Physicochemical Properties of Enzymatically Modified Starches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The peer-reviewed article is important from the point of view of research on the rheological properties of starch in terms of texture determination. It also provides important data that can be used in practice for food production. Nevertheless, I believe that the article requires more care in the preparation of the manuscript as the processing of the results is quite chaotic.

1. Abstract section, line 9 please specify the abbreviation GSET, it is difficult to guess what to refer to it.

2. Material and methods section, paragraph on statistical analysis is missing 3. Table started from line 221 seems like a ghost

4. Table 1a, as described, should present the results obtained for the experiments carried out at two temperatures, 30 and 40 degrees Celsius, while the presented results are for 30

5. Similarly, in table 1b where, according to the description, there should be a variant of 50 degrees and it is 40.

6. I am also concerned about the correctness of the results in Table 2a for the parameter t⁰ in the case of corn, the standard deviation values ​​are greater than the mean value. How is it possible ? 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed article is important from the point of view of research on the rheological properties of starch in terms of texture determination. It also provides important data that can be used in practice for food production. Nevertheless, I believe that the article requires more care in the preparation of the manuscript as the processing of the results is quite chaotic.

1. Abstract section, line 9 please specify the abbreviation GSET, it is difficult to guess what to refer to it.

Response to the first revewer:

Throughout it is GSET and stands for germinated sorghum extract treatment

2. Material and methods section, paragraph on statistical analysis is missing

2.10. Statistical Analysis

            Measurements were done in triplicate and the data were analyzed using ANOVA. A factorial design was applied to test for the effects of GC and GZ on starch. Duncan’s multiple range test was applied to compare means at p ≤ 0.05 using the PASW® Statistics 18 software (SPSS Inc., Hong Kong, China P.R.).

3. Table started from line 221 seems like a ghost

Table was fixed

4. Table 1a, as described, should present the results obtained for the experiments carried out at two temperatures, 30 and 40 degrees Celsius, while the presented results are for 30

Tables were fixed

5. Similarly, in table 1b where, according to the description, there should be a variant of 50 degrees and it is 40.

It was not possible to combine the tables because it became very larg.

6. I am also concerned about the correctness of the results in Table 2a for the parameter t⁰in the case of corn, the standard deviation values ​​are greater than the mean value. How is it possible ?

It was a typo and was fixed

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Physiochemical properties of enzymatically treated modified starch” represent an effort for the determination of some properties of chickpea, corn, Turkish bean, and sweet potato starch in the native, annealed, and annealed with enzyme treatment forms.

Albeit the topic is of interest, the presentation of the experimental results and discussion need to be improved.

Please, find below some suggestions.

• A deep editing of the text is needed to improve English and a revision of the manuscript is recommended. Typing errors (e.g., page 1, line 33) and missing text in sentences (e.g., page 4 line 175) are present throughout the manuscript.
• In the Introduction, the novelty of the work should be highlighted.
• The references in the text do not correspond to those in the reference list (e.g., page 5, line 208). Please, consider a deep revision.
• References in the text do not follow a correct order, passing, for instance, from [1] to [4] (references [2] and [3] are missing) in page 1 (lines 34-37).
• Some references reported in the text are missing in the reference list (e.g., [33] in page 2, line 79 or [34] in page 2 line 88).
• Reference list should be formatted according to the journal requirements and updated with more recent publications on the topic.
• Some publications in the reference list (e.g., reference 4) are hard to be found. Please check if the provided details are correct.
• Page 2, line 69: authors refer to a previous published paper. Please provide the proper reference.
• Page 2, lines 53-56: please, check the sentence and correct.
• Page 2, lines 79 and 88: please provide the correct references.
• Page 2, line 93: please provide the units for “2000”.
• Page 3, lines 112-114: please, check the sentence and correct.
• Figure 1 contains 4 figures, which should be numbered as Fig.1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Please correct and provide a detailed description in the related caption.
• Please, avoid the use of different symbols (e.g., τ and σ, R² and r²,or GSET and GSE) and avoid the continuous introduction of new abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., SS or SR).
• Please, provide the units for amylose content (page 5, line 213).
• Please, add the caption to the first Table reported in page 6.
• The first table in page 6, Tables 1 a and b, should be summarized as a single Table (Table 1), as well as Tables 2a and 2b (Table 2) and for Tables 3a and 3b.
• Please provide the details about statistical analysis performed in all the Tables.
• Please type the symbol of seconds in lowercase throughout the manuscript.
• Discussion of results should be improved by comparison with the relevant literature.
• Please, consider revising Figure 2 a, b c, d in a more correct way, since they are containing to many figures inside and provide a detailed description in the caption.
• Table 4 contains some typing errors, please correct.
• Some data fitting in Table 4, reports low R² (e.g., 0.85, 0.88). Please, provide some comments on these results.
• Results of water holding capacity should be provided and accompanied by a proper statistical analysis to show if the reported differences among data are significant.
• Numerical results of thermal properties and syneresis are not reported in the dedicated sections. Please, provide detailed results of determined ΔH, Tp and T₀ and % of syneresis.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Physiochemical properties of enzymatically treated modified starch” represent an effort for the determination of some properties of chickpea, corn, Turkish bean, and sweet potato starch in the native, annealed, and annealed with enzyme treatment forms.

Albeit the topic is of interest, the presentation of the experimental results and discussion need to be improved.

Please, find below some suggestions.

• A deep editing of the text is needed to improve English and a revision of the manuscript is recommended. Typing errors (e.g., page 1, line 33) and missing text in sentences (e.g., page 4 line 175) are present throughout the manuscript.
• In the Introduction, the novelty of the work should be highlighted.
• The references in the text do not correspond to those in the reference list (e.g., page 5, line 208). Please, consider a deep revision.
• References in the text do not follow a correct order, passing, for instance, from [1] to [4] (references [2] and [3] are missing) in page 1 (lines 34-37).
• Some references reported in the text are missing in the reference list (e.g., [33] in page 2, line 79 or [34] in page 2 line 88).
• Reference list should be formatted according to the journal requirements and updated with more recent publications on the topic.
• Some publications in the reference list (e.g., reference 4) are hard to be found. Please check if the provided details are correct.
• Page 2, line 69: authors refer to a previous published paper. Please provide the proper reference.
• Page 2, lines 53-56: please, check the sentence and correct.
• Page 2, lines 79 and 88: please provide the correct references.
• Page 2, line 93: please provide the units for “2000”.
• Page 3, lines 112-114: please, check the sentence and correct.
• Figure 1 contains 4 figures, which should be numbered as Fig.1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Please correct and provide a detailed description in the related caption.
• Please, avoid the use of different symbols (e.g., τ and σ, R² and r²,or GSET and GSE) and avoid the continuous introduction of new abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., SS or SR).
• Please, provide the units for amylose content (page 5, line 213).
• Please, add the caption to the first Table reported in page 6.
• The first table in page 6, Tables 1a and b, should be summarized as a single Table (Table 1), as well as Tables 2a and 2b (Table 2) and for Tables 3a and 3b.
• Please provide the details about statistical analysis performed in all the Tables.
• Please type the symbol of seconds in lowercase throughout the manuscript.
• Discussion of results should be improved by comparison with the relevant literature.
• Please, consider revising Figure 2 a, b c, d in a more correct way, since they are containing to many figures inside and provide a detailed description in the caption.
• Table 4 contains some typing errors, please correct.
• Some data fitting in Table 4, reports low R²(e.g., 0.85, 0.88). Please, provide some comments on these results.
• Results of water holding capacity should be provided and accompanied by a proper statistical analysis to show if the reported differences among data are significant.
• Numerical results of thermal properties and syneresis are not reported in the dedicated sections. Please, provide detailed results of determined ΔH, Tp and T₀ and % of syneresis.

Response to the second reviewer:

All the above comments were addressed including the missing Tables.  These Tables were there form the beginning, but there were erased when the word file I sent was moved to the journal’s template  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my remmarks have been addressed satisfactory. 

Author Response

The first reviewer made no observations.

Reviewer 2 Report

• Several typing errors are still present in the whole manuscript, such as:

Page 1, line 12: please, correct ‘was fitted’with ‘were fitted’.

Table 1 a, b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b: please, replace t0 with τ0. It is recommended to use the same symbol for the same meaning throughout the manuscript. In the same Tables, please provide the units for all the parameters reported.

Table 2b: replace r2 with r²

Correct S^-1 to s^-1 in Figure 2a, b, c, d and type the symbol of seconds in lowercase throughout the manuscript

Correct in figure 2a caption ‘nativ’to ‘native’

In Fig.1 replace [P.a] with [Pa] and in Table 1a, b  and 4 [Pa.s] with [Pa ·s]

Table 5: in the caption replace otatostarch with potato starch.

• Germinated sorghum extract was indicated into the manuscript by different abbreviations: GSET (abstract), GSE in figure 1, figure 2, Table 5, GSETT in paragraph 3.2 and 3.4. Please correct using the same abbreviation or indicate if different meanings are related to different abbreviations.
• Paragraph 2.10: what is the meaning of GC and GZ?
• Check the references in the text, which should be reported in square brackets (e.g., line 524, pag 20)
• Please, avoid the use of different symbols (e.g., τ and σ, R² and r²,or GSET and GSE) and avoid the continuous introduction of new abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., SS or SR).
• In paragraph 3.2 authors mentioned that annealing and GSETT reduced the WHC of S.P.S.(PAG. 18, lines 475-476), while in the Table 5, statistical results showed that only the value obtained by GSETT for S.P.S. is significantly different from that of native S.P.S. Could the authors better clarify this aspect?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Several typing errors are still present in the whole manuscript, such as:

Page 1, line 12: please, correct ‘was fitted’with ‘were fitted’.

Correction was made

Table 1 a, b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b: please, replace t0 with τ0. It is recommended to use the same symbol for the same meaning throughout the manuscript. In the same Tables, please provide the units for all the parameters reported.

Table was corrected

Table 2b: replace r2 with r²

The r² was inserted

Correct S^-1 to s^-1 in Figure 2a, b, c, d and type the symbol of seconds in lowercase throughout the manuscript

Shear rate unit was corrected

Correct in figure 2a caption ‘nativ’to ‘native’

Was corrected

In Fig.1 replace [P.a] with [Pa] and in Table 1a, b  and 4 [Pa.s] with [Pa ·s]

Units were corrected

Table 5: in the caption replace otato starch with potato starch.

Potato starch was corrected

• Germinated sorghum extract was indicated into the manuscript by different abbreviations: GSET (abstract), GSE in figure 1, figure 2, Table 5, GSETT in paragraph 3.2 and 3.4. Please correct using the same abbreviation or indicate if different meanings are related to different abbreviations.
• GSET was used throughout instead of GSETT
•  
• Paragraph 2.10: what is the meaning of GC and GZ?
• Correction was made
• Check the references in the text, which should be reported in square brackets (e.g., line 524, pag 20)
• Reference are in []
• Please, avoid the use of different symbols (e.g., τ and σ, R² and r²,or GSET and GSE) and avoid the continuous introduction of new abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., SS or SR).
• Was done
• In paragraph 3.2 authors mentioned that annealing and GSETT reduced the WHC of S.P.S.(PAG. 18, lines 475-476), while in the Table 5, statistical results showed that only the value obtained by GSETT for S.P.S. is significantly different from that of native S.P.S. Could the authors better clarify this aspect?
• Comments on data in Table 5 was rewritten