Wholemeal Spelt Bread Enriched with Green Spelt as a Source of Valuable Nutrients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript seems a good contribution. However there are parts to improve. Also i suggest An English editing.

Abstract

line 19:write as .."P, Mg, Ca..."

Introduction

line 45: write as "..Compared to common wheat, it contains more proteins,."

Materials and methos

lines 90-109: the description of each method is unclear. please rewrite this paragraph.

results and discussion

line 121: please avoid the use of personal form.

The authors underline the good properties of bread enriched with green grain. I suggeste to write some sentences about the taste of this new products.

Author Response

Manuscript No.: processes-742445

Wholemeal spelt bread enriched with green spelt as a source of valuable nutrients

Herewith, I am submitting the revised versions of the manuscript mentioned above and ask you to re-consider it for the publication in Processes. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. We addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions concerning the manuscript.  The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that these revisions will improve and clarify the message of the manuscript thus making it substantial to a broad readership of Processes. Therefore, we hope that you and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Processes.

Thank you very much in advance for managing our manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript seems a good contribution. However there are parts to improve. Also i suggest an English editing.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. We agree that English was not very good, so the manuscript  has been corrected by native speaker.

Abstract

line 19:write as .."P, Mg, Ca..."

Response:

We are sorry for this mistake – it has been corrected (line 20).

Introduction

line 45: write as "..Compared to common wheat, it contains more proteins,."

Response:

It has been corrected (line 50).

Materials and methos

lines 90-109: the description of each method is unclear. please rewrite this paragraph.

Response:

In an ithenticate report it was found that in this paragraph there are some sentences which are similar with the former publications. To avoid any misunderstanding or trouble, we rephrased this paragraph to avoid duplication or self-plagiarism problem by shortened it and provided reference in which these methods were described (lines 90-96).

results and discussion

line 121: please avoid the use of personal form.

Response:

According to Reviewer’s suggestion we corrected it (line 121).

The authors underline the good properties of bread enriched with green grain. I suggeste to write some sentences about the taste of this new products.

Response:

Thank you for this comments. We decided to include the primary sensory evaluation of obtained bread (lines 29; 98-101; 269-273; 303-304; Table 8).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors in the publication raise an important topic, but the manuscript needs improvement. Below is a list of comments:

Materials and Methods

Lines 72-76 - was there any special procedure for harvesting and selecting the grain used to bake bread? Does the information on the origin of the grain apply to both ground flour and also those used as an addition to wholemeal bakery products?

Lines 92-107 – There is no any description of the preparation of samples for the study and the conditions of analysis.

Results and discussion

The tables lack information as to what the letters (a, b, c) mean, whether each of them means a statistically significant difference, or were there contents that were not such differences. In addition, in Table 6 there is no explanation for all appearing abbreviations (LSD, Ns ns²). I also don't know how to interpret superscript 1 in LSD?

Line 229-230 - biologically active substances - what substances are they talking about? Is it only about the fatty acids that are covered by the chapter, or are they all discussed in this publication?

Author Response

Manuscript No.: processes-742445

Wholemeal spelt bread enriched with green spelt as a source of valuable nutrients

Herewith, I am submitting the revised versions of the manuscript mentioned above and ask you to re-consider it for the publication in Processes. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. We addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions concerning the manuscript.  The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that these revisions will improve and clarify the message of the manuscript thus making it substantial to a broad readership of Processes. Therefore, we hope that you and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Processes.

Thank you very much in advance for managing our manuscript.

The Authors in the publication raise an important topic, but the manuscript needs improvement. Below is a list of comments:

Materials and Methods

Lines 72-76 - was there any special procedure for harvesting and selecting the grain used to bake bread? Does the information on the origin of the grain apply to both ground flour and also those used as an addition to wholemeal bakery products?

Response:

We want to explain that there was no special procedure for collecting and selecting grains used for baking bread. The origin of the grain used both for the preparing the flour from which the bread was baked, and the grain used as an additive to bread, was the same. As we wrote in the chapter "Material and methods", the grain was harvested in an organic farm. To obtain green spelt grain, grain was harvested at the milk dough stage. In practice, this involved collecting whole ears that were freeze dried at 20°C and under a pressure of 52 Pa. The next step was to thresh grain obtained from such dried ears. In turn, the flour from which the bread was baked was obtained from grain harvested at full maturity (lines 75-83).

Lines 92-107 – There is no any description of the preparation of samples for the study and the conditions of analysis.

Response:

The description of preparation of samples for the study is described accurately in cited norms. We can add some information according to Reviewer suggestion, but please specify what should be added (line 98). 

Results and discussion

The tables lack information as to what the letters (a, b, c) mean, whether each of them means a statistically significant difference, or were there contents that were not such differences. In addition, in Table 6 there is no explanation for all appearing abbreviations (LSD, Ns ns²). I also don't know how to interpret superscript 1 in LSD?

Response:

We want to explain that different letters in tables mean statistically significant differences between minerals content (tables 1-4), between amino acid content (tables 5-6), and between lipid content, and fatty acids content (tables 7-8). We agree that explanation under tables was not clear enough, so we supplemented the description under the tables. As concern the ‘LSD’ and ‘ns’ abbreviations, we want to explain that it was our oversight and the column with LSD values appeared in the table by mistake, and thus this column was deleted from Table 6.       

Line 229-230 - biologically active substances - what substances are they talking about? Is it only about the fatty acids that are covered by the chapter, or are they all discussed in this publication?

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. The names of biologically active substances were supplemented in the text (lines 223-224).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Processes 742445

In the present study, the authors proposed that if spelt flour was enriched by “green grain” this can enhance the nutritional value of wholemeal spelt bread. The results are interesting, and may provide readers and investigators with good information. However, the manuscript is preliminary, and needs thorough revisions to fully elucidate if there is or not increased nutritional value in bread by incorporating the so called “green grain” in the spelt flour (for example see comment 14).

Characteristic examples are the following:

1. Line 19 in the Abstract: the word “more” needs to be replaced by a more appropriate phrase (i.e. …higher amounts of…). Similar to line 45.
2. Similar revisions and thorough English editing needs to be performed throughout the manuscript.
3. Line 20: What do the authors mean by the word “fat”? This needs to be revised.
4. Also in the same phrase, next line (line 21) why do the authors separate oleic (a classic omega 9 MUFA), elaidic and α-linolenic (a classic omega-3 PUFA) from the MUFA and OMEGA 3 and OMEGA 9 content?? All this sentence in the abstract needs to be appropriately revised.

5. Lines 34-36: References are needed to be added

(i.e.: Ioannis Zabetakis, Ronan Lordan, Alexandros Tsoupras

Book: The Impact of Nutrition and Statins on Cardiovascular Diseases

Academic Press, Imprint of Elsevier; 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128137925/the-impact-of-nutrition-and-statins-on-cardiovascular-diseases )

6. Lines 47-50 and 58 appropriate references are needed to be added.
7. Lines 53-55 needs revision according to English syntax and grammar.
8. Materials and methods section: Did the collection of whole ears of green spelt grain occurred at a specific season of the year? Are there any seasonable changes in the nutrients composition of green spelt grain that need to be reported? Did the authors collected samples also in several seasons?
9. Materials and methods section: lines 90-109 references for each methods used are needed. All the materials and methods must be opened for readers

1. Materials and methods section: All tests were performed in triplicates. Thus, how was normality of variables tested for n=3 values? A test like the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) for non parametric variables is more fitting for such an analysis. In addition, the Tukey's HSD makes the assumption that your dependent variables are normally distributed and so it is not an appropriate as a post-hoc test following a non-parametric omnibus test like KW in case you are going to perform the KW test). Thus, statistical approach needs to be appropriately re-evaluated.
2. Results: In all tables (table 1 – table 8), standard deviation is also needed to be added
3. Tables 7 and 8: The 2 different fatty acids (cis C18:1n9c and trans C18:1n9t) are not supposed to be summed up. Instead the amount for each one of them needs to be presented separately, because they are dinstict molecules with different biological properties and nutritional values.

13. In addition, for these fatty acids, along with the C18:2n6c and C18:3n3 alpha, a different kind of naming is more appropriate. For example, 18:3 c9, c12, c15 is more fitting for the C18:3n3 alpha fatty acid (see table 2 in relative publication of how to present the results for fatty acid composition derived by GC-MS analysis:

Tsoupras A*, O'Keeffe E, Lordan R, Redfern S, Zabetakis I.

Bioprospecting for Antithrombotic Polar Lipids from Salmon, Herring, and Boarfish By-Products. Foods. 2019 Sep 15;8(9). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/9/416/htm)

14. The n-6/n-3 ratio is also interesting to be presented in these 2 tables and in the results, discussion, conclusion and abstract sections.

This ratio was found to be very high for all types of breads tested. Values of this ratio higher than 5/1 reduce the nutritional value of a food/diet

From tables 7 and 8 it is profound that for all the samples of raw materials/foods (bread) tested, their n-6/n-3 ratio is very high (approx. double than the 5/1 ratio of westernised diets), which implies exactly the opposite of what the authors suggest (healthy food and increased nutritional value).

(Please see relative reference: Simopoulos, A.P. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp. Biol. Med. 2008, 233, 674–688. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+importance+of+the+omega-6%2Fomega-3+fatty+acid+ratio+in+cardiovascular+disease+and+other+chronic+diseases)

Author Response

Manuscript No.: processes-742445

Wholemeal spelt bread enriched with green spelt as a source of valuable nutrients

Herewith, I am submitting the revised versions of the manuscript mentioned above and ask you to re-consider it for the publication in Processes. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. We addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions concerning the manuscript.  The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that these revisions will improve and clarify the message of the manuscript thus making it substantial to a broad readership of Processes. Therefore, we hope that you and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Processes.

Thank you very much in advance for managing our manuscript.

In the present study, the authors proposed that if spelt flour was enriched by “green grain” this can enhance the nutritional value of wholemeal spelt bread. The results are interesting, and may provide readers and investigators with good information. However, the manuscript is preliminary, and needs thorough revisions to fully elucidate if there is or not increased nutritional value in bread by incorporating the so called “green grain” in the spelt flour (for example see comment 14).

Characteristic examples are the following:

Line 19 in the Abstract: the word “more” needs to be replaced by a more appropriate phrase (i.e. …higher amounts of…). Similar to line 45.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript – the word „more” was replaced by „higher amounts of” (lines 20 and 50).

Similar revisions and thorough English editing needs to be performed throughout the manuscript.

Response:

We agree that English was poor, so the manuscript  has been revised by native speaker (the changes are marked in green in the text).

Line 20: What do the authors mean by the word “fat”? This needs to be revised.

Response:

We used the word 'fat' to mean 'lipids'. However, we agree that the phrase "lipids" is more appropriate, which is why we changed it in the manuscript.

Also in the same phrase, next line (line 21) why do the authors separate oleic (a classic omega 9 MUFA), elaidic and α-linolenic (a classic omega-3 PUFA) from the MUFA and OMEGA 3 and OMEGA 9 content?? All this sentence in the abstract needs to be appropriately revised.

Response:

Thank you for this remark. According to Reviewer’s suggestion it was revised (line 22).

Lines 34-36: References are needed to be added

(i.e.: Ioannis Zabetakis, Ronan Lordan, Alexandros Tsoupras

Book: The Impact of Nutrition and Statins on Cardiovascular Diseases

Academic Press, Imprint of Elsevier; 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128137925/the-impact-of-nutrition-and-statins-on-cardiovascular-diseases)

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. The reference was added to the manuscript (line 41; 328-329).

Lines 47-50 and 58 appropriate references are needed to be added.

Response:

According to Reviewer suggestion we added appropriate references (lines 55; 64; 359-360; 366-369).

Lines 53-55 needs revision according to English syntax and grammar.

Response:

This part of manuscript was revised by native speaker (lines 58-60).

Materials and methods section: Did the collection of whole ears of green spelt grain occurred at a specific season of the year? Are there any seasonable changes in the nutrients composition of green spelt grain that need to be reported? Did the authors collected samples also in several seasons?

Response:

We want to explain, that spelt grain was collected only in 2017. In order to obtain green spelt grain, the grain was harvested at the milk dough stage (in the middle of June). In practice, this involved collecting whole ears that were freeze dried at 20°C and under a pressure of 52 Pa. The next step was to thresh grain obtained from such dried ears. In turn, the flour from which the bread was baked was obtained from grain harvested at full maturity stage (at the beginning of August).

As for seasonal changes in the nutritional composition of green spelt grain, it should be emphasized that such grains can be harvested in a short time, because the duration of the "milk dough" phase is short and in the case of spelt wheat generally lasts several days. 

Materials and methods section: lines 90-109 references for each methods used are needed. All the materials and methods must be opened for readers

Response:

The similarity report states that the paragraph describing the research methods has several sentences similar to previous publications. To avoid misunderstandings or problems, we have reduced the description of the methods used to avoid duplication or self-plagiarism problems and provided a reference in which these methods are described (lines 90-96).

Materials and methods section: All tests were performed in triplicates. Thus, how was normality of variables tested for n=3 values? A test like the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) for non parametric variables is more fitting for such an analysis. In addition, the Tukey's HSD makes the assumption that your dependent variables are normally distributed and so it is not an appropriate as a post-hoc test following a non-parametric omnibus test like KW in case you are going to perform the KW test). Thus, statistical approach needs to be appropriately re-evaluated.

Response:

Thank you for this comment. We agree with the Reviewer that the Kruskal-Wallis test can be use for data evaluation, especially if data fail normal distribution. On the other hand,  Kruskal-Wallis test is more weaker than one-way analysis of variance. Thus the probability of type I and type II errors is higher. This technique can be sued when looking for differences among three or more independent samples and is not useful for all our data (Table 1, Table 2, Table 5 and Table 7). [Chan, Y., & Walmsley, R. P. (1997). Learning and understanding the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis-of- variance-by-ranks test for differences among three or more independent groups. Physical Therapy, 77(12), 1755-1762]. Moreover if the number of repetition of individual tests is the same for each variable the one-way analysis of variance is highly tolerant for non-normal distribution. Fortunately, an Anova is not very sensitive to moderate deviations from normality; many studied using a variety of non-normal distributions, have shown that the false positive rate is not affected much by non-normal distribution [Glass, G.V., P.D. Peckham, and J.R. Sanders. 1972. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Rev. Educ. Res. 42: 237-288; Harwell, M.R., E.N. Rubinstein, W.S. Hayes, and C.C. Olds. 1992. Summarizing Monte Carlo results in methodological research: the one- and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases. J. Educ. Stat. 17: 315-339; Lix, L.M., J.C. Keselman, and H.J. Keselman. 1996. Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Rev. Educ. Res. 66: 579-619.). Thus we decided to stay the result of variance analysis. We believe that Reviewer understand our statement.

Results: In all tables (table 1 – table 8), standard deviation is also needed to be added

Response:

According to Reviewer’s suggestion standard daviations in all tables were added.

Tables 7 and 8: The 2 different fatty acids (cis C18:1n9c and trans C18:1n9t) are not supposed to be summed up. Instead the amount for each one of them needs to be presented separately, because they are dinstict molecules with different biological properties and nutritional values.

Response:

Thank you for a good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. We agree that different fatty acids should not be summed up, because they differ in some properties, so in tables 7 and 8 we only presented the amount of c18: 1n9c cis acid. Unfortunately, it was not possible to give the amount of C18: 1n9t acid because we were not able to detect it as a separate acid using the available methods. That is why we decided to remove this acid from the tables.

In addition, for these fatty acids, along with the C18:2n6c and C18:3n3 alpha, a different kind of naming is more appropriate. For example, 18:3 c9, c12, c15 is more fitting for the C18:3n3 alpha fatty acid (see table 2 in relative publication of how to present the results for fatty acid composition derived by GC-MS analysis:

Tsoupras A*, O'Keeffe E, Lordan R, Redfern S, Zabetakis I.

Bioprospecting for Antithrombotic Polar Lipids from Salmon, Herring, and Boarfish By-Products. Foods. 2019 Sep 15;8(9). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/9/416/htm)

Response:

Thank you for this remark. According to Reviewer suggestion we changed the naming of fatty acids (in tables and in the text) as in reference proposed by Reviewer.

The n-6/n-3 ratio is also interesting to be presented in these 2 tables and in the results, discussion, conclusion and abstract sections.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. We agree that n6/n3 ratio is interesting aspect of our results, which is why we have added such information to tables 7 and 8, as well as brief description in the text (lines 26-27; 237-241; 259-261; 293-294).

This ratio was found to be very high for all types of breads tested. Values of this ratio higher than 5/1 reduce the nutritional value of a food/diet

Response:

We agree that the ω6/ω3 ratio is high, which can negatively affect the nutritional value of products derived from spelt grains. However, it should be emphasized that the content of lipids, and thus fatty acids in spelt grain and spelt bread was relatively low. Taking into account the fact that these products are a rich source of minerals and amino acids, it seems that they can be recommended as beneficial components of human diet, with reservation that they have a high ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 acids (which was concluded in the text – lines 26-27; 237-241; 259-261; 293-294).

From tables 7 and 8 it is profound that for all the samples of raw materials/foods (bread) tested, their n-6/n-3 ratio is very high (approx. double than the 5/1 ratio of westernised diets), which implies exactly the opposite of what the authors suggest (healthy food and increased nutritional value).

 (Please see relative reference: Simopoulos, A.P. The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Exp. Biol. Med. 2008, 233, 674–688. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+importance+of+the+omega-6%2Fomega-3+fatty+acid+ratio+in+cardiovascular+disease+and+other+chronic+diseases)

Response:

As we mentioned above, information about inappropriate ratio of ω6/ω3 acids was provided in tables as well as in the text. We thank the Reviewer for valuable reference which we cited in our manuscript (lines 239; 396-397).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

• The article needs an extensive editing of English language and style.
• The text needs to be more concise.
• Don't use so often "... the so called ..."; see the legends of figures and tables.
• The information regarding table 5 (lines 184-192) does not match the information in the table itself.
• The last column (LSD) of the table 6 is not referred to in the text.
• The conclusion of the work is presented in a very confusing way.
• Pay attention to the values presented in the tables and those referred throughout the text.

Author Response

Manuscript No.: processes-742445

Wholemeal spelt bread enriched with green spelt as a source of valuable nutrients

Herewith, I am submitting the revised versions of the manuscript mentioned above and ask you to re-consider it for the publication in Processes. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. We addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions concerning the manuscript.  The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that these revisions will improve and clarify the message of the manuscript thus making it substantial to a broad readership of Processes. Therefore, we hope that you and the Reviewer will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Processes.

Thank you very much in advance for managing our manuscript.

The article needs an extensive editing of English language and style.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. The English language ad style was improved by native speaker (it was marked in the manuscript in green colour).

The text needs to be more concise.

Response:

As suggested by the Reviewer, the manuscript was revised and we tried to make it more concise. For example, we replaced some phrases by appropriate abbreviations in the text (control bread by CB, bread with 4% of green spelt grain by BGS4, ets.).

Don't use so often "... the so called ..."; see the legends of figures and tables.

Response:

According the Reviewer suggestion, we have reduced the number of this term.

The information regarding table 5 (lines 184-192) does not match the information in the table itself.

Response:

Thank you for this remark. It was our mistake. The appropriate correction was included in the text (line 185).

The last column (LSD) of the table 6 is not referred to in the text.

Response:

As concern the ‘LSD’ values, we want to explain that it was our oversight and the column with LSD values appeared in the table by mistake, thus this column was deleted.      

The conclusion of the work is presented in a very confusing way.

Response:

The conclusion was modified.

Pay attention to the values presented in the tables and those referred throughout the text.

Response:

Thank you for this remark. As suggested by the Reviewer, we carefully checked the text for errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved the manuscript as suggested. for this reason the paper can be accepted in this form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Herewith, I am submitting the revised version of the manuscript mentioned above. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript.

Best regards,

Sylwia Andruszczak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors of the publication responded to most of the comments, but some of them remained without explanation. Below is the list of comments:
1. Lines 90-95 - the description still lacks basic information, e.g. sample weight or amount of solvents added. In addition, referring to other studies, usually briefly discussed their description, i.e. the mass of the sample or added reagents. Currently, the authors do not even provide the methods by which the elements were determined. Deleting information is not a response to my comment.
2. Tables - there are still no values of the letters a, b, c

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Herewith, I am submitting the revised version of the manuscript mentioned above. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that this revision will improve the manuscript.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors of the publication responded to most of the comments, but some of them remained without explanation. Below is the list of comments:

Lines 90-95 - the description still lacks basic information, e.g. sample weight or amount of solvents added. In addition, referring to other studies, usually briefly discussed their description, i.e. the mass of the sample or added reagents. Currently, the authors do not even provide the methods by which the elements were determined. Deleting information is not a response to my comment.

Response:

As we mentioned in the manuscript (lines 113-115), the assessment of the content of tested nutrients in spelt grain and in bread was not carried out by us personally, but the chemical analyzes were carried out in an accredited laboratory in accordance with commonly known analytical methods.

I want to explain that in the previous version of the manuscript we deleted a description of the research methods used to assess the quality of grain and bread due to the high similarity of this part of manuscript with the former publications. However, we agree that the description of the research methods was not enough, so at the request of the reviewer we supplemented it with relevant information (lines 89-103). Additionally, we added a reference in which the research methodology is described in detail (lines 288-289).

Tables - there are still no values of the letters a, b, c

Response:

I want to explain that the letters a, b, c, d do not refer to any particular value, but they are used to determine statistically significant differences between the compared data. This is a commonly used method to indicate the significance of differences. If the data in the table are marked with the same letters, it means that they do not differ significantly. In turn, if they are marked with different letters, it means that these values differ significantly. In order to better explain the role of letters and how to interpret them, we've slightly modified the captions under the tables. We hope that this clarification will be sufficient.

Best regards,

Sylwia Andruszczak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Revisions needed were propertly addressed

It would be interesting if you could separate the lipid content of your product into Neutral Lipids and Polar lipids. Interesting outcomes may be derived in the polar lipid fractions of your product.

It is a good suggestion for future articles

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Herewith, I am submitting the revised version of the manuscript mentioned above. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. We agree that separating the lipid content into neutral lipids and polar lipids would be interesting aspect of our results, so we will use this suggestion for future research.

Best regards,

Sylwia Andruszczak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The document is better, both in writing and in presenting the data (results).
However, there is still a need to revise the text.

Check for instance  the following lines: 28 (in all ...(except...); 86, 87, 96, 101 and so on.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Herewith, I am submitting the revised version of the manuscript mentioned above. We thank the reviewer for his constructive and inspiring comments and remarks, which helped to further improve the message of the manuscript. The answers to the specific points raised by the reviewer are listed below and are marked in the manuscript in red colour. We are convinced that this revision will improve the manuscript.

Suggestions for authors:

The document is better, both in writing and in presenting the data (results).
However, there is still a need to revise the text.

Check for instance  the following lines: 28 (in all ...(except...); 86, 87, 96, 101 and so on.

Response:

Thank you for your good suggestion for improving the quality of our manuscript. We carefully checked the manuscript and revised some lines (lines 28, 85-86, 112, 118).

Best regards,

Sylwia Andruszczak

Author Response File: Author Response.docx