Characterization of Nano- and Microstructures of Native Potato Starch as Affected by Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review on manuscript: foods-3021104

Characterization of nano and microstructures of native potato starch through physical, chemical and biological treatments

by Antonieta Mojo-Quisani*, Katiuska Licona-Pacco, David Choque-Quispe, Calla Florez Miriam, Carlos A. Ligarda-Samanez, Augusto Pumacahua-Ramos, Víctor Justiniano Huamaní-Melendez

submitted to Foods

Research paper

This manuscript characterized the nano- and micro-structures of native potato starch through physical, chemical, and biological treatments. Overall, it had some merits and provided rich data. However, some modifications are still required to further improve the quality of this manuscript.

Detailed recommendation:

-Title: I think the "through" should be changed to "as affected by".

-Figure 1: I think this figure is unnecessary and can be removed from the main context.

-Statistical Analysis: too brief. How many replicates for each experiment? (n=?) How did the authors make/draw the Tables/Figures? the ANOVA was performed by which software? Add the information.

-Tables: the "Ⴟ±DS *" can be removed.

-Figures 1-4 &11: the standarde deviations were missing, which were usually marked as error bars.

-Conclusions: too brief.

-References: the number of cited references were too large. Normally <50 references are appropriate. Stronly suggest to remove the unnecessary and early-published peer-reviewed papers.

-Englishih language is good enough and I think only minor revisons are required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Englishih language is good enough and I think only minor revisons are required.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

The authors appreciate the reviewer's recommendations and observations to improve the manuscript.

Detailed recommendation:

1. Title: I think the "through" should be changed to "as affected by".

The change has been made

2. Figure 1: I think this figure is unnecessary and can be removed from the main context.

The change has been made

3. Statistical Analysis: too brief. How many replicates for each experiment? (n=?) How did the authors make/draw the Tables/Figures? the ANOVA was performed by which software? Add the information.

Added requested information L: 256-259

4. Tables: the "Ⴟ±DS *" can be removed.

The abbreviations were corrected, being replaced. 

5. Figures 1-4 &11: the standarde deviations were missing, which were usually marked as error bars.

The factor interaction graphs are represented through the average values

6. Conclusions: too brief.

Conclusion expanded L: 556-580

7. References: the number of cited references were too large. Normally <50 references are appropriate. Stronly suggest to remove the unnecessary and early-published peer-reviewed papers.

The suggestion has been taken into account, it has been reduced from 84 to 57 bibliographic review sources

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, entitled "Characterization of nano and microstructures of native potato starch through physical, chemical and biological treatments," deals with the modification of starch to give it new applications. The authors subjected four varieties of native potato starch to modification by acid treatment, enzymatic treatment and ethanol precipitation, and then analysed their physicochemical, structural, thermal and technical-functional properties. These innovative materials (nano- and microcrystals of starch) are attracting increasing attention due to their potential to enhance product quality and performance in a range of industries.

The authors conducted a series of tests on the modified starches obtained, presenting the results in a clear and concise manner. They compared the outcomes with existing literature data. Nevertheless, I would like to make a number of substantial and editorial comments.

In terms of substance, the following points require further attention:

·         In their enumeration of the known methods for the production of nano- and microstructures, the authors omitted certain methods that are known to exist, such as: Gamma radiation, alkaline treatment, high-pressure homogenisation, and so forth.

·         It is, however, unclear what the sentence is attempting to convey. It states that a commonly used method to obtain nanostarch with high crystallinity and stability is acid hydrolysis. This process is often performed with ultrasound, nanoprecipitation, ball milling and crosslinking. It is unclear whether the cross-linking process can be used to obtain nano- or microstructures of starch.

·         In the context of discussing particle size using DLS, it is necessary to consider the limitations of this approach. What is the reliability of the results obtained by DLS?

·         With regard to the chapter on materials and methods, I have no comments to offer. However, I believe it would be beneficial to provide information on the characteristics of the different starches. Furthermore, a detailed description of the preparation of the SEM samples, including the method of sputtering, would be useful. Finally, it would be helpful to know which software was used for statistical calculations.

·         In the Results and Discussions section, the passage from line 283 to 290 is somewhat disorganized, with sentences that appear to be out of place. The text should be reworded.

·         Table 2: What does the abbreviation 'aw' signify in the accompanying description? It would be preferable to indicate the letters denoting statistical differences as superscripts adjacent to the corresponding figures. The current format of the table renders it challenging to read.

·         In lines 487–489, it is stated that the FT-IR spectra of native and modified native potato starches are illustrated in Figure 10. It is observed that the shape of the spectra of the native starch samples and the modified starches are similar, but that there are noticeable changes in the intensity of the bands. In my estimation, there are considerable variations in the intensity of the bands observed in the spectra.

·         It is recommended that the text be expanded and the conclusions reworded.

Editorial:

·         It is recommended that citations be corrected. For example, in line 63, the reference [21],[22] should be changed to [21, 22], and in line 74, the references [25], [26], [27], [28], and [29] should be changed to [25-29].

·         It is recommended that the numbering of the tables be checked. This renders the text unreadable. Table 1 is referenced on several occasions, yet I was unable to locate Table 4. The same is true of the numbering of the figures. It is unclear where figure 12 is located.

·         It would be beneficial to harmonise the use of abbreviations, for instance, FTIR should be consistently written as FT-IR. In the explanation of the abbreviation FTIR (line 238), it is stated that the correct term is "Fourier transform IR spectroscopy," rather than "Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy."

·         It is recommended that the title of Chapter 3.7 be translated. Furthermore, it is suggested that the description of Figure 10 be expanded. Otherwise, the designations a, b, c and d will be meaningless.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The authors appreciate the reviewer's recommendations and observations to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

General, all devices and substances used require a type, producer, city, country.

L. 17: replace „new“ by „improved“. Starch is already widely used.

L. 31-32: Be more specific.

L. 39: Questionable. Starch was already heavily research in the last 50 yrs. Much is known already.

L. 50: What properties?

L. 35-95: Add information about amylopectin and amylose, and also about the crystallinity of starches.

L. 98-100: It is not clear why different varieties were tested. Add some information before how varieties can differ in their composition.

Eq. 1: Use a “·” instead of “*”.

 

L. 187-189: What are the times? Are these long enough? Can these have an influence?

L. 250-278: This part could be shifted to the supplementary material. It does not bring value to this manuscript. Besides, the reasons for the color difference are not investigated.

Table 2: Compare amylose and amylopectin content with published values of other studies.

L. 300-314: The aw-value is not so important, more relevant is the water vapor sorption isotherm. Shorten this part or shift it the supplementary files. aw-values an easily be reduced by drying.

L. 336-337: Unclear.

Table 2: Typo “Enzimatic”

L. 532: There is typo.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The authors appreciate the reviewer's recommendations and observations to improve the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant changes and addressed the comments. Chapter 3.7 'Análisis de Estabilidad Térmica por DSC' remains untranslated.

I believe that the work is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Item 3.7 has been translated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf