Investigation of Oil Extracted from Roasted and Unroasted Oats with Use of Chemometrics
, Sina Makouie, Joanna Bryś, Eliza Gruczyńska-Sękowska * and Piotr KoczońRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is to evaluate how the chemical changes that occur during the roasting of whole oat grains affect the properties and quality of the oil found in the oat grains. Some suggestions as followed,
1. In abstract, It is better to delete “is rich in” or “specifically composed”.
2. The abstract should be reorganized. The described method is too detail, while the result especially the supporting data and conclusion, the significance of the findings is lack.
3. Lines 29, “and they” can be “which”.
4. Introduction: The topic of the first and second paragraphs is repetitive, so it is recommended to simply describe the relevant content. Similar problems exist in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.
5. Paragraphs 8 to 11 should be reorganized into a paragraph, the conclusions of these previous studies should be summarized, and the experiences that can be used for reference for subsequent studies should be concluded.
6. Information such as model and manufacturer of the instrument like laboratory oven
should be provided.
7. In method, the related material and reagent should be supplied in detail.
8. The reasons for roasted time affect the Oxidation Induction Time and Acid values showed be discussed in detail. Moreover, comparison of the results with the related previous study need to be completed.
9. In each model, the reasons for Spectral regions used for construction should be clarified.
10. The number of parallels experiment should be specified.
11. Why the roasting does not change the composition of fatty acids but can influence oxidative stability. The author think may be related to such substances decompose or be formed, are there supporting evidence, such as FT-IR spectra.?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Investigation of Roasted and Unroasted Oats with Use of Chemometrics by Palani et al.
The manuscript is well-written, well-structured, and presents its findings clearly. I recommend its publication following minor revisions as outlined below. Several points were evaluated, since the effect of the roasting time in physicochemical properties of oils to chemometric models to predict those changes using chemometrics. As a criticism of this section, I can say the number of samples evaluated is too short to build a reliable model. The authors may provide the data as supporting information in Microsoft Excel format.
Does it address a specific gap in the field? the authors did not explain it, the authors can make it clearly in manuscript introduction citing the relevant literature.
What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? It was not explained in the manuscript, the authors may address it.
More papers previously published may be cited. There were many papers describing the effect of roasting time in oils properties.
Figure 3: Fatty acids C18:1, n-9 C18:2 n-6, and C16:0 were in proportion much higher than the other Fatty acids and they should be placed in another plot.The fatty acids C18:1 n-9, C18:2 n-6, and C16:0 are disproportionately higher than the other fatty acids. This creates an imbalance in the visualization. Consider placing these three fatty acids in a separate plot to improve the clarity and readability of the data.
Figure 4 is unnecessary. This figure does not add significant value to the manuscript and could be removed without compromising the integrity of the results.
I cannot understand Figure 8. What was it showing?The purpose of this figure is unclear. Please provide additional details or context in the caption and the manuscript text to clarify what the figure represents and its relevance to the study.
Figure 13: it is also unnecessary .This figure appears redundant or unnecessary for supporting the conclusions of the manuscript. Consider removing it to streamline the presentation.
General Suggestions:
These adjustments will help refine the presentation of your results and enhance the manuscript's overall impact. The clarity in data visualization, particularly with figures, will aid readers in comprehending the key findings more effectively.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents an interesting and useful study. However, some points needs to be improved before publication.
1. The title should be modified to better reflect the content of the manuscript, specifically focusing on the extracted oils rather than the whole oats.
2. The abstract needs to include the main results and a general conclusion of the study.
3. The number of keywords need to be reduced.
4. L28-29. “Oats (Avena sativa L.) are one of the crops grown and consumed worldwide since 28 ancient times” Please provide data on current production, consumption, and include appropriate references.
5. L29. " and they are considered highly valuable due to their nutritional properties” Specify and add proper reference.
6. L 35. “Lipids in oats have both a healthy and technological potential”. Specify what makes it beneficial both from a health and technical perspective.
7. L 52. Please specify the average temperature conditions required for the roasting process.
8. L 60. Specify “at high temperatures and increased durations” The terms high and increased are relative.
9. L 63. Roasting definition should be placed before in the text.
10. L 64. “into a more digestible form”. What is the most digestible form of this product? Explain.
11. The introduction mentions the usefulness of some of the techniques used. However, it is important to present previous studies together with the main results obtained (ideally from oats, otherwise other ).
12. Since the current title mentions 'the use of chemometrics,' it is expected that at least the definition of chemometrics and previous studies be presented in the introduction section.
13. Materials. Minimal information about the whole grains need to be included, weight, Roasting was performed at different temperatures, how much sample was used for each treatment?
14. Were unroasted samples used as controls? If yes, information must be presented in the text.
15. L 134. After grinding, please specify the particle size used for the analysis.
16. L 134. Briefly explain the process for fat extraction since it is a very important step into the manuscript.
17. L 136-142. GC Analysis. Specify the conditions of the analysis.
18. Methods. Even if a method is referenced, it is important to describe it briefly to facilitate its reproduction.
19. Describe all acronyms the first time they are named. Namely, IR, KRS, TQ..
20. The statistical analysis section in materials and methods is missing. Please include it specifying the roasting conditions that were kept constant. The methodology for statistical correlations that are mentioned in the first paragraph of results should be also placed in statistical analysis section. Also specify how it was determined whether there were significant differences between treatments.
21. Were the extractions performed in triplicate? or were three analyses performed on the same extracted sample to determine the deviation represented in the graphs? Figure 1.
22. In addition to previous point, related to PDSC, graphs should be presented as supplementary material.
23. Lack of discussion against other previous studies. What other oxidation induction times have been reported for the same material?
24. L 210. Firstly it is necessary to present the results (Figure 2) and then, conclusions can be taken ( L208). Please reorder the information and add proper comparison against the previous studies.
25. Table 2 should be presented before in the text
26. Figure 13 should not be placed in the conclusion section. I highly recommend including a Final Discussion section and placing it before the conclusion, as the latter needs to be concise.
27. Conclusion. After doing the roasting at several temperatures, I expect a recommendation regarding which temperatures would be better for treating the samples. The current conclusion exposes differences between roasting times (which is obvios), thus, authors, need to present their conclusion accordingly to their results. In addition, the entire conclusion may be improved to highlight the scientific conclusion also and not only repeat the obtained results.
28. Finally, most parts of the manuscript need to be rephrased to reduce the percentage of word duplication, which is currently very high (around 40%).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was improved, and the authors followed most of the recommendations I made. Therefore, I accept the paper in the current form.
