Wheat–Oat Bread Enriched with Beetroot-Based Additives: Technological and Quality Aspects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript systematically investigates the effects of three types of beetroot-based additives on the quality and functional properties of wheat-oat bread. The research design is reasonably sound, the data is substantial, and the workload is significant. This study provides valuable reference for developing functional baked goods and the high-value utilization of fruit and vegetable processing by-products. Currently, it appears to be suitable for submission to the Applied Sciences journal. To enhance the overall quality of the manuscript, several suggestions should be taken into consideration.

1. Why choose a wheat-oat mixed flour ratio of (4:1)? The article does not specify whether this ratio was determined based on references or preliminary experiments. Different ratios may significantly affect gluten content and dough properties, raising doubts about the rationality of the chosen ratio.
2. In Section 2.2.2, "Laboratory Baking Test of Bread," the method of "kneaded by hand for 3 min" was used. However, the standardization of kneading intensity and uniformity remains questionable. Additionally, the proofing step was vaguely defined as "proofed again until reaching the optimal proofing," （line 133）without specifying concrete data or quantitative criteria for "optimal proofing." Subjective judgment in manual assessment may introduce variability, making it difficult to ensure consistency across different operators. It is recommended to provide further clarification on these aspects.
3. While the instrument and color model (CIE L*a*b*) are mentioned (line 143), the specific measurement points (e.g., how many, location) and procedure are not described.
4. Line 171, "2.2.4. Statistical analysis" should likely be "2.2.5 Statistical analysis".
5. In the section of Results and Discussion, the changes in flour parameters (such as water absorption rate and stability time) are described in detail, but there is a lack of explanation regarding the underlying physicochemical mechanisms. For instance, why do dough formation time and dough stability change after the addition of dietary fiber? It would be beneficial to include explanations of mechanisms such as the interference of dietary fiber and polyphenols with the gluten network.
6. The figures (Figure 1, 2, 3) lack scale bars, while Figures 4 and 5 are missing significance markers (e.g., letters such as a, b, c), making it difficult to visually assess the statistical differences between groups.
7. The study reports significant effects of beetroot additives on bread volume, color, and antioxidant activity. However, some findings lack sufficient explanation, such as the high antioxidant activity but poor dough stability observed in the juice-added group.
8. Regarding health-promoting indicators of bread, it is recommended to include measurements such as total dietary fiber, soluble/insoluble fiber ratio, nitrate/nitrite content, protein digestibility, and/or amino acid score.
9. In Table 2, the moisture content of beetroot pomace is indicated as "66,5±0.5," where commas are inconsistently used as decimal separators.
10. The discussion section remains superficial, primarily describing phenomena without delving into mechanistic explanations. For example, in lines 190–203, it is merely stated that "the BJ group showed the highest water absorption" and "the BLP group exhibited reduced loaf volume," yet no connection is made to the compositional properties of the additives (e.g., pectin in BJ enhancing water retention, or high fiber content in BLP disrupting the gluten network). Similarly, in lines 211–215, the reduction in dough stability time is vaguely attributed to "possible interactions with additive components," lacking deeper mechanistic insight—such as whether the additives interfered with gluten network formation or affected protein-starch-water interactions.
11. Line 404, "BLP2.5-BL10" should be "BLP2.5-BLP10".
12. Line 431, the section after "3. Results and Discussion" jumps directly to "5. Conclusions".
13. The conclusion reiterates vague statements such as "the additives have an effect," but fails to highlight the most distinctive findings of the study. One of the most notable observations is that different forms of additives (powder, juice, pomace) exert distinctly different effects on the product due to variations in their composition and physicochemical properties. For instance, the juice had the most significant impact on the rheological properties of the dough, whereas the pomace showed a relatively smaller effect on loaf volume even at higher inclusion levels. The conclusion should emphasize these differential effects rather than merely making generalized claims about "beetroot additives."

Author Response

Authors response

We would like to thank to Reviewer for all comments and suggests to our manuscript.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

This manuscript systematically investigates the effects of three types of beetroot-based additives on the quality and functional properties of wheat-oat bread. The research design is reasonably sound, the data is substantial, and the workload is significant. This study provides valuable reference for developing functional baked goods and the high-value utilization of fruit and vegetable processing by-products. Currently, it appears to be suitable for submission to the Applied Sciences journal. To enhance the overall quality of the manuscript, several suggestions should be taken into consideration.

1. Why choose a wheat-oat mixed flour ratio of (4:1)? The article does not specify whether this ratio was determined based on references or preliminary experiments. Different ratios may significantly affect gluten content and dough properties, raising doubts about the rationality of the chosen ratio.

Thank you for this comment. We have added an explanation of how to choose the wheat-oat baking mix flour used for baking tested bread. The selected combination ratio of wheat and oat flour in our baking mix flour was based on previously conducted experiments (unpublished data).

1. In Section 2.2.2, "Laboratory Baking Test of Bread," the method of "kneaded by hand for 3 min" was used. However, the standardization of kneading intensity and uniformity remains questionable. Additionally, the proofing step was vaguely defined as "proofed again until reaching the optimal proofing," （line 133）without specifying concrete data or quantitative criteria for "optimal proofing." Subjective judgment in manual assessment may introduce variability, making it difficult to ensure consistency across different operators. It is recommended to provide further clarification on these aspects.

Thank you for this comment.  We have improved and detailed the description of the method for preparing the dough and baking the bread.

1. While the instrument and color model (CIE L*a*b*) are mentioned (line 143), the specific measurement points (e.g., how many, location) and procedure are not described.

Thank you for this comment. We provided suggested details of the method used.

1. Line 171, "2.2.4. Statistical analysis" should likely be "2.2.5 Statistical analysis".

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

1. In the section of Results and Discussion, the changes in flour parameters (such as water absorption rate and stability time) are described in detail, but there is a lack of explanation regarding the underlying physicochemical mechanisms. For instance, why do dough formation time and dough stability change after the addition of dietary fiber? It would be beneficial to include explanations of mechanisms such as the interference of dietary fiber and polyphenols with the gluten network.

Thank you for this comment. We provided suggested explanation of mechanism of interference of dietary fiber and polyphenols with the gluten network.

1. The figures (Figure 1, 2, 3) lack scale bars, while Figures 4 and 5 are missing significance markers (e.g., letters such as a, b, c), making it difficult to visually assess the statistical differences between groups.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

1. The study reports significant effects of beetroot additives on bread volume, color, and antioxidant activity. However, some findings lack sufficient explanation, such as the high antioxidant activity but poor dough stability observed in the juice-added group.

Thank you for this comment. We provided suggested explanation.

1. Regarding health-promoting indicators of bread, it is recommended to include measurements such as total dietary fiber, soluble/insoluble fiber ratio, nitrate/nitrite content, protein digestibility, and/or amino acid score.

Thank you for your comment. The issues raised are currently being addressed and are planned for publication in the future. In the meantime, to address this comment, we are considering revising the manuscript's title to reflect the content. Proposed title after the change: “Wheat-Oat Bread Enriched with Beetroot-Based Additives: Technological and Quality Aspects”.

1. In Table 2, the moisture content of beetroot pomace is indicated as "66,5±0.5," where commas are inconsistently used as decimal separators.

Thank ou for this comment. We made a correction.

1. The discussion section remains superficial, primarily describing phenomena without delving into mechanistic explanations. For example, in lines 190–203, it is merely stated that "the BJ group showed the highest water absorption" and "the BLP group exhibited reduced loaf volume," yet no connection is made to the compositional properties of the additives (e.g., pectin in BJ enhancing water retention, or high fiber content in BLP disrupting the gluten network). Similarly, in lines 211–215, the reduction in dough stability time is vaguely attributed to "possible interactions with additive components," lacking deeper mechanistic insight—such as whether the additives interfered with gluten network formation or affected protein-starch-water interactions.

Thank you for this comment. We provided suggested explanation.

1. Line 404, "BLP2.5-BL10" should be "BLP2.5-BLP10".

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

1. Line 431, the section after "3. Results and Discussion" jumps directly to "5. Conclusions".

Thank ou for this comment. We made a correction.

1. The conclusion reiterates vague statements such as "the additives have an effect," but fails to highlight the most distinctive findings of the study. One of the most notable observations is that different forms of additives (powder, juice, pomace) exert distinctly different effects on the product due to variations in their composition and physicochemical properties. For instance, the juice had the most significant impact on the rheological properties of the dough, whereas the pomace showed a relatively smaller effect on loaf volume even at higher inclusion levels. The conclusion should emphasize these differential effects rather than merely making generalized claims about "beetroot additives."

Thank you for this comment. We have improved our conclusions based on the content of the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in this manuscript is timely and of clear relevance within the field. The study tackles an important question and provides results that may be of interest to both researchers and practitioners. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written, generally well-structured and the findings are presented in a logical way. Nevertheless, there are significant concerns regarding the applied methodology and the discussion, and the manuscript requires major revision before it can be considered for publication.

The following comments should be addressed:

ABSTRACT

The abstract would benefit from including information regarding the range of flour and water substitution levels with the tested additives, as well as key outcomes in terms of bread and dough quality. For example, it should be specified which additive had the strongest (positive or negative) impact on dough rheology and by what extend. For an increase in antioxidant activity or TPC the order of magnitude should be indicated. Data for control sample are not essential for abstract (Line 25). Those changes would make the abstract more informative and impactful.

INTRODUCTION

Considering the availability of recent studies addressing the addition of various beetroot products, a major weakness of the Introduction is that it does not sufficiently outline what has already been done in the field, what general effects are expected, and the rationale behind the choice of enriching a wheat-oat mix. Providing this context would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying its relevance and positioning within the current body of research.

L 46: please replace “usefulness” with other more suiting word (properties, functionality or performance). Apply to other places in the Manuscript.

L 59-65: This section should be expanded to provide clarity and provide supporting literature.

L 59: “require special conditions” in order for what?

L 61-64: How is this relevant to your research? The authors did not apply fermentation in order to avoid the negative effects of high temperatures during baking.

The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and scientific contribution of their study in relation to existing literature in the final paragraph.

MATERIALS & METHODS

In 2.1. section authors should give information only on the source of basic ingredients for preparation of bread and beetroots, and their proximate composition.

The preparation of beetroot additives should be described as separate part of Methods section. In this section authors should define legends BLP, BJ and BP, and later on in the Manuscript there is no need for repetition – you have once defined it.

All the information about bread samples and variants in recipes should be shown in 2.2.2. section, because it describes how the samples were prepared.

In Tables 1 and 2, use the same number of decimals within the same table for proximate composition, and use dot as a decimal separator.

L 116-120: Check sentence and correct. It is unclear.

If the authors intended to report TPC, antioxidant activity, and betalain content separately for the crust and crumb, it should be clearly stated that the extraction of bioactive compounds was performed separately for these fractions. Additionally, it is unclear how the results were expressed. The data could be presented per 100 g of whole bread (15% crust and 85% crumb – which would yield a single result per sample) or per 100 g of crust/crumb (yielding separate results for each fraction – as presented in this work). It cannot be both. Please, clarify and correct both the method description and discussion section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

L 180-181: What is the difference between wheat-oat mix flour and control dough? There is only one dough sample without additives in table 3.

The two-way ANOVA cannot be appropriately applied in this experiment. The authors investigated three types of additives in the dough and bread separately. To properly assess the interaction effects of factors, the values of both factors must vary within some samples; for instance, a sample would need to contain both BP and BJ, with varying amounts. Only under such a design can interaction data be obtained. Therefore, the data presented as two-way ANOVA should be removed from the tables. A one-way ANOVA should be applied instead, to avoid potential errors arising from an incorrect approach. The tables and table legends should be corrected accordingly, and the discussion revised if necessary to reflect these changes.

The discussion of the results is generally poorly structured. In many sections, the authors refer to previous studies that reported similar numerical values; however, merely obtaining similar numbers does not provide meaningful scientific insight. The discussion sections should be thoroughly reconsidered and rewritten to provide a coherent interpretation of the findings, to critically analyze the results in the context of existing literature, and to enhance the scientific significance of the manuscript.

L197-203: Consider that the literature authors are referring to used wheat dough, whereas you have used wheat-oat dough and widen the discussion on fiber involvement for water absorption.

L 206: Not so much consistency (since it is the same – 500 FU).

L 209: pectins = dietary fibers. Rewrite the sentence.

L 210-211: Similar how? What is it in beetroot that is similar to additives mentioned authors used?

L 219: The results show 60-80% lower stability for samples with BPL. It is not similar to control.

L 221: Stabilized the dough more quickly? Unclear, revise.

L 225: you are talking about the effect of beetroot juice on the dough. Why are you comparing it to an effect of fruit fibers and pomace? Additionally, Bchir et al., 2014 observed increase in softening degree with the addition of fibers – which is contrary to your findings.

L 238: The authors did not examine a control sample which would consist of only wheat flour. Therefore, you cannot discuss your results as if the observed changes are due to partially replacing wheat flour with oat flour. Based on that, rewrite the paragraph Lines 236-243 and provide relevant literature references.

L 263-265: Why are authors comparing the results for control sample with literature, while discussing the influence of beetroot aditives? Revise this section.

L 275: only BPL samples had significantly lower specific volume, and the sample BP10. Check and revisea coordingly. Also, correct the sample coding.

L 276: Odunlade et al. used wheat flour, not wheat-oat mix, therefore the difference in volume, Cantero et al. studied gluten-free breads and that is not comparable with your samples.

L 279: What proves? The discussion is not correct, revise and use appropriate literature for supporting your claims.

L 284-287: Previously authors stated that water absorption was not affected as expected by the amount of fibers in beetroot aditives. Now, you are stating the contrary. Accoring to your results, there is no corresponding trend between fiber content, water absorption and moisture of bread. Revise the discussion.

L 288-289: Check and revise according to the previous comments about writing discussion.

L 289-292: Incorrect. BJ100 and BP10 were the only samples significantly different from control.

L 299-302: Based on what are the authors assuming this? There is no evidence. It could also be the effect on gluten network, since gluten is responsible for gas retention during fermentation. Revise or erase.

L 326: [21] was already cited in methods. Erase, please.

L 340-342: Those results have not yet been discussed. Insert this observation into the section 3.3.

L 343-344: Gradual decrease for b* - yes, but in comparison to what? b* was mostly increased compared to control. Be more careful and precise when writing observations.

L 356-359: Repetition of previous sentences. Erase, please.

Authors should add to discussion regarding colour: does beetroot juice have more betalanins compared to lyophilizate or pomace? Could that be the reason for difference in red tone?

L 364-365: Somewhat similar was said in the introduction. No need for repetition.

Please, enlarge Figures 4 and 5 for better clearance. Authors should add statistical analysis to those results (in order to establish the significance between obtained results). And finally, correct the units for all parameters (100 g – separate the units from the number). Apply this also in the main text.

L 377: Different from what?

L 378: This is not true for BP. Check and revise.

L 385-384: Don’t give the average. You are examining the effect of different additives in different proportions, you need to be precise. Discuss the occurred trends, the occurred range of increase etc. Apply to other similar parts of discussion.

L 399-400: Add reference.

L 415-422: Did the results confirm the previous assumption about the connection of the content of betalains and colour (L 346-352)?

L 434: Replace “usefulness” with “valorization”.

L 437-438: Incomplete sentence. Revise, please.

L 443-446: This was not assessed anywhere in the study. Assessment of the limiting factors, including sensory evaluation and consumer acceptance, and finally optimization would be necessary for a conclusions on this compromise.

REFERENCES

Authors used 47 references, while only a few are within the recent 5 year period. A review of recent studies examining the incorporation of beetroot into bread is warranted.

Author Response

Authors response

We would like to thank to Reviewer for all comments and suggests to our manuscript.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

The topic addressed in this manuscript is timely and of clear relevance within the field. The study tackles an important question and provides results that may be of interest to both researchers and practitioners. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written, generally well-structured and the findings are presented in a logical way. Nevertheless, there are significant concerns regarding the applied methodology and the discussion, and the manuscript requires major revision before it can be considered for publication.

The following comments should be addressed:

ABSTRACT

The abstract would benefit from including information regarding the range of flour and water substitution levels with the tested additives, as well as key outcomes in terms of bread and dough quality. For example, it should be specified which additive had the strongest (positive or negative) impact on dough rheology and by what extend. For an increase in antioxidant activity or TPC the order of magnitude should be indicated. Data for control sample are not essential for abstract (Line 25). Those changes would make the abstract more informative and impactful.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

INTRODUCTION

Considering the availability of recent studies addressing the addition of various beetroot products, a major weakness of the Introduction is that it does not sufficiently outline what has already been done in the field, what general effects are expected, and the rationale behind the choice of enriching a wheat-oat mix. Providing this context would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying its relevance and positioning within the current body of research.

L 46: please replace “usefulness” with other more suiting word (properties, functionality or performance). Apply to other places in the Manuscript.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 59-65: This section should be expanded to provide clarity and provide supporting literature.

Thank You for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 59: “require special conditions” in order for what?

Thank You for this comment. These words refer to betalains (compounds found in beetroot) that require special processing conditions to preserve their health-promoting properties. This is included in the text: “Betalains are highly soluble in water, but they are compounds that require special processing conditions (pH and temperature).”

L 61-64: How is this relevant to your research? The authors did not apply fermentation in order to avoid the negative effects of high temperatures during baking.

Thank you for this comment. The aim of our research was to determine the extent to which betalins would be retained in the finished product after high-temperature processing, such as baking dough to obtain bread, and whether the form of the additive used, as well as the interactions between the dough matrix components and additives, would have a significant impact on the baked result.

The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and scientific contribution of their study in relation to existing literature in the final paragraph.

MATERIALS & METHODS

In 2.1. section authors should give information only on the source of basic ingredients for preparation of bread and beetroots, and their proximate composition.

Thank you for this comment. The description of the research material and the methods of dough making and baking have been improved.

The preparation of beetroot additives should be described as separate part of Methods section. In this section authors should define legends BLP, BJ and BP, and later on in the Manuscript there is no need for repetition – you have once defined it.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes. We added section 2.2.1. where we described the preparation of beetroot-based additives.

All the information about bread samples and variants in recipes should be shown in 2.2.2. section, because it describes how the samples were prepared.

Thank you for this comment. the content was reorganized in the subchapter concerning the description of the material and research methods.

In Tables 1 and 2, use the same number of decimals within the same table for proximate composition, and use dot as a decimal separator.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 116-120: Check sentence and correct. It is unclear.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

If the authors intended to report TPC, antioxidant activity, and betalain content separately for the crust and crumb, it should be clearly stated that the extraction of bioactive compounds was performed separately for these fractions. Additionally, it is unclear how the results were expressed. The data could be presented per 100 g of whole bread (15% crust and 85% crumb – which would yield a single result per sample) or per 100 g of crust/crumb (yielding separate results for each fraction – as presented in this work). It cannot be both. Please, clarify and correct both the method description and discussion section.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

L 180-181: What is the difference between wheat-oat mix flour and control dough? There is only one dough sample without additives in table 3.

Thank you for this comment. The control dough is made from tested wheat-oat baking mix flour. In farinographic analysis the water absorption was determined for the tested flour sample and in the same time were determined values of the parameters of dough properties. We added the introductory explanation of the table 3.

The two-way ANOVA cannot be appropriately applied in this experiment. The authors investigated three types of additives in the dough and bread separately. To properly assess the interaction effects of factors, the values of both factors must vary within some samples; for instance, a sample would need to contain both BP and BJ, with varying amounts. Only under such a design can interaction data be obtained. Therefore, the data presented as two-way ANOVA should be removed from the tables. A one-way ANOVA should be applied instead, to avoid potential errors arising from an incorrect approach. The tables and table legends should be corrected accordingly, and the discussion revised if necessary to reflect these changes.

Thank you for this comment. We made recommended changes.

The discussion of the results is generally poorly structured. In many sections, the authors refer to previous studies that reported similar numerical values; however, merely obtaining similar numbers does not provide meaningful scientific insight. The discussion sections should be thoroughly reconsidered and rewritten to provide a coherent interpretation of the findings, to critically analyze the results in the context of existing literature, and to enhance the scientific significance of the manuscript.

L197-203: Consider that the literature authors are referring to used wheat dough, whereas you have used wheat-oat dough and widen the discussion on fiber involvement for water absorption.

Thank you for this comment. Tested baking mix flour was in combination 4:1 ratio, so wheat flour was the main ingredient and had the greatest influence on the structure of the dough.

L 206: Not so much consistency (since it is the same – 500 FU).

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 209: pectins = dietary fibers. Rewrite the sentence.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 210-211: Similar how? What is it in beetroot that is similar to additives mentioned authors used?

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 219: The results show 60-80% lower stability for samples with BPL. It is not similar to control.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this sentence from the text.

L 221: Stabilized the dough more quickly? Unclear, revise.

Thank you for this comment. We removed this sentence from the text.

 

L 225: you are talking about the effect of beetroot juice on the dough. Why are you comparing it to an effect of fruit fibers and pomace? Additionally, Bchir et al., 2014 observed increase in softening degree with the addition of fibers – which is contrary to your findings.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes. The discussion referred to the results of tests on additives in the form of pomace or dried fruit pomace due to the limited literature on the rheological studies of dough in the scope of the use of juices in the composition of baking mixes.

L 238: The authors did not examine a control sample which would consist of only wheat flour. Therefore, you cannot discuss your results as if the observed changes are due to partially replacing wheat flour with oat flour. Based on that, rewrite the paragraph Lines 236-243 and provide relevant literature references.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 263-265: Why are authors comparing the results for control sample with literature, while discussing the influence of beetroot aditives? Revise this section.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and added references which are comparable to our study.

L 275: only BPL samples had significantly lower specific volume, and the sample BP10. Check and revisea coordingly. Also, correct the sample coding.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 276: Odunlade et al. used wheat flour, not wheat-oat mix, therefore the difference in volume, Cantero et al. studied gluten-free breads and that is not comparable with your samples.

Thank You for this comment. Our baking mix flour was in combination 4:1 ratio, so wheat flour was the main ingredient and had the greatest influence on the quality of bread, but also due to the limited availability of literature on wheat-oat mixtures and fruit/vegetable-based additives.

L 279: What proves? The discussion is not correct, revise and use appropriate literature for supporting your claims.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 284-287: Previously authors stated that water absorption was not affected as expected by the amount of fibers in beetroot aditives. Now, you are stating the contrary. Accoring to your results, there is no corresponding trend between fiber content, water absorption and moisture of bread. Revise the discussion.

Thank you for this comment. We revised and made changes in our discussion.

L 288-289: Check and revise according to the previous comments about writing discussion.

Thank you for this comment. Our baking mix flour was in combination 4:1 ratio, so wheat flour was the main ingredient and had the greatest influence on the quality of bread, but also due to the limited availability of literature on wheat-oat mixtures and fruit/vegetable-based additives.

L 289-292: Incorrect. BJ100 and BP10 were the only samples significantly different from control.

Thank You for this comment. We revised this section and made corrections.

 

L 299-302: Based on what are the authors assuming this? There is no evidence. It could also be the effect on gluten network, since gluten is responsible for gas retention during fermentation. Revise or erase.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 326: [21] was already cited in methods. Erase, please.

Thank you for this comment. We made a correction.

L 340-342: Those results have not yet been discussed. Insert this observation into the section 3.3.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 343-344: Gradual decrease for b* - yes, but in comparison to what? b* was mostly increased compared to control. Be more careful and precise when writing observations.

Thank you for this comment. We made a correction.

L 356-359: Repetition of previous sentences. Erase, please.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

Authors should add to discussion regarding colour: does beetroot juice have more betalanins compared to lyophilizate or pomace? Could that be the reason for difference in red tone?

Thank you for this comment. We wrote about the influence of beetroot betalains on crumb and crust colour in this section.

L 364-365: Somewhat similar was said in the introduction. No need for repetition.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

Please, enlarge Figures 4 and 5 for better clearance. Authors should add statistical analysis to those results (in order to establish the significance between obtained results). And finally, correct the units for all parameters (100 g – separate the units from the number). Apply this also in the main text.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 377: Different from what?

Thank you for this comment. We revise this section and make changes.

L 378: This is not true for BP. Check and revise.

Thank you for this comment. We check and in our opinion we didn`t made mistake about crust.

L 385-384: Don’t give the average. You are examining the effect of different additives in different proportions, you need to be precise. Discuss the occurred trends, the occurred range of increase etc. Apply to other similar parts of discussion.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 399-400: Add reference.

Thank you for this comment. We added reference.

L 415-422: Did the results confirm the previous assumption about the connection of the content of betalains and colour (L 346-352)?

Thank you for this comment. We added explanation.

L 434: Replace “usefulness” with “valorization”.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 437-438: Incomplete sentence. Revise, please.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 443-446: This was not assessed anywhere in the study. Assessment of the limiting factors, including sensory evaluation and consumer acceptance, and finally optimization would be necessary for a conclusions on this compromise.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section.

“To sum up, from a technological point of view, replacing water or flour in the recipe with beetroot-based additives with a maximum concentration of 5% for BP or BLP and 50% for BJ allows for obtaining a product of good quality.”

REFERENCES

Authors used 47 references, while only a few are within the recent 5 year period. A review of recent studies examining the incorporation of beetroot into bread is warranted.

Thank you for this comment. We added more references from last 5 years period.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made adjustments in response to the previous review comments, and the current version is acceptable.

Author Response

The author has made adjustments in response to the previous review comments, and the current version is acceptable.

We would like to thank to Reviewer for all comments and suggests to our manuscript, which will help improve the text before its publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments from previous round of revision that has not been addressed:

 

1. Considering the availability of recent studies addressing the addition of various beetroot products, a major weakness of the Introduction is that it does not sufficiently outline what has already been done in the field, what general effects are expected, and the rationale behind the choice of enriching a wheat-oat mix. Providing this context would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying its relevance and positioning within the current body of research. Here are some examples which authors should consider:

https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11112178

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods5010019

https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2055529

Nutritional composition and value added products of beetroot: A review

2. The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and scientific contribution of their study in relation to existing literature in the final paragraph.

 

New comments:

L 62-64 Revise sentence according to the explanation authors provided: “Betalains are highly soluble in water, but they are compounds that require special processing conditions (pH and temperature) in order to preserve their health-promoting properties.”

 

If you considered excluding health-promoting properties from the title, then do so in the paper itself, you can refer to the bioactive components whose presence you determined.

Table 2. Please use dots as a decimal separator for betalains content.

 

L 187 Change Baking properties into Rheological properties

L 199 Erase “significantly”. Not all differences were significant.

L 227 …did not differ significantly in value from the CS. Add “significantly”.

L 231-246 This whole section regarding dough stability is very confusing and hard to follow. Authors must rearrange this section so that they first present their results and then discuss why the observed effects occur.

L 247-249 BJ had the lowest content of dietary fibers. How is it that authors attribute the increase in dough softening to the dietary fiber content, when there was no similar effect in BPL and BP, which have significantly more fiber than BJ? This must be revised.

L 261-263: The authors did not examine a control sample which would consist of only wheat flour. Therefore, you cannot discuss your results as if the observed changes are due to partially replacing wheat flour with oat flour. Based on that, remove this sentence.

L 309, 535, 361: don’t use “factor 1 and factor 2”, it is not a two-factor design, as I explained in the previous stage of revision.

L 317 Erase this sentence.

L 325 The porosity was basically unchanged!

L 367-369 This is not an accurate description of your results. Revise!

 

L 388 and 429 Erase these sub-headings, it is already said in the name of the 3.3. section.

L 405-407 and 411-412: What do these numbers refer to? Is it a comparison between the same additive or in comparison to CS? If it is compared to CS (as stated in the text), then it is incorrect. Revise!

L 480: Results show that BPL had the highest impact on the increase of TPC and ABTS. Check and revise.

 

Author Response

Manuscript title: Wheat-Oat Bread Enriched with Beetroot-Based Additives: Technological and Health-Promoting Properties

Manuscript ID: applsci-3892929

Authors response

We would like to thank to Reviewer for all comments and suggests to our manuscript.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

1. Considering the availability of recent studies addressing the addition of various beetroot products, a major weakness of the Introduction is that it does not sufficiently outline what has already been done in the field, what general effects are expected, and the rationale behind the choice of enriching a wheat-oat mix. Providing this context would strengthen the manuscript by clarifying its relevance and positioning within the current body of research. Here are some examples which authors should consider:

https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11112178

https://doi.org/10.3390/foods5010019

https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2055529

Nutritional composition and value added products of beetroot: A review

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

1. The authors should clearly highlight the novelty and scientific contribution of their study in relation to existing literature in the final paragraph.

 Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

New comments:

L 62-64 Revise sentence according to the explanation authors provided: “Betalains are highly soluble in water, but they are compounds that require special processing conditions (pH and temperature) in order to preserve their health-promoting properties.”

 Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

If you considered excluding health-promoting properties from the title, then do so in the paper itself, you can refer to the bioactive components whose presence you determined.

Thank you for this comment. We revised the paper and made changes.

Table 2. Please use dots as a decimal separator for betalains content.

 Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 187 Change Baking properties into Rheological properties

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 199 Erase “significantly”. Not all differences were significant.

Thank You for this comment. We revised this section and made corrections.

L 227 …did not differ significantly in value from the CS. Add “significantly”.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 231-246 This whole section regarding dough stability is very confusing and hard to follow. Authors must rearrange this section so that they first present their results and then discuss why the observed effects occur.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 247-249 BJ had the lowest content of dietary fibers. How is it that authors attribute the increase in dough softening to the dietary fiber content, when there was no similar effect in BPL and BP, which have significantly more fiber than BJ? This must be revised.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 261-263: The authors did not examine a control sample which would consist of only wheat flour. Therefore, you cannot discuss your results as if the observed changes are due to partially replacing wheat flour with oat flour. Based on that, remove this sentence.

Thank you for this comment. We revised this section and made changes.

L 309, 353, 361: don’t use “factor 1 and factor 2”, it is not a two-factor design, as I explained in the previous stage of revision.

Thank You for this comment. We revised this section and made corrections.

L 317 Erase this sentence.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 325 The porosity was basically unchanged!

Thank You for this comment. We revised this section and made corrections.

L 367-369 This is not an accurate description of your results. Revise!

 Thank you for this comment. We revised this sentence from the text.

L 338 and 429 Erase these sub-headings, it is already said in the name of the 3.3. section.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

L 405-407 and 411-412: What do these numbers refer to? Is it a comparison between the same additive or in comparison to CS? If it is compared to CS (as stated in the text), then it is incorrect. Revise!

Thank You for this comment. We revised this section and made corrections.

L 480: Results show that BPL had the highest impact on the increase of TPC and ABTS. Check and revise.

Thank you for this comment. We made suggested changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx