Effects of Dark Brown Sugar Replacing Sucrose and Calcium Carbonate, Chitosan, and Chitooligosaccharide Addition on Acrylamide and 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural Mitigation in Brown Sugar Cookies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents interesting study of addition some ingredients to the cookies. Unfortunately the chapter "Results and Discussion" do not fit to the figures and tables presented in the text. The discussed results are not presented on the figures nor the tables. e.g line 173, 176 178 at el. The mistakes are present in the all chapter. The paper can not be reviewed because the results are not compatible with the discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The authors are extremely grateful to anonymous referee involved for providing his/her excellent comments and valuable advice in this paper. We have revised the paper based on the referee’s comments. We have pleasure in requesting the referee to review this paper. Thank you. Your prompt attention to this paper will be much appreciated.
Point 1:
This manuscript examines the presence of acrylamide and HMF if “dark brown sugar cookies” and how it is affected by various additives to the formulation. The methods are relatively straight forward and the results largely indicate that none of the interventions had much of an effect. Further, the authors indicate that some of the effects noted are likely artifacts resulting from the methods employed. The manuscript is sloppily done. In particularly none of the references in the text to the tables and figures are correctly numbered. This manuscript is definitely not ready for publication without through correction of editorial errors.
Response 1: We are so sorry for the sloppy mistakes. We have rewritten the Results and Discussion section to the figures and tables with correct numbers as red marked texts and rechecked the references carefully in the revised manuscript. Thanks for the suggestions and we appreciate you forgiving us and give us another chance to correct the editorial errors throughly. (Please see the revised manuscript).
Point 2: Page2, line 45. “…content in…”
Response 2: We change the miss spelling term “contentin” to “content in” in line 48 page 2 as the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Page 2, line 50. “to keep from” is awkward. Do you mean “prevent”?
Response 3: We revised the term as reviewer’s suggestion and added the word “prevent” in line 53 at page 2. We sincerely appreciate your comment.
Point 4: Page 2, line 64. Delete “in order” here and throughout the manuscript. It is not needed.
Response 4: We deleted some redundant term “ in order to understand” at the last paragraph of introduction to “to understand”in line 69 at page 2, “ in order to prevent” at the conclusion to “to prevent” in line 413 at page 15. We also revised the first sentence of abstract to “The objective of this study is to reduce acrylamide and 5-hydroxylmethylfurfural (HMF) levels in brown sugar cookies. Dark brown sugar was used as a raw material instead of sucrose, and chitosan, chitooligosaccharides, or calcium carbonate were added to investigate the effect on acrylamide and HMF mitigation. Thanks for pointing out the problem.
Point 5: Page 3, line 118. “tha”???
Response 5: The sentence “A standard curve of HMF and acrylamide solution was prepared for use in tha…” is revised to “Standard curves of HMF and acrylamide solution was built in the range of 250-25000 ng/mL.”in line 138 at page 4. Thanks for all the valuable comments. We can feel the referee spent so much time reading our manuscript very carefully.
Point 6: Page 3, line 126. “…the methanol each extract…” Something is missing
Response 6: The sentence “The antiradical ability of the methanol each extract…” at page 3 line 126 is revised to “The antiradical ability of the methanol extracting solution of brown sugar cookie for 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl hydrate (DPPH) was assayed by the method of Shimada et al. [31].”in line 148 at page 4. Thanks for the valuable comment again.
Point 7: Page 4, lines 173 – 174. Neither Table 1 or Figure 1 have anything to do with acrylamide levels or HMF content.
Response 7: We have rewritten the section 3.1 of Results and Discussion to match the figures and tables with correct numbers as red marked texts at page 5 line 203 to 212 in the revised manuscript. Thanks for the coments and we appreciate you giving us the chance to fix the editorial errors.
Point 8: Page 4, lines 174. The pH values in the text do not match the values in Figure 1. Also it is not necessary to repeat the values in Fig 1 in the text.
Response 8: We have rewritten the Results and Discussion section to the Figure 1 and Table 1 with correct texts as red marked texts and revised the pH values of the cookie ingredients comparing to pH of Figure 2 in the revised manuscript in line 271 page 8. Thanks for point out the severe errors.
Point 9: Page 4, lines 176-178. Figure 2 has nothing to do with pH.
Response 9: We have rewritten and discussed the pH of cookie doughs and cookies in lines 271 to 303 for Figure 2 in the section of Results and Discussion.
Point 10: Page 6, Table 1. This table is not discussed in the text.
Response 10: Table 1 at page 7 is discussed in the first paragraph of Results and Discusiion from line 200 to 212 in the revised manuscript. Sorry for the sloppy mistake again.
Point 11: Page 7, line 230 to Page 8, line 234. Table 2 is the one with the reducing sugar results, not Figure 4.
Response 11: Reducing sugar results (Figure 3) are discussed in the section 3.2 of Results and Discussion at page 10 line 307 to 321 of revised manuscript.
Point 12: References: All web citations should have the date when they were accessed. All references should be reviewed for consistency of format.
Responsed 12: The archived date (05/29/2019) of web citation reference 2 (Centre for Food Safety) is added at page 16 line 429. The format of references 6, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 44 are revised to a consistent format as the revised reference section at page 16 to 17 as red marked texts. Hopefully, the quality of the revised manuscript has been improved greatly at this moment. We appreciate your suggestions again.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Wen-Chieh Sung, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Food Science
National Taiwan Ocean University
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript examines the presence of acrylamide and HMF if “dark brown sugar cookies” and how it is affected by various additives to the formulation. The methods are relatively straight forward and the results largely indicate that none of the interventions had much of an effect. Further, the authors indicate that some of the effects noted are likely artifacts resulting from the methods employed. The manuscript is sloppily done. In particularly none of the references in the text to the tables and figures are correctly numbered. This manuscript is definitely not ready for publication without through correction of editorial errors.
Page2, line 45. “…content in…”
Page 2, line 50. “to keep from” is awkward. Do you mean “prevent”?
Page 2, line 64. Delete “in order” here and throughout the manuscript. It is not needed.
Page 3, line 118. “tha”???
Page 3, line 126. “…the methanol each extract…” Something is missing
Page 4, lines 173 – 174. Neither Table 1 or Figure 1 have anything to do with acrylamide levels or HMF content.
Page 4, lines 174. The pH values in the text do not match the values in Figure 1. Also it is not necessary to repeat the values in Fig 1 in the text.
Page 4, lines 176-178. Figure 2 has nothing to do with pH.
Page 6, Table 1. This table is not discussed in the text.
Page 7, line 230 to Page 8, line 234. Table 2 is the one with the reducing sugar results, not Figure 4.
References: All web citations should have the date when they were accessed. All references should be reviewed for consistency of format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The authors are extremely grateful to anonymous referee involved for providing his/her excellent comments and valuable advice in this paper. We have revised the paper based on the referee’s comments. We have pleasure in requesting the referee to review this paper. Thank you. Your prompt attention to this paper will be much appreciated.
Point 1:
This manuscript examines the presence of acrylamide and HMF if “dark brown sugar cookies” and how it is affected by various additives to the formulation. The methods are relatively straight forward and the results largely indicate that none of the interventions had much of an effect. Further, the authors indicate that some of the effects noted are likely artifacts resulting from the methods employed. The manuscript is sloppily done. In particularly none of the references in the text to the tables and figures are correctly numbered. This manuscript is definitely not ready for publication without through correction of editorial errors.
Response 1: We are so sorry for the sloppy mistakes. We have rewritten the Results and Discussion section to the figures and tables with correct numbers as red marked texts and rechecked the references carefully in the revised manuscript. Thanks for the suggestions and we appreciate you forgiving us and give us another chance to correct the editorial errors throughly. (Please see the revised manuscript).
Point 2: Page2, line 45. “…content in…”
Response 2: We change the miss spelling term “contentin” to “content in” in line 48 page 2 as the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Page 2, line 50. “to keep from” is awkward. Do you mean “prevent”?
Response 3: We revised the term as reviewer’s suggestion and added the word “prevent” in line 53 at page 2. We sincerely appreciate your comment.
Point 4: Page 2, line 64. Delete “in order” here and throughout the manuscript. It is not needed.
Response 4: We deleted some redundant term “ in order to understand” at the last paragraph of introduction to “to understand”in line 69 at page 2, “ in order to prevent” at the conclusion to “to prevent” in line 413 at page 15. We also revised the first sentence of abstract to “The objective of this study is to reduce acrylamide and 5-hydroxylmethylfurfural (HMF) levels in brown sugar cookies. Dark brown sugar was used as a raw material instead of sucrose, and chitosan, chitooligosaccharides, or calcium carbonate were added to investigate the effect on acrylamide and HMF mitigation. Thanks for pointing out the problem.
Point 5: Page 3, line 118. “tha”???
Response 5: The sentence “A standard curve of HMF and acrylamide solution was prepared for use in tha…” is revised to “Standard curves of HMF and acrylamide solution was built in the range of 250-25000 ng/mL.”in line 138 at page 4. Thanks for all the valuable comments. We can feel the referee spent so much time reading our manuscript very carefully.
Point 6: Page 3, line 126. “…the methanol each extract…” Something is missing
Response 6: The sentence “The antiradical ability of the methanol each extract…” at page 3 line 126 is revised to “The antiradical ability of the methanol extracting solution of brown sugar cookie for 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl hydrate (DPPH) was assayed by the method of Shimada et al. [31].”in line 148 at page 4. Thanks for the valuable comment again.
Point 7: Page 4, lines 173 – 174. Neither Table 1 or Figure 1 have anything to do with acrylamide levels or HMF content.
Response 7: We have rewritten the section 3.1 of Results and Discussion to match the figures and tables with correct numbers as red marked texts at page 5 line 203 to 212 in the revised manuscript. Thanks for the coments and we appreciate you giving us the chance to fix the editorial errors.
Point 8: Page 4, lines 174. The pH values in the text do not match the values in Figure 1. Also it is not necessary to repeat the values in Fig 1 in the text.
Response 8: We have rewritten the Results and Discussion section to the Figure 1 and Table 1 with correct texts as red marked texts and revised the pH values of the cookie ingredients comparing to pH of Figure 2 in the revised manuscript in line 271 page 8. Thanks for point out the severe errors.
Point 9: Page 4, lines 176-178. Figure 2 has nothing to do with pH.
Response 9: We have rewritten and discussed the pH of cookie doughs and cookies in lines 271 to 303 for Figure 2 in the section of Results and Discussion.
Point 10: Page 6, Table 1. This table is not discussed in the text.
Response 10: Table 1 at page 7 is discussed in the first paragraph of Results and Discusiion from line 200 to 212 in the revised manuscript. Sorry for the sloppy mistake again.
Point 11: Page 7, line 230 to Page 8, line 234. Table 2 is the one with the reducing sugar results, not Figure 4.
Response 11: Reducing sugar results (Figure 3) are discussed in the section 3.2 of Results and Discussion at page 10 line 307 to 321 of revised manuscript.
Point 12: References: All web citations should have the date when they were accessed. All references should be reviewed for consistency of format.
Responsed 12: The archived date (05/29/2019) of web citation reference 2 (Centre for Food Safety) is added at page 16 line 429. The format of references 6, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 44 are revised to a consistent format as the revised reference section at page 16 to 17 as red marked texts. Hopefully, the quality of the revised manuscript has been improved greatly at this moment. We appreciate your suggestions again.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Wen-Chieh Sung, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Food Science
National Taiwan Ocean University
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer comments and suggestions to the authors
Manuscript ID: processes-505032
The present manuscript studies the influence of the use of dark brown sugar and the addition of some supplement compounds like as chitosan, chitooligosaccharides, or calcium carbonate to brown sugar cookies. The objective of the addition of these ingredients was to reduce the levels of acrylamide and 5-hydroxylmethylfurfural.
Throughout this study, the authors evaluate some physicochemical properties (e.g. reducing sugars content and reducing power, color, texture analysis, antioxidant activity and DPPH radical scavenging, ferrous ion chelating activity) of the brown sugar cookies produced during this experiment.
From my point of view this work must be improved and the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.
Next are some comments and suggestions that may be useful for improving this manuscript.
General comments on the whole text:
Please check the punctuation and spaces in the text.
-Check the text to the end of the line does not leave alone digits or values separated from the unit.
- Check the text in terms of language, keeping a constant verbal tense.
-The analytical novelty and the advantages of this study when compared with previous publications must be strongly supported, because several practices have been claimed to inhibit acrylamide formation in heated foods. The discussion around it is very poor.
- The validation of these conclusions must be strongly emphasized with more studies and with a broader discussion around this issue.
Some concrete comments would be as follows:
- The title of the article must be changed because it is confusing and does not allow the understanding of the subject of this publication.
- The abstract must state clearly the originality of this work and impact of this work on the field.
- Introduction is well written and presented, but the authors must emphasize the news of this study, because there are several practices have been claimed to inhibit acrylamide formation in heated foods, so is not novel research.
- Line 40 (page 1) correct (carcinogenic), (in text, cancinogenic).
- The authors must indicate which shortening they used during the cookies production.
- The authors must explain, with more detail, how they did the extraction of acrylamide and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, from the brown sugar cookies.
- Results and discussion section: It would be wise to compare the authors' results with other ones available on the specific literature, because the main conclusion of this study is to avoid dark brown sugar containing high levels of acrylamide, when brown sugar cookies are made.
- “Calcium carbonate, chitosan and chitooligosaccharide could not mitigate acrylamide formation in brown sugar cookies at a concentration of 1%”. The authors must explore this.
- The authors must review the text, because it correspondence with the figures, is very confused and in some cases wrong.
FINAL COMMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS: It deserves to be published after the suggestions and corrections listed above are amended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Comments: The present manuscript studies the influence of the use of dark brown sugar and the addition of some supplement compounds like as chitosan, chitooligosaccharides, or calcium carbonate to brown sugar cookies. The objective of the addition of these ingredients was to reduce the levels of acrylamide and 5-hydroxylmethylfurfural.
Throughout this study, the authors evaluate some physicochemical properties (e.g. reducing sugars content and reducing power, color, texture analysis, antioxidant activity and DPPH radical scavenging, ferrous ion chelating activity) of the brown sugar cookies produced during this experiment.
From my point of view this work must be improved and the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.
Response: The authors are extremely grateful to anonymous referee involved for providing his/her excellent comments and valuable advice in this paper. We have revised the paper based on the referee’s comments. We have pleasure in requesting the referee to review this paper. Thank you. Your prompt attention to this paper will be much appreciated.
Next are some comments and suggestions that may be useful for improving this manuscript.
General comments on the whole text:
Point 1: Please check the punctuation and spaces in the text.
Response 1: We rechecked the punctuation and spaces in the revised manuscript as red marked texts. If it is not good enough at this point, we will rewrite the article again and hope this revised manuscript can have a great improvement.
Point 2: Check the text to the end of the line does not leave alone digits or values separated from the unit.
Response 2: Thanks for all the valuable suggestions. We can feel the referee spent so much time reading our manuscript very carefully. We recheck the text to the end of the line does not leave alone digits such as 5% or values separated from the unit such 5 °C and 70.17 mL and we revised and marked as red texts in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Check the text in terms of language, keeping a constant verbal tense.
Response 3: We have rechecked our article in terms of language, keeping a constant verbal tense through the revised manuscript. If it is not good enough at this revised manuscript, I will look for help from K.T.Li Foundation for the development of Science and Technology to revise the paper again. Thanks for the suggestions and we appreciate you for all the great comments.
Point 4: The analytical novelty and the advantages of this study when compared with previous publications must be strongly supported, because several practices have been claimed to inhibit acrylamide formation in heated foods. The discussion around it is very poor.
Response 4: Thanks for the valuable comments again. We have compared the results of this study with our previous study which calcium carbonate and chitosan could mitigate the formation acrylamide. However, the thickness of dark brown sugar cookie is much thinner than that of cookied made with sucrose. It might be one factor generating more acrylamide than that of control. The other factor may be due to there are more reducing sugar in dark brown sugar and it generate more acrylamide. Because the above factors the dark brown sugar cookies already containing acrylamide and they contain high amount of acrylamide and it is hard to mitigate the formation of acrylamide by this practice comparing to several practices reported before.
Point 5: The validation of these conclusions must be strongly emphasized with more studies and with a broader discussion around this issue.
Response 5: We revised the conclusion (page 15) as reviewer’s suggestions to emphasize with more study on same thickness of baked cookies. We sincerely appreciate your comments.
Some concrete comments would be as follows:
Point 6: The title of the article must be changed because it is confusing and does not allow the understanding of the subject of this publication.
Response 6: Thanks for all the valuable suggestions. We have revised the title as “Effects of dark brown sugar replacing sucrose and calcium carbonate, chitosan and chitooligosaccharide addition on acrylamide and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural formation in brown sugar cookies” at page 1.
Point 7: The abstract must state clearly the originality of this work and impact of this work on the field.
Response 7: The abstract has been revised and we state the originality and the impact of this study to the bakery industry again. Hopefully the abstract has been improved greatly at this moment.
Point 8: Introduction is well written and presented, but the authors must emphasize the news of this study, because there are several practices have been claimed to inhibit acrylamide formation in heated foods, so is not novel research.
Response 8: The aim and novelty of this study have been rewritten in introduction at the last paragraph of introduction in line 63 to 69. Please see the revised manuscript at page 2 as red marked text.
Point 9: Line 40 (page 1) correct (carcinogenic), (in text, cancinogenic).
Response 9: Thanks for point out the wrong spelling word. We has corrected the word as “carcinogenic” in line 43 at page 2 as red marked text.
Point 10: The authors must indicate which shortening they used during the cookies production.
Response 10: Shortening is fat used for making pastry or bread. Shortening is replaced with the term “fat” in Materials and Methods section in lines 79 and 96.
Point 11: The authors must explain, with more detail, how they did the extraction of acrylamide and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, from the brown sugar cookies.
Response 11: The extracting acrylamide and HMF method from cookies is added to the section 2.5 of Materials and Methods from line 126 to 133 at page 4 in the revised manuscript.
Point 12: Results and discussion section: It would be wise to compare the authors' results with other ones available on the specific literature, because the main conclusion of this study is to avoid dark brown sugar containing high levels of acrylamide, when brown sugar cookies are made.
Response 12: The cookie dough was rolled out to a thickness of 1 cm by Acar et al (2012), they reported the acrylamide content (128 ng/g) in the control cookie, while in this study the cookie dough was rolled out to a thickness of 0.2 cm. Thinner cookie dough would be baked at a high temperature and so it will increase the amount of acrylamide formed in the cookies (1980 ng/g). The addition of calcium carbonate significantly decreased the acrylamide formation in their cookie samples and our previous paper.
Point 13: “Calcium carbonate, chitosan and chitooligosaccharide could not mitigate acrylamide formation in brown sugar cookies at a concentration of 1%”. The authors must explore this.
Response 13: Calcium carbonate, chitosan and chitooligosaccharide could not mitigate acrylamide formation in dark brown sugar cookies at a concentration of 1 % might be due to the thickness of these cookie is slightly thinner than that of dark brown sugar cookie control.
Point 14: The authors must review the text, because it correspondence with the figures, is very confused and in some cases wrong.
Response 14: We are so sorry for the sloppy mistakes. We have rewritten the Results and Discussion section to the figures and tables with correct numbers as red marked texts and rechecked the references carefully in the revised manuscript. Thanks for the suggestions and we appreciate you forgiving us and giving us another chance to correct the editorial errors throughly. (Please see the revised manuscript).
Point 15: FINAL COMMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS: It deserves to be published after the suggestions and corrections listed above are amended.
Response 15: We appreciate you giving us the second chance. We have rewritten and rechecked our article carefully as reviewer’s suggestion as red marked texts in the revised manuscript. We are so sorry for the mistakes and thanks for your comments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Wen-Chieh Sung, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Food Science
National Taiwan Ocean University
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper after changes are readable to check especially chapter results and discussion. I have just two questions:
1. What kind of chitosan was used to the experiment (mushroom or shellfish)
2. What was the technology of preparing the cookies come from? Why the mixing time was 3 min. (is it enough) or why the temperature and time of cooking was 190 and 10 min.
3. My suggestion is to make a nomenclature chapter at the beginning of paper.
4. There is no fig. 5a,5b, 5c (is not market “a”, “b”, “c”)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The authors are extremely grateful to anonymous referee involved for providing his/her excellent comments and valuable advice in this paper, again. We have revised the paper based on the referee’s comments. We have pleasure in requesting the referee to review this paper. Thank you. Your prompt attention to this paper will be much appreciated.
Point 1:
What kind of chitosan was used to the experiment (mushroom or shellfish)?
Response 1:
Commercial chitosan used in this study is derived from the shells of shrimp. We have added the above sentence in the section 2.1 of Materials and Methods as red marked texts in the revised manuscript in line 83 page 2. Thanks for the comments. (Please see the revised manuscript).
Point 2:
What was the technology of preparing the cookies come from? Why the mixing time was 3 min ( is it enough) or why the temperature and time of cooking was 190 and 10 min.
Response 2:
American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC) method 10-54 is a standard approved method for cookie making for cereal chemists. Everyone follows the same formula and preparing conditions and procedure. Cake flour, mixer, and oven may not always the same, although the mixing time, oven temperature and baking time are same. Therefore, the qualities of AACC cookie may be slightly different. Thanks for pointing out the problem.
Point 3:
My suggestion is to make a nomenclature chapter at the beginning of paper.
Response 3:
Thanks for all the valuable suggestions. We can feel the referee spent so much time reading our manuscript very carefully. We have used the full name and abbreviation of specific term such as American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC) when it appears at first time. Each table and figure also has note to explain the abbreviation of special term which we used at the bottom of tables and figures.
Point 4:
There is no fig. 5a, 5b, 5c (is not market “a”, “b”, “c”).
Response 4:
Thanks for the valuable suggestion again. We have added (a), (b), and (c) on Figure 5. Please see the revised Figure 5 at pages 13 & 14.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Wen-Chieh Sung, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Food Science
National Taiwan Ocean University
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have answered all questions and considered all comments in the revised manuscript, being it significantly improved. The manuscript can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The authors are extremely grateful to anonymous referee involved for providing his/her excellent comments and valuable advice in this paper. We have revised the paper based on the referee’s comments. We have pleasure in requesting the referee to review this paper. Thank you. Your prompt attention to this paper will be much appreciated.
Point 1:
The authors have answered all questions and considered all comments in the revised manuscript, being it significantly improved. The manuscript can be published.
Response 1:
Thanks for the valuable comments and we appreciate you giving us the second chance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Wen-Chieh Sung, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Food Science
National Taiwan Ocean University
