Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Abstract should be more condensed.

 

• 2,3-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl or 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazy

 

• Incorporating the Nutri-Score labeling could objectively confirm the product's functional viability despite its sugar levels (48.5 %).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting applied study on the development of a carob-based spread as an alternative to commercial cocoa-based products. The topic is relevant for food product development, functional foods, and plant-based formulations. Overall, the work is suitable for publication after minor revision, but some points should be clarified to improve methodological transparency and avoid overstatement.

The comparative design is  useful, but the authors should state more clearly that this is a case study based on one developed carob-based product and two selected commercial cocoa-based spreads. Since  the exact formulations of the commercial products are not fully available, the conclusions should be expressed with some caution.

The sensory evaluation needs some clarification. Please indicate whether the samples were coded and presented in randomized order, whether the panelists were blinded to product identity, and whether the same panelists participated at both evaluation times. It would also be useful to clarify whether participants were informed about allergens before testing.

The shelf-life section shoyuld be harmonized. The abstract refers to a shelf-life of over six months, while the results mention analyses up to day 400. Please clarify the storage conditions, number of samples analysed, microbiological criteria used, and the basis for the proposed shelf-life.

The term “bioavailability” should be reconsidered. Since the study uses an in vitro digestion model, “predicted bioaccessibility” would be more accurate unless the authors justify the use of “bioavailability”. This should be revised consistently in the abstract, methods, results, Table 4, and discussion.

Some nutritional and health-related statements should be moderated. The data support lower saturated fat, higher fibre, and very low sodium, but claims related to cardiovascular health, glycemic response, digestive health, or health-promoting effects should be presented as potential implications rather than direct findings of this study.

The economic comparison is interesting, however expressing all products as €/100 g woul make the comparison easier to interpret.

Figures and tables are generally useful, but some minor improvements are recommended. Figure 3 is difficult to read in its current format. Table 2 could be simplified, as the use of both letters and colours may be confusing. In Table 4, “DPHH” should be corrected to “DPPH”.

In generla terms the manuscript is relevant. The requested changes are mainly clarifications, moderate wording adjustments, and minor presentation improvements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally understandable and does not prevent comprehension of the manuscript. However, a moderate language revision is recommended to correct some grammatical, typographical, and wording issues.

For example, some  expressions in the Abstract are awkward, such as “more slightly acidic” (“…the carob-based product was slightly more acidic” is better).

In Section 2.7, there is a spelling error in “acqueous phase”. In Section 2.12, “diferent products” should be corrected. In Section 3.2, there are also minor errors such as “segragation” and “action criteria than need to be met”.

 These issues are not major, but they should be corrected during revision to improve the clarity and presentation of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study askes a clear research question:

Can a newly developed carob-based spread serve as a suitable, functional, nutritionally beneficial, and economically viable alternative to conventional cocoa-based chocolate-hazelnut spreads?

The study addresses this by comparing the carob-based product with two commercial cocoa-based spreads in terms of physicochemical properties, microbiological safety, sensory acceptance, nutritional profile, phenolic and antioxidant content, predicted bioavailability, and market/economic potential.

The topic is relevant to the field, especially within functional foods, sustainable ingredient substitution, and plant-based product development. The manuscript is timely because it responds to documented challenges in cocoa supply, including production losses, climate-related instability, and rising chocolate-product prices, which have increased interest in plant-based cocoa substitutes. The authors specifically identify carob as a promising alternative because of its phytochemical and bioactive compound profile. 

The originality is moderate rather than entirely novel. Carob itself is not a new cocoa alternative; the manuscript acknowledges that it has traditionally been used as a nutritious alternative to cocoa and chocolate-based products. However, the study adds originality by evaluating a newly developed carob-based spread against two commercial cocoa-based spreads across several dimensions: physicochemical, microbiological, nutritional, sensory, phenolic/antioxidant profile, predicted bioavailability, and economic feasibility.

The manuscript's most distinctive contribution is the combined evaluation of functionality, nutrition, consumer acceptability, and market viability. The authors show that the carob-based product is vegan, low in saturated fat, high in dietary fiber, very low in sodium, sensorially acceptable, and economically competitive, while also having higher total phenolic content and improved predicted antioxidant bioavailability compared with the cocoa-based products.

The methodology is generally appropriate for an applied product-development study, but several improvements would strengthen the reliability and generalizability of the findings:

-First, the authors should improve the comparison design. The study compares one newly developed carob-based spread with only two commercial cocoa-based spreads, and the exact formulation of the commercial products is not fully known because it is based mainly on manufacturer label information. This limits how confidently differences can be attributed to carob versus other formulation differences such as palm oil, dairy ingredients, sugar level, hazelnut content, or processing. The authors should consider including more cocoa-based comparator products, several commercial batches, and, ideally, a laboratory-formulated cocoa control matched as closely as possible for sugar, fat, hazelnut, and moisture content.

-Second, the sensory evaluation is weak and should be strengthened. The panel consisted of 67 untrained consumers drawn from students and staff at one university department, which is useful for preliminary acceptability testing but not fully representative of the target consumer market. The authors should report demographic data, randomization/blinding procedures, serving order, palate-cleansing conditions, serving temperature, and whether packaging/brand identity was hidden. A larger and more diverse consumer panel, combined with a trained descriptive panel, would make the sensory conclusions more robust.

-Third, the shelf-life and microbiological assessment need clearer validation. The manuscript reports ongoing microbiological and sensory evaluation and suggests a shelf-life of more than six months, but this should be supported by a predefined shelf-life protocol, clear acceptability limits, replicate production batches, and both unopened and opened-storage conditions. Given the higher water activity of the carob spread, the authors should also consider challenge testing or predictive microbiology for relevant spoilage organisms, especially molds and yeasts.

-Fourth, the nutritional comparison should be more consistent. The carob product underwent laboratory nutritional analysis, whereas some information for commercial products appears to rely on nutrition labels. For stronger comparison, all products should be analyzed using the same laboratory methods and the same number of batches. This would avoid bias from label rounding, manufacturer-specific reporting, or batch variation.

-Fifth, the “bioavailability” terminology and assay should be refined. The study uses an adapted static in vitro digestion model to estimate post-digestion phenolics and antioxidant capacity. This is more accurately described as predicted bioaccessibility, not true bioavailability, because it does not measure intestinal absorption, metabolism, or in vivo circulation. The authors should either adjust the terminology or add further methods such as dialysis, Caco-2 cell transport, or in vivo/clinical validation.

-Lastly, the economic analysis should include sensitivity testing. The techno-economic analysis is useful, but it relies on EXW pricing, company cost assumptions, and a fixed profit margin. The authors should test how conclusions change under different raw-material prices, production scales, packaging costs, labor/energy costs, and retail margins. This is especially important because the paper frames the product as economically competitive.

Regarding the conclusions drawn at the end of the study, the authors should avoid overstatements. For example, claims about “health-promoting properties,” improved glycemic response, cardiovascular support, and sustainability are plausible but not directly demonstrated through clinical, long-term dietary, or life-cycle assessment data. The manuscript provides nutritional and in vitro evidence, not human health outcomes. Similarly, the use of “bioavailability” should be treated carefully, since the study relies on an in vitro digestion model and therefore supports predicted bioaccessibility more strongly than actual in vivo bioavailability as I mentioned before.

Some issues with the figures:

Figure 1 is useful because it shows the production workflow and identifies CCPs/OPRPs, but it should be made more readable. The authors should ensure that all CCP/OPRP labels, hazard codes, and critical limits are legible in the final publication version. Since the text lists specific control points such as sieving, heating, metal detection, vacuum chamber treatment, and lid vacuum detection, the figure should visually match these steps clearly.

Figure 2 is helpful for showing product appearance, but the use of commercial packaging may raise permissions or anonymization issues. The authors should confirm that brand/packaging images can be reproduced, or crop/anonymize them if necessary. The figure would also be stronger if the samples were shown under standardized lighting, with consistent portion size and a scale reference.

Figure 3: Since the results are means from 67 untrained panelists, the figure should also show explicitly variability, either standard deviation, standard error, or confidence intervals.

Some issues with tables:

Table 3: “Ingredient” should probably be changed to “Nutritional parameter.”, because "Energy" is not an ingredient The authors should also state clearly whether the values for the commercial cocoa-based products were independently analyzed or taken from nutrition labels, because this affects comparability.

Table 4 is one of the most important tables, but it needs corrections and clarification. “TAC (DPHH)” appears to be a typo and should be “TAC (DPPH).” The authors should also clarify the number of replicates, the statistical test used, and whether “bioavailability” should instead be described as "predicted bioaccessibility" from the in vitro digestion model.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript with title "Functional Properties and Nutri-Economic Benefits of Carob-Based Versus Cocoa-Based Food Products: A Case Study" is very interesting and deal of two important areas of food science: new formulation for functional food and sustainability. The ideas in the manuscript are new with possibility for practical application in food industry.

However, this manuscript should be improved in several points:

1. Due to the fact that carob-based spread is new product, which standard was used for sensory analyses and for comparison of the taste?
2. Lines 460-463: The authors stated "TPC was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the carob spread compared to both cocoa-based products, indicating that carob constitutes a richer source of phenolic compounds, particularly in non-flavonoids constituents such as hydrolysable tannins and phenolic acids." Table 4 presented total phenolic and total flavonoid content. How authors concluded about presence of tannins and phenolic acids?
3. I suggest improving of discussion part with possible relationship between antioxidant activity measured by three assays and bioavailability.
4. Which polyphenols impacted the most antioxidant potential of the product?
5. Results from 2.6. Microbiological Analysis should be presented in results part.
6. Microbiological stability of the product should be discussed.
7. Lines 658-661: Which claases of dietary fibers were presented in carob-based spread?
8. Please include statistical analysis in Table 3.
9. Lines 665-668: I suggest classification such "potential functional food" due to the fact that authors still not resented "in vivo" analyses which will confirm the impact of newly designed product on human health.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have nothing further to add

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback. We really appreciate all the hard work and time you dedicated in improving the presentation of our work.

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The revised version of the manuscript with title "Functional Properties and Nutri-Economic Benefits of Carob-Based Versus Cocoa-Based Food Products: A Case Study" is significantly improved (and although two of my comments were not discuss due to the fact that authors did not perform HPLC analysis to identified and quantified particular polyphenols in samples), the revised version of the manuscript is enough improved, contains innovative information's and deserves to be published in Applied Science journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the positive commenting on our study and for your understanding regarding the scope of the manuscript, which prevented us from providing identification and quantification information on the polyphenol content . Your feedback is very much appreciated!

Best regards,

Nikolaos D. Andritsos