Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensory Properties of Cookies Formulated with Canola Oil-Based Oleogels and Mesquite Flour

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript takes the substitution of oil gel for shortening and the substitution of soybean flour for wheat flour as bivariate to study the physicochemical, texture, sensory and storage stability of biscuits. The topic closely follows the current hot topic of "reducing saturated fat + functional ingredients" in the food industry and has good application value. In addition, this manuscript adopts a multivariate statistical framework of PCA+ heat map + trajectory analysis in terms of methodology, which is a relatively advanced analytical method in the field of biscuit research and also the most prominent feature of this manuscript.

But there are some problems which should be considered:

（1）For the data on lipid oxidation-related indicators in this manuscript, it is recommended to at least supplement the determination data such as PV (peroxide value) and TBARS (thiobarbiturate reactants), as these are the core indicators for evaluating the shortening of oil gel substitution.

（2）Since it has been confirmed that bitterness is the main sensory defect, it is suggested that possible bitterness reduction solutions be proposed in the discussion (such as enzyme treatment, Maillard reaction masking, and combination with high-sugar formulas, etc.).

（3）For Table 2, it is recommended to use a heatmap instead of a pure data table to present the changing trend of 24 d vs 48 d more intuitively.

（4）The current conclusion in the manuscript is "feasible". It is advisable to consider providing clear suggestions, such as "specific recommended recipes".

（5）Some references lack page numbers and other information.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your useful comments and observations. Please see the attachment. It is also important to note that the revised manuscript was polished by the English Center of the institution

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment

This manuscript investigates the use of canola oil-based oleogels and mesquite flour in cookie formulations and evaluates their influence on dough characteristics, physicochemical properties, storage stability, and sensory attributes. The topic is relevant because replacement of conventional shortening with healthier lipid systems and incorporation of alternative flours align with current trends in functional foods and reformulation strategies.

The manuscript demonstrates several strengths, including a multidisciplinary approach (physicochemical, sensory, multivariate statistics), inclusion of storage stability analysis, and attempts to interpret formulation behavior mechanistically. However, substantial methodological, statistical, interpretative, and presentation issues currently limit reproducibility and weaken some conclusions. Several statements are overinterpreted relative to the presented data, critical methodological details are missing, and inconsistencies exist between methods, results, figures, and discussion.

Therefore, I recommend Major Revision.

 

Major Comments

1. Insufficient experimental detail and reproducibility

The manuscript lacks sufficient detail for reproduction of the work.

Major missing information includes:

• Complete oleogel preparation conditions:

1. Myverol concentration (% w/w)
2. heating temperature
3. cooling conditions
4. cooling rate
5. gelation time
6. storage conditions before use

The manuscript only states: "Oleogels were prepared with canola oil and Myverol following Meirama (2025)." Since this appears to be unpublished or inaccessible work, sufficient experimental details must be provided directly.

2. Sensory methodology needs substantial revision

The sensory section raises important methodological concerns.

1. Hedonic acceptance should normally use consumers rather than trained assessors.
2. Focus groups are qualitative methods and are not equivalent to hedonic scoring.

Clarify: panel training procedures, number of sessions, panel calibration, reference standards and rationale for using trained panelists for acceptability

If consumer acceptance was not conducted, avoid broad claims regarding consumer preference.

3. Overinterpretation of PCA findings

Throughout the Results and Discussion sections, PCA loadings are interpreted as causal relationships.

4. TAG classification ("healthy" vs "less healthy") is scientifically problematic

The manuscript divides TAG species into:

• TAG healthy
• TAG less healthy

This classification is oversimplified. Health implications depend on: fatty acid distribution, position in TAG, total dietary context and dose.

Replace with: PUFA-rich TAGs, MUFA-rich TAGs and SFA-rich TAGs. Provide objective classification criteria.

5. Conclusions exceed presented evidence

The manuscript concludes: "oleogel substitution emerged as a highly effective strategy for improving lipid stability..."

However: oxidative stability was not directly measured, lipid oxidation indicators were absent (peroxide value, TBARS, volatile compounds). Limit conclusions to measured outcomes.

6. Storage design requires stronger justification. Cookies were vacuum packaged and stored at: 24 ± 2°C and 21 ± 3% RH

Why was 21% RH selected? Does this represent realistic commercial storage conditions? Why vacuum packaging for cookies?

Figure 1

The PCA biplot lacks: variable contribution percentages, confidence ellipses and clearer axis labels

Figure 2

The heatmap uses −log10 (p-values), but practical effect sizes are absent. Statistical significance alone does not indicate importance.

Table 1. Row: TO100. Oil migration: 32.30 ± 5.13 mg/cookie

These values are substantially higher than shortening formulations.

Was phase separation visually observed?  Were measurements validated?

Provide discussion on practical implications.

Table 2

Water activity increased from ~0.12–0.15 to ~0.21–0.22.

Moisture simultaneously increased from ~3–4% to ~13–17%.

These large moisture increases appear unusual for vacuum-packed cookies.

Was package permeability measured?  Were measurements repeated? Was moisture uptake due to storage conditions? Clarification is required.

Figure 6

Radar plots are visually attractive but statistically weak. Include: standard deviations, significance indicators and ANOVA results

Abstract

Lines 20–40

The abstract is overly dense and includes excessive statistical interpretation. Reduce  PCA details, emphasize key findings  and report practical implications

Introduction

Lines 71–80

Sentence: "...remains an underexplored in food science"=Grammar issue. Suggested revision: "...remains underexplored in food science."

Lines 83–89

The research gap is not sufficiently defined. What previous oleogel-cookie studies reported? What mesquite studies reported? What remains unknown?

Materials and Methods

Lines 107–115

Formulation design requires justification. Why was 25% mesquite selected? Why these oleogel replacement ratios?

Lines 120–121

Baking at 135°C for 20 minutes appears relatively low for cookies. Provide justification or references.

Lines 156–176

TAG methodology lacks: internal standards, calibration details, identification criteria and validation metrics.

Results

Line 229

Formatting error: "T3. Results and Discussion"=Should be corrected.

Lines 300–302

Moisture increases from approximately 3–4% to 13–17%. This requires stronger explanation because values appear unexpectedly large under vacuum storage.

Discussion

Lines 412–429

Claims regarding cardiovascular risk are too broad and exceed experimental evidence.

Lines 504–513

Duplicate paragraph detected. The same interpretation appears repeated. Remove redundancy.

Conclusions

Lines 594–603

Conclusions are stronger than the data support. Replace: "highly effective strategy" with: "promising formulation approach under the experimental conditions studied."

Minor Comments

• Correct typographical issues:

1. "Oelogel" → "Oleogel" = line 239.
2. "fromulations" → "formulations" =line 360.
3. duplicated editorial placeholders should be removed.
4. remove template text ("Academic Editor", dates, etc.)

• Standardize units:

1. mg/cookie
2. N·s
3. percentages

• Improve English editing throughout.
• Several hyphenation artifacts appear: "for-mulation" / "sep-aration" /"di-rected"

 

Final Recommendation

Decision: Major Revision

The study addresses a relevant topic and has potential value for the food science literature. However, major revisions are necessary to improve methodological transparency, statistical rigor, interpretation of results, and consistency across the manuscript can be considered.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. It is important to note that the new version of the manuscript was revised for language by the English Center of our institution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your manuscript entitled “Physicochemical, Textural, and Sensory Properties of Cookies Formulated with Canola Oil-Based Oleogels and Mesquite Flour” investigates the dough properties, baking behavior, compositional attributes, and 48-day storage stability of cookie formulations combining mesquite or wheat flour with varying proportions of shortening and monoglycerides-based oleogel. The study’s aim is innovative, relevant and valuable for the development of cookies reformulated with canola oil–based oleogels and mesquite flour as healthier alternatives to conventional shortening. In my opinion, the manuscript requires minor revisions.

 

The manuscript requires careful professional English editing and technical formatting revision. Multiple typographical, grammatical, formatting, and redundancy issues are present throughout the text and currently reduce readability and scientific clarity. Here are some examples.

 

 

Introduction

L72: “The increasing interest about nutritional diversification…”

Should be: “The increasing interest in nutritional diversification…”

L81: “remains an underexplored in food science” should be: “remains underexplored in food science”

 

Materials and Methods

L107–110: “Eight cookie formulations were developed using a factorial design…”

This sentence is very dense; consider splitting design description and ingredient proportions.

 

L113: “Oleogels were prepared with canola oil and Myverol™ following Meirama (2025).”

This citation is incomplete and doesn’t follow the guidelines (the others citations are numerical) (missing full reference clarity and reproducibility details).

 

Results

The manuscript alternates irregularly between present and past tense in Results and Discussion sections. Example:

• “showed”
•  “demonstrates”
•  “reflects”
•  “was associated”

within the same analytical paragraph.

 

L229: T3. Results and Discussion should be 3. Results and Discussion

L239: Figure 1 legend contains: “O = Oelogel”. Should be:“Oleogel”

 

Discussion

L505 and 510: The following statements appear twice almost identically:

“A triple interaction (Flour × Fat × Time) was identified as significant for Lightness L*…”

L590: “oleogels can replace conventional fats without compromising consumer preference”. This sentence is overstated; should be softened because differences in acceptability were observed.

 

Several sections repeatedly restate:

• mesquite has high fiber,
• oleogels reduce saturated fats,
• mesquite increases bitterness,
• moisture retention is linked to galactomannans.

The part could be substantially condensed.

 

Conclusions

L601–602: “absence of significant sensory differences…”

Not fully supported, since some sensory differences (bitterness, acceptability variation) were reported earlier.

 

References / Formatting

The reference list lacks consistency. Please ensure that author names, journal abbreviations, and citation styles strictly adhere to the journal's author guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires careful professional English editing and technical formatting revision. Multiple typographical, grammatical, formatting, and redundancy issues are present throughout the text and currently reduce readability and scientific clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. It is important to note that the new version of the manuscript was revised for language by the English Center of our institution.

 

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made careful revisions and improvements in accordance with the reviewers' comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript

Q1: The authors have made careful revisions and improvements in accordance with the reviewers' comments.

R1: Thank you very much for the helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).

Author Response

Comments by the reviewer

Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing).

Q: The revised manuscript was revised for text editing (with the help of the English Department of our Institution)and minor methodological errors