Effect of Processing Methods on Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Composition of Parkia biglobosa Seeds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article should be improved only by shaping point of view. Overall the article is very good documented and it highlighted several important findings.

Additional Specific comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question addressed by the research is there if are more unknown valuable vegetals that could be used to assure sustainable and cheap alternatives to the existing ones?

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?

The raw material as well as the possibilities of consumption should be considered original and relevant for the scientific and industry field.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

It add the proper preoccupation for preschool child requirement and for the processing of an alternative source of aminoacids.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

There are only forms possibilities to improve the methodology, which were presented in the manuscript as comments.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

The conclusions of the study are fitted to the experiments and to the initial proposals.
Were all the main questions posed addressed? By which specific experiments?

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes, the references are appropriate.

7. Any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data:

There are some tables that could be unified.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question addressed by the research is there if are more unknown valuable vegetals that could be used to assure sustainable and cheap alternatives to the existing ones?

Response:

The main question have been addressed in the write up and P.biglobosa (legumes) serve as cheap   alternatives include in the manuscript.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?

The raw material as well as the possibilities of consumption should be considered original and relevant for the scientific and industry field.

Response

These issues have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

3. There are some tables that could be unified.

Response

The tables are specific to each experiment carried out. Therefore could not be unified.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-conceived and engaging study on the amino acid and fatty acid composition of fermented, defatted, and protein isolates from Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.), commonly known as the African locust bean. The findings offer potential contributions to the field, particularly in developing complementary foods. The research question is relevant, and the overall methodology is appropriately designed. However, several areas require clarification and refinement before the manuscript can be recommended for publication.

Specific Comments:

Introduction: The introduction provides a solid background and rationale for the study. However, I recommend a more comprehensive discussion on protein quality determination, particularly by including information about predictive protein indices such as Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) and Biological Value (BV).

Methods: The methodology appears robust but needs more detail regarding the protein extraction process. The authors should clarify critical aspects, such as the plant samples' weight, the exact extraction method (e.g., Soxhlet extraction), and the volume of hexane or other solvents employed.

I suggest including the Essential Amino Acid Index (EAAI) equation in Line 113 to guide readers through the methodology.

Results: The results are informative but require further clarification, especially in the section "3.1 Amino Acid Compositions of Fermented, Defatted, and Protein Isolates of Parkia biglobosa Seeds." This section is difficult to follow, and I recommend a thorough revision to improve readability and comprehension. A clearer structure with concise statements will help the reader better understand the key findings.

Overall Recommendation:

With its promising data, this manuscript has the potential to significantly advance the field of Food Chemistry, particularly in the development of future complementary foods. However, before it can be considered for publication, I recommend minor revisions, particularly in the methods section (detailing protein extraction procedures) and the reorganization and clarity of the results discussion. Addressing these points will enhance the manuscript's clarity and scientific rigour and amplify its potential impact on the field.

Author Response

1.However, I recommend a more comprehensive discussion on protein quality determination, particularly by including information about predictive protein indices such as Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) and Biological Value (BV).

Response

The Protein efficiency ratio and biological values have been included in the discussion section.

2.The methodology appears robust but needs more detail regarding the protein extraction process. The authors should clarify critical aspects, such as the plant samples' weight, the exact extraction method (e.g., Soxhlet extraction), and the volume of hexane or other solvents employed.

Response

The weight, extraction and volume of hexane have been included in the manuscript.

2."3.1 Amino Acid Compositions of Fermented, Defatted, and Protein Isolates of Parkia biglobosa Seeds." This section is difficult to follow, and I recommend a thorough revision to improve readability and comprehension. A clearer structure with concise statements will help the reader better understand the key findings.

Response

3.1 section have been re-written.

3. I recommend minor revisions, particularly in the methods section (detailing protein extraction procedures.

Response

The detailed protein extraction process  have been included in the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. the sentence "The amino acid and fatty acid composition of the 16 samples were determined using standard analytical techniques" is unnecessary, especially in the abstract.

 

2. The description of the methods is laconic. below is an example. Please read the entire Material and Methods chapter in this respect.

 

The fermented seeds were thoroughly rinsed (using what?) and dried in an oven (no equipment data) at 50 oC. The dried seeds were ground to a fine powder (no equipment data) and stored in a dry place until use. A portion of the fine powder was defatted with hexane to obtain defatted Parkia biglobosa samples. The remaining portions of the defatted samples were air-dried and treated with butanol (1:10 w/v) to remove antinutritional substances (what? no source). Protein was then isolated from the processed sample according to the method described by Nkosi et al. [16 - no description of the protein isolation method]. The processed sample was resuspended in distilled water at pH 10. The resulting suspension was filtered (how? with what?) and the filtrate was adjusted to pH 5 (how?). The filtrate was then centrifuged (5000 rpm, no equipment data) for 15 min at 4 oC. The peroxide was discarded and the pellets containing the protein isolate were lyophilized (lyophilization conditions, device name) and stored dry until use.

 

3. 2.6. Biological values ​​- in this part not all intexes have been explained. Repeats this is also the case in other parts of the work.

 

4. 2.8. Determination of other protein quality parameters - this part should be included in subchapter 2.7.

 

5. No statistical significance or standard deviations indicated in all presented numerical results. Although the authors wrote that the studies were performed in triplicate, but were these three independent series?

 

6. The Results part is correct

 

7. The Discussion part is correct.

Author Response

1. the sentence "The amino acid and fatty acid composition of the 16 samples were determined using standard analytical techniques" is unnecessary, especially in the abstract.

Response

The abstract have been reframed in line with the comments.

2. The description of the methods is laconic. below is an example. Please read the entire Material and Methods chapter in this respect.

The fermented seeds were thoroughly rinsed (using what?) and dried in an oven (no equipment data) at 50 oC. The dried seeds were ground to a fine powder (no equipment data) and stored in a dry place until use. A portion of the fine powder was defatted with hexane to obtain defatted Parkia biglobosa samples. The remaining portions of the defatted samples were air-dried and treated with butanol (1:10 w/v) to remove antinutritional substances (what? no source). Protein was then isolated from the processed sample according to the method described by Nkosi et al. [16 - no description of the protein isolation method]. The processed sample was resuspended in distilled water at pH 10. The resulting suspension was filtered (how? with what?) and the filtrate was adjusted to pH 5 (how?). The filtrate was then centrifuged (5000 rpm, no equipment data) for 15 min at 4 oC. The peroxide was discarded and the pellets containing the protein isolate were lyophilized (lyophilization conditions, device name) and stored dry until use.

Response

It have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

3. 3. 2.6. Biological values ​​- in this part not all intexes have been explained. Repeats this is also the case in other parts of the work

Response

It have been  addressed as suggested.

3. No statistical significance or standard deviations indicated in all presented numerical results. Although the authors wrote that the studies were performed in triplicate, but were these three independent series?

Response

Significant difference have been included as well as tukey comparision analysis in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Effect of Processing Methods on Amino Acid and Fatty Acid Composition of Parkia Biglobosa Seeds" is both interesting and well-written. The introduction is solid; however, I believe it could be expanded by incorporating comparisons with similar studies on legumes published previously.

The methods section is well described, but I have a few suggestions to enhance the article:

Method 2.5, Line 102: Please provide a brief description of the method used.

Method 2.6, Line 107: Kindly correct the alignment issues in this section.

Table 1: What does CV% refer to in Table 1?

Table 1: Is there a significant difference in the amino acid compositions (mg/100 g protein) among the fermented, defatted, and protein isolate samples? Did you conduct any t-tests or Tukey HSD tests? Please indicate the significance of differences among these three processing methods.

Table 1: The section on essential amino acids is not properly aligned; please fix this.

Section 3.2, Lines 155-182: This section contains many values that could be better visualized. Consider presenting these results in a table or figure and summarizing the key outcomes in the text.

Table 2: Please indicate any significant differences in this table as mentioned earlier.

Table 3: As with the previous tables, please show the significance of the results.

The discussion section effectively compares the findings with similar studies, which is commendable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language of the article is fine, only minor editing is required. 

Author Response

1.The methods section is well described, but I have a few suggestions to enhance the article:

Method 2.5, Line 102: Please provide a brief description of the method used.

Method 2.6, Line 107: Kindly correct the alignment issues in this section.

Table 1: What does CV% refer to in Table 1?

Response

Method 2.5 is a calculation and the formula have been presented.

Alignment for 2.6 have been addressed and information on CV provided.

2.

Table 1: Is there a significant difference in the amino acid compositions (mg/100 g protein) among the fermented, defatted, and protein isolate samples? Did you conduct any t-tests or Tukey HSD tests? Please indicate the significance of differences among these three processing methods.

Table 1: The section on essential amino acids is not properly aligned; please fix this.

Response

The significant difference notation have been included and Tukey comparison analysis presented in the revised manuscript.

The table have been aligned.

3. Section 3.2, Lines 155-182: This section contains many values that could be better visualized. Consider presenting these results in a table or figure and summarizing the key outcomes in the text.

Response

There were many values as a results the significant different will not be easily presented and the figure will be vague or clumpsy.

3. 

Table 2: Please indicate any significant differences in this table as mentioned earlier.

Table 3: As with the previous tables, please show the significance of the results.

Response

The significant difference have been included in the tables.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text after corrections may be approved for publication.