Perspectives on the Use of Germinated Legumes in the Bread Making Process, A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General overview.

Manuscript applsci-919377 titled Perspectives on the Use of Germinated Legumes in 3 the Bread Making Process, a Review is very interesting and easy to read with an appropriate background to settle the relevance of the study. However, some minor modifications are need before to publication.

 

Major comments.

• I would suggest to revise the paragraph “Description of the germination process” split up better the natural process (when the seed was sown) with artificial process usually applied foe examples before the fermentation.
• The authors should report in sensory characteristics paragraph the effects of phenolic compound and dietary fiber increase on tasty.
• Define the quantity of germinated seeds added without having negative effects on the quality of the wheat flour dough in paragraph 4.1
• In the section 4.2 the author reported a bread loaf volume reduction… In my opinion a better discussion should be reported highlighting the influence of dietary fiber and phenols on bread quality.

 

Minor suggestions.

Line 74-78 define if the germination is referred to plant reproduction by seeds or industrial process

Line 159 define solid soluble substances

Line 204 define the absorption capacity of what…

Line 439 I think that these sentences added to appropriate references should be reported in the introduction

Author Response

30 August 2020

Authors: First at all, we would like to thank to the referee for the close reading of our manuscript. Indeed, his/her remarks was correct one and help us to improve our manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer: I would suggest to revise the paragraph “Description of the germination process” split up better the natural process (when the seed was sown) with artificial process usually applied foe examples before the fermentation.

 

 

Response: According to the referee suggestions, we have now underlined in a better way the two parts described, namely, the natural process and the artifical one. Firstly, we described the natural process and secondly the artifical one. We reconsidered this section in order to be more clear one for the readers (better split into two parts which describes the two types of germination: the natural one, when the seed was sown, and the artificial one, for obtaining germs).

 

Reviewer: The authors should report in sensory characteristics paragraph the effects of phenolic compound and dietary fiber increase on tasty.

Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her suggestions. We inncorporated now a paragraph on phenolic compound and dietary fiber effect on tasty.

Reviewer: Define the quantity of germinated seeds added without having negative effects on the quality of the wheat flour dough in paragraph 4.1

Response: According to referee suggestions we incorporated now a paragraph to 4.1 on the amount of germinated seeds addition that may be incorporated in wheat flour without having negative effects on the quality of the wheat flour dough.

Reviewer: In the section 4.2 the author reported a bread loaf volume reduction… In my opinion a better discussion should be reported highlighting the influence of dietary fiber and phenols on bread quality.

Response: According to referee suggestions we added in the manuscript more comments on the influence of dietary fiber and phenols on bread quality to the section 4.2.

Reviewer: Line 74-78 define if the germination is referred to plant reproduction by seeds or industrial process

 

Response: We defined.

 

Reviewer: Line 159 define solid soluble substances

 

Response: We defined.

 

Reviewer: Line 204 define the absorption capacity of what…

 

Response: We have added the word ‘water‘ (it was an omission). We defined better now the water absortion capacity.

 

Reviewer: Line 439 I think that these sentences added to appropriate references should be reported in the introduction

 

Response: We now added the paragraph from the line 439 to the introduction part with appropriate references according to the referee suggestions.

 

Due to the fact that, we completed the manuscript part with more informations (requested by the referee) we added more bibliographic sources (14) in order to support our affirmations – see references part

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for Authors,

                The submitted manuscript entitled ‘Perspectives on the Use of Germinated Legumes in the Bread Making Process, a Review’ is well addressed and fits with the aims and scope of Applied Sciences journal. In my opinion, English can be improved, for instance, there are some long sentences that should be shortened for a better understanding. Please, find other comments below sorted by line number:

 

Line 26-36: It is commented twice the first and the third stages of germination (line 26-28 vs. line 31-36). Please, simplify it do not repeat it two times.

Line 60: Maybe you wanted to say ‘its’ in the final word of the line?

Line 84: Maybe you wanted to say ‘broken’ in the final word of the line?

Line 120: Replace ‘the germination process’ by ‘germination’.

Line 121: Replace ‘The germination process’ by ‘It’.

Line 121: Delete ‘one’.

Line 121: Delete ‘improving’.

Line 129: Replace ‘shown’ by ‘have shown’.

Line 140: Replace ‘highlighted’ by ‘have highlighted’. Please, try to follow the same verbal tense when writing.

Line 175: Replace ‘of germination of them’ by ‘their germination’.

Line 193: ‘decreases’ Is it in singular?

Line 197: Replace ‘showed’ by ‘have shown’. Maybe you can use a synonym of show too because of repetition along the text.

Line 223: Did you want to say ‘flavonoids’ instead of ‘flavonoide’?

Line 238: Domínguez?

Line 246-247: Replace ‘in especially’ by ‘especially in’.

Line 250: Delete ‘especially’.

Line 268: Delete ‘it’.

Line 315: Replace ‘show’ by ‘showed’.

Line 345: Replace ‘it’ by ‘its’.

Line 351: I do not understand ‘incorporated increased compared’.

Line 366: When you say ‘from its that play’, do you want to mean ‘from it playing’?

Line 388: Replace ‘bread obtained’ by ‘one’.

Line 400: Replace ‘and’ by ‘whilst’.

Line 420: ‘recommended’?

Author Response

30 August 2020

Authors: First at all, we would like to thank to the referee for the close reading of our manuscript. Indeed, his/her affirmations was correct one and help us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we provide all the answers to the reviewer’s comments.

 

Reviewer: Line 26-36: It is commented twice the first and the third stages of germination (line 26-28 vs. line 31-36). Please, simplify it do not repeat it two times.

Response: Line 26-35: We have simplified and we deleted the repeted part in order not to repeted it two times.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 60: Maybe you wanted to say ‘its’ in the final word of the line?

Response: We want to thank to the referee for the close reading of the manusript. Indeed, the correct form is its. Now, we have used ‘its’ instead of ‘it’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 84: Maybe you wanted to say ‘broken’ in the final word of the line?

Response: We want to thank to the referee for the close reading of the manusript. Indeed, the correct form is broken. Now, we have replaced ‘broke’ with ‘broken’.

 

               

Reviewer: Line 120: Replace ‘the germination process’ by ‘germination’.

Response: We have replaced ‘the germination process’ with ‘germination’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 121: Replace ‘The germination process’ by ‘It’.

Response: We have replaced ‘The germination process’ with ‘it’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 121: Delete ‘one’.

Response: We have deleted the word 'one'.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 122: Delete ‘improving’.

Response: We have deleted 'improving'.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 129: Replace ‘shown’ by ‘have shown’.

Response: We have replaced ‘shown’ with ‘have shown’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 140: Replace ‘highlighted’ by ‘have highlighted’. Please, try to follow the same verbal tense when writing.

Response: We have replaced ‘highlighted’ with ‘have highlighted’. We read again our manuscript and we tried to use the same verbal tense, as referee suggested.

 

Reviewer: Line 175: Replace ‘of germination of them’ by ‘their germination’.    

Response: We have replaced ‘germination of them’ with ‘their germination’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 193: ‘decreases’ Is it in singular?

Response:  Yes, we have used now the singular form of the word.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 197: Replace ‘showed’ by ‘have shown’. Maybe you can use a synonym of show too because of repetition along the text.

Response: We have used ‘have highlited’ instead ‘showed’ in order to avoid the repetition along the text.

 

Reviewer: Line 223: Did you want to say ‘flavonoids’ instead of ‘flavonoide’?

Response: Yes, we have replaced  now ‘flavonoide’ with ‘flavonoids’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 238: Domínguez?

Response: We have corrected, using Domínguez.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 246-247: Replace ‘in especially’ by ‘especially in’.

Response: We have replaced  ‘in especially’ with ‘especially in’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 250: Delete ‘especially’.

Response: We have deleted ‘especially’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 268: Delete ‘it’.

Response: We have deleted ‘it’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 315: Replace ‘show’ by ‘showed’.

Response: We have replaced ‘show’ with showed’ according to referee suggestions.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 345: Replace ‘it’ by ‘its’.

Response: We have replaced ‘it’ with ‘its’.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 351: I do not understand ‘incorporated increased compared’.

Response: We rephrased all the paragraph now.

 

 

Reviewer: Line 366: When you say ‘from its that play’, do you want to mean ‘from it playing’?

Response:  Yes, and that way we have replaced now in the manuscript  with from it playing.

 

Reviewer:. Line 388: Replace ‘bread obtained’ by ‘one’.

Response: We replaced.

 

Reviewer: Line 400: Replace ‘and’ by ‘whilst’.

Response: We replaced.

 

Reviewer: Line 420: ‘recommended’?

Response: We change now and we used ‘recommended’ instead of ‘recommend’.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf