reviewer 1
I really appreciate the manuscript of Machida, Furlan Goncalves Dias, Fan and Leite Nobrega De Moura Bell. The manuscript is well written, with the merit of combining innovative solutions with more pragmatic studies of economic feasibility.
Just two minor corrections:
All the acronyms require the exact name just before...
i.e. Line 58 … flammable solvent-free extraction processes such as the aqueous (AEP)…
Modified as suggested.
Line 48 please convert pounds in kg
Modified as suggested.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment and the corrections. We have modified the manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research present a topic of great interest to the food science and food industry. I think a very interest work, with adequate results for industrial applications. Some points to take into account for the manuscript are:
1.The authors could consider change the title of the work. Don´t only countercurrent extraction EAEP process was evaluated.
2. Line 143: the section 2.3 do not described the starting material analysis.
3. The proximal analysis result were not included in Results and Discussion section, the authors described oil, protein and moisture percentage values of starting material in 2.2 section.
4. I think a more detailed description could be done in section 2.1, about the selection criteria used to choose of the starting material, for example, if the selection of material was random or aspects such as sample size, color or physicochemical properties that were taken into account for the selection of the starting material.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The research present a topic of great interest to the food science and food industry. I think it is a very interesting work, with adequate results for industrial applications. Some points to take into account for the manuscript are:
1.The authors could consider changing the title of the work. Don´t only countercurrent extraction EAEP process was evaluated.
Response: The title was modified as suggested
- Line 143: the section 2.3 do not described the starting material analysis.
Response: We apologize for the mistake. We replaced 2.3 with the correct section number (2.5).
- The proximal analysis result were not included in Results and Discussion section, the authors described oil, protein and moisture percentage values of starting material in 2.2 section.
The proximate analyses of oil and protein were used to perform the mass balance and the mass distribution in the fractions.
- I think a more detailed description could be done in section 2.1, about the selection criteria used to choose of the starting material, for example, if the selection of material was random or aspects such as sample size, color or physicochemical properties that were taken into account for the selection of the starting material.
A commercial chickpea flour, provided by Grinnell Inc.( Iowa), representing current production practices was selected for this study. That information is provided in section 2.1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the study is interesting and addresses a current topic in the food industry. The methodology is well explained and the results are consistent compared to similar other studies.
I have detected only two minor revisions:
In the section 1. Introduction:
Line 50, It says, “Chickpeas are a source 49 of proteins (19%), carbohydrates (60%), lipids (17%), and dietary fiber (17%) [8]”, it is surprising that this chemical composition does not add 100% it really adds 113%.
Line 69, enzyme use may be changed by enzyme concentration
In section 2. Materials and Methods:
Fig. 1. It is difficult to visualize the letters within the dark blocks, please consider using a different way of highlighting these figures.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Reviewer 3: Overall, the study is interesting and addresses a current topic in the food industry. The methodology is well explained, and the results are consistent compared to similar other studies.
I have detected only two minor revisions:
In the section 1. Introduction:
Line 50, It says, “Chickpeas are a source 49 of proteins (19%), carbohydrates (60%), lipids (17%), and dietary fiber (17%) [8]”, it is surprising that this chemical composition does not add 100% it really adds 113%.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their comments, the lipid values was replaced by the correct ones 6% instead of 17%.
Line 69, enzyme use may be changed by enzyme concentration
Response: The word “use” was replaced by concentration as requested.
In section 2. Materials and Methods:
Fig. 1. It is difficult to visualize the letters within the dark blocks, please consider using a different way of highlighting these figures.
Response: The figure was updated as requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
