Technological Properties and Quality Characteristics of Non-Gluten Biscuits Based on Sorghum Flour and Enriched with Sesame and Moringa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 94: The text refers to butter, whereas Table 1 uses the term margarine. The nomenclature of raw materials should be unified throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency. A similar inconsistency concerns the term salt. Please ensure the consistent use of one precise and clearly defined name both in the main text and in the tables.

I suggest merging Sections 2.2 and 2.3 into a single subsection entitled “Formulation and making biscuits.” The current division appears artificial, as both sections directly concern recipe development and the preparation and baking of the biscuits. Their integration would improve methodological coherence and the clarity of the “Materials and Methods” section.

Please clarify why millet flour and powdered sugar were not included in the formulation presented in Table 1.

In Section 2.3, please add information regarding the type of mixer used, its manufacturer and country of origin, as well as the mixing speed (rpm). Please also provide details about the type of oven used for baking the biscuits.

Line 116: To improve clarity and logical structure, the current Section 2.5 should be divided into two separate subsections:

• 5. Determination of the physical characteristics of biscuits
• 6. Determination of the technological characteristics of biscuits

Such reorganization will enhance the clarity of the methodology and facilitate the clear assignment of analyses to specific categories of parameters.

Line 166: I suggest changing the title to “Chemical composition of the biscuit samples.”

Line 167: Please correct fatancrude to fat and crude.

Point 3.1: This section describes dough parameters; however, the “Materials and Methods” section does not provide information on how these parameters were determined. The methodology of measurement, the equipment used, analytical conditions, and the number of replicates are not specified. To ensure consistency and scientific rigor, the methodological section should be supplemented with a detailed description of the procedures used to determine the dough parameters.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2, I suggest removing the standard deviation values in places where specific numerical data from the tables are cited. Repeating the full notation (mean ± SD) in the text, while also presenting it in the tables, is redundant and reduces readability. In the text, it is sufficient to provide mean values with reference to the appropriate table, while detailed data (± SD) should remain in the tables.

Lines 299–305: The description of textural parameters is overly general and purely qualitative. The authors indicate only the presence or absence of statistically significant differences without providing numerical values or ranges of variability. There is also no reference to the specific data presented in Table 2. To enhance the scientific value of the manuscript, this section should be supplemented with detailed quantitative data and a clear indication of which formulations differed significantly.

Figure 1: The figure should be supplemented with clear identification of the biscuit samples. In its current form, the lack of labels (e.g., F0–F9) makes it impossible to assign individual photographs to specific formulations. For clarity and consistency, distinct labels should be added directly to the figure.

Lines 332–337: In this fragment, the authors explain the influence of sorghum flour, moringa, and sesame on biscuit texture and dimensions; however, these statements are not supported by scientific literature. Appropriate references should be added to substantiate the described relationships. The absence of citations weakens the scientific value of the interpretation.

Lines 338–339: The conclusions are too general and merely describe extreme values. The authors should refer to the statistical analysis results and clearly indicate whether differences between samples were statistically significant (p < 0.05).

The descriptions in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 require substantial revision. The presented characterization of the analyzed parameters is too general and descriptive. The authors do not refer to specific numerical values shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, which hinders proper interpretation of the results. To improve clarity and scientific value, the text should be supplemented with quantitative data (e.g., mean values) and a clear indication of relationships and differences between the tested samples.

Point 3.4: Please verify the correctness and consistency of the unit notation cm⁻¹, as it is written inconsistently in the text.

Line 471: Please correct biscuitsformulations to biscuits formulation.

Line 488: Please remove “2022.”

Lines 490–491: Please change Kcal to kcal.

Line 513: Instead of extracts[44]. it should read extracts [44].

Figure 7: Please explain why results are presented only for selected biscuit samples.

The reference list should be adjusted to comply with the journal’s guidelines. For example, journal names should be written in abbreviated form, and a space should be inserted after the journal title before the year of publication.

 

Author Response

17 March 2026

Dear Referee,  

 

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the valuable suggestions. We hope that all the reviewer’s comments have been adequately addressed.

The present version of the paper has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestions.          

We uploaded the corrected version of the article for which we used the yellow color for the addition text.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions. These remarks have helped us improve the clarity, coherence, and scientific quality of the article. All comments have been carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly (yellow color). Detailed responses to each comment are provided below

Line 94: The text refers to butter, whereas Table 1 uses the term margarine. The nomenclature of raw materials should be unified throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency. A similar inconsistency concerns the term salt. Please ensure the consistent use of one precise and clearly defined name in both the main text and the tables.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The nomenclature of raw materials has been harmonized throughout the manuscript. The term “margarine” is now used consistently in both the main text and Table 1. Similarly, the designation of salt has been standardized to ensure consistency between the text and the tables.

I suggest merging Sections 2.2 and 2.3 into a single subsection entitled “Formulation and production of biscuits”. The current division seems artificial, as both sections directly concern recipe development as well as the preparation and baking of the biscuits. Their integration would improve methodological coherence and the clarity of the “Materials and Methods” section.
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. Accordingly, Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have been merged into a single subsection entitled “Formulation and production of biscuits”. This modification improves the methodological coherence and enhances the clarity of the “Materials and Methods” section.

Please clarify why millet flour and powdered sugar were not included in the formulation presented in Table 1.
Response: Sorghum flour and powdered sugar were used as common base ingredients in all formulations. Millet flour was mentioned inadvertently and has been corrected. This clarification has been added to Table 1 to avoid any ambiguity.

In Section 2.3, please add information regarding the type of mixer used, its manufacturer and country of origin, as well as the mixing speed (rpm). Also provide details on the type of oven used for baking the biscuits.
Response: Additional information regarding the type of mixer used, its manufacturer, its country of origin, and the mixing speed (rpm) has been added to the corresponding section (lines 106–110). Furthermore, details concerning the type of oven used for baking the biscuits have been included in the revised manuscript.

Line 116: To improve clarity and logical structure, the current Section 2.5 should be divided into two distinct subsections: Determination of the physical characteristics of biscuits and Determination of the technological characteristics of biscuits. Such reorganization will strengthen the clarity of the methodology and allow the analyses to be clearly assigned to specific categories of parameters.
Response: In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, Section 2.5 has been reorganized and subdivided into two distinct subsections: (2.3) Determination of the physical characteristics of biscuits and (2.4) Determination of the technological characteristics of biscuits. This restructuring improves methodological clarity and better categorizes the different analyses.

Line 166: I suggest changing the title to “Chemical composition of biscuit samples.”
Response: The title has been modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion (line 187) and now reads “Chemical composition of biscuit samples”.

Line 167: Please correct fatancrude to fat and crude.
Response: The typographical error “fatancrude” has been corrected to “fat and crude” at line 188.

Point 3.1: This section describes dough parameters; however, the “Materials and Methods” section does not provide information on how these parameters were determined. The measurement methodology, equipment used, analytical conditions, and number of repetitions are not specified. To ensure consistency and scientific rigor, the methodological section should be completed with a detailed description of the procedures used to determine the dough parameters.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this important remark. The “Materials and Methods” section has been expanded to include a detailed description of the procedures used to determine the dough parameters, including the measurement methodology, equipment used, analytical conditions, and the number of experimental repetitions (lines 117–120).

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2, I suggest removing the standard deviation values in passages where specific data from tables are cited. Repeating the full notation (mean ± standard deviation) in the text when it already appears in the tables is redundant and reduces readability. In the text, it is sufficient to provide the mean values with a reference to the appropriate table, while detailed data (± SD) remain in the tables.
Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion, standard deviation values have been removed from the text in sections where table data are cited. The text now presents only the mean values along with references to the corresponding tables, while the complete values (mean ± standard deviation) remain presented in the tables.

Lines 299–305: The description of texture parameters is too general and purely qualitative. The authors only indicate the presence or absence of statistically significant differences without providing numerical values or ranges of variation. There is also no reference to the specific data presented in Table 2. To strengthen the scientific value of the manuscript, this section should be supplemented with detailed quantitative data and a clear indication of which formulations show significant differences.
Response: This section has been revised and supplemented with quantitative data extracted from Table 2 (lines 320–351). Numerical values and statistically significant differences among formulations are now explicitly reported to improve the scientific rigor of the interpretation.

Figure 1: The figure should include a clear identification of the biscuit samples. In its current form, the absence of labels (e.g., F0–F9) prevents the association of individual photographs with specific formulations. For clarity and consistency, distinct labels should be added directly to the figure.
Response: Figure 1 has been revised to include clear identification labels for biscuit samples (F0–F9), allowing each photograph to be directly associated with its corresponding formulation.

Lines 332–337: In this passage, the authors explain the influence of sorghum flour, moringa, and sesame on biscuit texture and dimensions; however, these statements are not supported by scientific literature. Appropriate references must be added to support the described relationships. The absence of citations weakens the scientific value of the interpretation.
Response: Appropriate scientific references have been added to support the discussion regarding the influence of sorghum flour, moringa, and sesame on biscuit texture and dimensions (lines 379–402).

Lines 338–339: The conclusions are too general and only describe extreme values. The authors should refer to the results of the statistical analysis and clearly indicate whether the differences between samples were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Response: This section has been revised to explicitly refer to the statistical analysis results and to clearly indicate statistically significant differences among the samples (p < 0.05) (lines 403–408).

The descriptions in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 require substantial revision. The characterization of the analyzed parameters is too general and descriptive. The authors do not refer to the specific numerical values presented in Table 4 and Figure 2, which prevents a proper interpretation of the results. To improve clarity and scientific value, the text should be supplemented with quantitative data (e.g., mean values) and a clear indication of the relationships and differences among the tested samples.
Response: Sections 3.2 and 3.3 have been substantially revised. The text now includes quantitative data (mean values) and explicit references to the results presented in Table 4 and Figure 2, allowing a clearer interpretation of the differences among the tested samples.

Point 3.4: Please verify the accuracy and consistency of the notation of the unit cm⁻¹, which is written inconsistently in the text.
Response: The notation of the unit cm⁻¹ has been verified and standardized throughout the manuscript.

Line 471: Please correct biscuitsformulations to biscuits formulation.
Response: The typographical error “biscuitsformulations” has been corrected to “biscuits formulation”.

Line 488: Please remove “2022.”
Response: The element “2022.” has been removed according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

Lines 490–491: Please change Kcal to kcal.
Response: The energy unit has been corrected from “Kcal” to “kcal” to comply with standard scientific notation.

Line 513: Instead of extracts[44]., it should be written extracts [44].
Response: The reference formatting has been corrected and now appears as “extracts [44]”.

Figure 7: Please explain why the results are presented only for some biscuit samples.
Response: An explanation has been added in the text (Section 2.8) clarifying why the results are presented only for selected biscuit samples.

The reference list must be adjusted to comply with the journal guidelines. For example, journal names should be written in abbreviated form, and a space should be inserted after the journal title before the year of publication.
Response: The reference list has been revised to fully comply with the journal guidelines, including the abbreviation of journal names and the insertion of appropriate spacing after journal titles before the publication year.

Sincerely,

Codina Georgiana et al

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study developed ten biscuit formulations based on sorghum flour with added sesame and moringa leaf powder, systematically evaluating their nutritional, physicochemical, rheological, textural, and sensory characteristics. The study design was well-structured, employing comprehensive methodologies with detailed data. The findings offer valuable insights for developing gluten-free functional cookies, particularly in exploring the application of moringa leaf powder in biscuit formulations. However, the paper requires further refinement in certain aspects, including data processing, interpretation of results, figure annotations, and language expression.

(1) In the experimental design, why is “millet flour” mentioned in the Methods section (Section 2.3), while “sorghum flour” appears in the Materials and Tables? Is this a typographical error? Please clarify.

(2) In Section 2.5.3, the description of the biscuit “fracturability” testing method is unclear. Was the three-point bending method employed? Please specify whether the probe type, span length, and testing speed are suitable for biscuit samples.

(3) Section 3.2 states that “F1, F8, and F9 exhibit more pronounced greenness,” yet Table 3 shows F1's a* value as -0.04±0.09, F8 as -0.37±0.67, and F9 as -0.97±0.24. Do these data support this description? Please verify.

(4) In Section 3.3, the legends and captions for Figures 2 and 3 are unclear. Specifically, what do A and B represent in Figure 3? It is recommended to redraw the figures and provide explicit annotations.

(5) In Section 3.7, the protein digestibility results state “Sample F6 showed the highest value, followed by F7, F6, and F2.” The repetition of F6 appears to be a typographical error. Please correct this.

(6) Figure 5's vertical axis is labeled “Digestibility (%)” while the figure caption states “Protein digestibility.” We recommend standardizing the terminology across both Chinese and English versions and verifying unit consistency.

(7) In Section 3.8, the sensory evaluation results in Figure 7 lack statistical significance letters. We recommend adding significance annotations to help readers clearly understand differences between formulations.

(8) Many data points in the tables show standard deviations exceeding 10%. Please carefully review these values.

Author Response

17 March 2026

Dear Referee,  

 

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the valuable suggestions. We hope that all the reviewer’s comments have been adequately addressed.

The present version of the paper has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestions.          

We uploaded the corrected version of the article for which we used the yellow  color for the addition text.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions. These valuable remarks have helped us to improve the clarity, quality, and scientific rigor of the manuscript. All the comments have been carefully considered and the manuscript has been revised accordingly (geen color). Our detailed responses to each comment are provided below

This study developed ten biscuit formulations based on sorghum flour with the addition of sesame seed powder and moringa leaf powder, systematically evaluating their nutritional, physicochemical, rheological, textural, and sensory characteristics. The study design is well structured, using comprehensive methodologies and detailed data. The results provide valuable insights for the development of gluten-free functional biscuits, particularly regarding the application of moringa leaf powder in biscuit formulations. However, the manuscript requires further refinement in certain aspects, including data processing, interpretation of results, figure annotation, and linguistic expression.

(1) In the experimental design, why is “millet flour” mentioned in the Methods section (Section 2.3), whereas “sorghum flour” appears in the materials and tables? Is this a typographical error? Please clarify.
Response: You are correct; this was a typographical error. The flour used in all formulations is sorghum flour. The mention of “millet” in Section 2.3 has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

(2) In Section 2.5.3, the description of the method used to test biscuit “fracturability” is unclear. Was the three-point bending method used? Please clarify whether the probe type, span length, and test speed are appropriate for biscuits.
Response: The description of the test method has been clarified. Biscuit fracturability was evaluated using the three-point bending method, with a flat probe, a span length of 30 mm, and a test speed of 1 mm/s, which is appropriate for crispy-type biscuits (lines 146–162).

(3) Section 3.2 states that “F1, F8 and F9 show a more pronounced greenness,” whereas Table 3 shows that the a value of F1 is −0.04 ± 0.09, F8 is −0.37 ± 0.67, and F9 is −0.97 ± 0.24. Do these data support this description? Please verify.*
Response: We re-examined the data and observed that F1 presents an a value close to zero (−0.04), indicating weak greenness, whereas F8 and F9 present more negative values (−0.37 and −0.97), indicating a greener color. The sentence has been corrected to specify that F8 and F9 exhibit more pronounced greenness than F1.*

(4) In Section 3.3, the legends and titles of Figures 2 and 3 are unclear. Specifically, what do A and B represent in Figure 3? It is recommended to redraw the figures and provide explicit annotations.
Response: The figures have been redrawn with explicit annotations. In Figure 3, A and B represent the image of the biscuit before baking and after baking, respectively. The figure captions have been clarified in the revised manuscript.

(5) In Section 3.7, the results of protein digestibility indicate: “Sample F6 showed the highest value, followed by F7, F6 and F2.” The repetition of F6 appears to be a typographical error. Please correct it.
Response: The repetition of F6 was indeed a typographical error. The correct sequence is: F6 > F7 > F2 > F1. This correction has been made in both the text and Figure 5.

(6) The vertical axis of Figure 5 is labeled “Digestibility (%)”, whereas the caption indicates “Protein digestibility”. It is recommended to standardize the terminology in the Chinese and English versions and verify the consistency of the units.
Response: The vertical axis of Figure 5 has been renamed “Protein digestibility (%)” to ensure consistency between the axis and the caption, as well as between the Chinese and English versions of the manuscript.

(7) In Section 3.8, the sensory evaluation results in Figure 7 do not include letters indicating statistical significance. It is recommended to add these annotations so that readers can clearly understand the differences between the formulations.
Response: Letters indicating statistical significance (a, b, c…) have been added to the bars of the graphs to clarify the significant differences between the formulations for each sensory attribute.

(8) Many data points in the tables present standard deviations greater than 10%. Please carefully examine these values.
Response: All tables were carefully rechecked, and some values with standard deviations exceeding 10% were corrected to ensure that the data accurately reflect the experimental measurements. The table notes now indicate exact standard deviations consistent with the experimental repetitions.

 

Sincerely,

Codina Georgiana et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been changed according to my suggestions. Please take the following changes into account:

In Table 2, the values of individual parameters should be standardized to two decimal places.

Please write the unit cm-1 contained in lines 530-532 with an upper index, i.e. cm^-1

Line 557 delete comma before [57]

Author Response

19 March 2026

The article has been changed according to my suggestions. Please take the following changes into account:

Response: We want to thank the referee for his/her suggestions are close reading of our manuscript.

In Table 2, the values of individual parameters should be standardized to two decimal places.

Response: We corrected.

Please write the unit cm-1 contained in lines 530-532 with an upper index, i.e. cm^-1

Response: We corrected.

Line 557 delete comma before [57]

Response: We corrected.

 

Sincerely,

Codina et al.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No.

Author Response

We want to thank to the refere for it appreciations.