Synergetic Effects of Coffea liberica and Curcuma zanthorrhiza: Study of Sensory Profile, Proximate, and Chemical Compound
and Sutrisno Sutrisno 1,3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
In general, the manuscript is easy to read, the structure of the work is clear, however, presentation of most results in tables 7, 8, and 9 are ambiguous. After reading the paper, it is clear that the authors performed experiments on two species of Coffea Liberica bean and Curcuma zanthorrhiza rhizome in order to obtain a coffee rich in more phenolic substances to have high level supplementation and excellent properties of coffee beverage.
It is well known, that Coffea liberica, commonly known as the Liberian coffee, is a species from which coffee bean is produced. It is native to western and central Africa, and has become naturalized in areas including South America and Asia. At the end of the 19th century, C. liberica was also brought to Indonesia to replace the Arabica trees killed by the coffee rust disease.
Coffea liberica beans with a unique shape that resembles a teardrop are larger than other well-known beans of Arabica and Canephora. It is the reason that beans take to experiments were on screen 20, largest screen used in separation of coffee bean. They have a distinct aroma, with a floral and fruity scent that is often described as similar to jackfruit.
Due to its rarity and limited supply on a global level, the cost of regular liberica beans is on the higher end, with premium liberica beans carrying a heavier price tag. The caffeine concentration of Liberica beans is the lowest in comparison to the Arabica and Canephora beans. On the other hand authors used Curcuma zanthorrhiza, as plant containing more phenolic compounds.
Liberica is promising species to produce beverage from coffee bean of low caffeine content containing more health promoting properties, that it is the reason, that I recommended to publish the paper, however found my comments below:
As I said before, the presentation of most results in tables are not readable. You should present compound name and its molecular formula, and then listed all peaks you noticed (time and area in %), that the tables will be smaller and easy to found important peaks. In my opinion, each peak is noticed for one compound, that you must decided what compound is in peak according to the GCMS library. For example, in table 9 the compound C39H74O6 is noticed in peaks no: 1-19, 21, 22, 27, and 28 as primary, and in others as secondary. You should decided what peak representing this compound or show percentage area of each found compound.
Line 92 – The material used in study is not Coffea liberica, but Coffea liberica bean.
Line 111 – The temperature 203oC you used at roasting is to low and too long-term time. These condition can caused “baked bean”, what it is one of roasting defect. See the paper: "How to identify roast defects in coffee beans based on the volatile compound profile".
Line 114 – The temperature 60oC for 25 to 30 minutes you used at drying Curcuma zanthorrhiza rhizome is not sufficient to obtain dry matter. The best method of drying independent to time necessary is drying to stable mass.
Lines 278-289 – Subchapter 3.1. Sensory Profile. This paragraph is described in Chapter Materials and Methods. It should be erased or remove to subchapter 2.3 Sensory Profile. On the other hand, there are any description of sensory results obtained by 3
Lines 367-369 – Table 2 – There are results of absorbance measuring in 2 repetitions. The results are a little bit higher than calculated from equation of percentage proportion of participation 1-99 or 3-97 or 5to95% of Liberica bean and Curcuma rhizome. Is this method (absorbance) accurate? Similar results are in Table 4 and Table5.
Lines 537-591 – Discussion. You should discuss results to other papers concerning on bioactive and aroma compounds. See: “Effect of the roasting level on the content of bioactive and aromatic compounds in Arabica coffee beans”. It is also necessary to discus results with paper cited concerning on phenolic acids and antioxidant compounds.
Lines 353-522 - References – there are too many number of literature cited, and some of them are not necessary e.g.: 2, 15, 24, 31. On the other hand you missed some papers concerning on roasting coffee from different region "Detection and differentiation of volatile compound profiles in roasted coffee arabica beans from different countries using an electronic nose and GC-MS" or "Discrimination of filter coffee extraction methods of a medium roasted specialty coffee based on volatile profiles and sensorial traits" or coffee roasting defects at different roasting level: "How to identify roast defects in coffee beans based on the volatile compound profile" or "Impact of coffee bean roasting on the content of pyridines determined by analysis of volatile organic compounds", where are discussed the influence of roasting level on properties of coffee bean.
The paper should be improve, however, should be published because the information found in this study is significant to coffee marked and trade, and the Liberica is promising species to produce beverage from coffee bean of low caffeine content containing more health promoting properties wanted and expected coffee.
I recommend it to be published in corrected form after major revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSligtle correction is needed. Eg. Material is coffe bean, not species coffea liberica.
Author Response
Comments 1: Line-92: The material used in study is not Coffea liberica, but Coffea liberica bean.
Response: it has been changed
Comments 2: Line 111 – The temperature 203oC you used at roasting is to low and too long-term time. Thesecondition can caused “baked bean”, what it is one of roasting defect. See the paper: "How to identify roast defects in coffee beans based on the volatile compound profile".
Response 2: Roasting can be performed through several approaches, with one reference being the Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa Research Institute. We conducted medium roasting (203°C for 12 minutes). We have already made revision.
Comments 3: Line 114 – The temperature 60oC for 25 to 30 minutes you used at drying Curcuma zanthorrhiza rhizome is not sufficient to obtain dry matter. The best method of drying independent to time necessary is drying to stable mass.
Response 3: Drying was done on Curcuma pieces and is done using an oven.
Comments 4: lInes 278-289 – Subchapter 3.1. Sensory Profile. This paragraph is described in Chapter Materials and Methods. It should be erased or remove to subchapter 2.3 Sensory Profile. On the other hand, there are any description of sensory results obtained by 3
Response 4: It has been changed
Comments 5: Lines 367-369 – Table 2 – There are results of absorbance measuring in 2 repetitions. The results are a little bit higher than calculated from equation of percentage proportion of participation 1-99 or 3-97 or 5to95% of Liberica bean and Curcuma rhizome. Is this method (absorbance) accurate? Similar results are in Table 4 and Table5
Response 5: Supposed to be Yes,
The addition of more C. zanthorrhiza increases phenolic and flavonoid levels.
In contrast, caffeine and chlorogenic acid, which are absent in C. zanthorrhiza, decrease.
Antioxidant activity increases along with the addition of C. zanthorrhiza.
Comment 6: Lines 537-591 – Discussion. You should discuss results to other papers concerning on bioactive and aroma compounds. See: “Effect of the roasting level on the content of bioactive and aromatic compounds in Arabica coffee beans”. It is also necessary to discuss results with paper cited concerning on phenolic acids and antioxidant compounds.
Response 6: Yes, we refer to papers related to synergetics such as: Coffee enriched with willow (Salix purpurea and Salix myrsinifolia) bark preparation – Interactions of antioxidative phytochemicals in a model system.
We have also tried to reference the paper you suggested
Comments 7: Lines 353-522 - References – there are too many number of literature cited, and some of them are not necessary e.g.: 2, 15, 24, 31. On the other hand you missed some papers concerning on roasting coffee from different region "Detection and differentiation of volatile compound profiles in roasted coffee arabica beans from different countries using an electronic nose and GC-MS" or "Discrimination of filter coffee extraction methods of a medium roasted specialty coffee based on volatile profiles and sensorial traits" or coffee roasting defects at different roasting level: "How to identify roast defects in coffee beans based on the volatile compound profile" or "Impact of coffee bean roasting on the content of pyridines determined by analysis of volatile organic compounds", where are discussed the influence of roasting level on properties of coffee bean.
Response: It has been changed
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting study presenting synergetic effects of coffea liberica and curcuma zanthorrhiza, increasing the beverage functionality.
However, some shortcomings should be clarified. The comments are listed as follows:
- The summary is extremely general and too long
- L79-you mean toxins not diseases ((which are removed from the bogy)
- L120-121: it is not clear what you wanted to say. Please revise
- In the sensorial part is missing: how many panelists were included, whether they were educated panelists or not; what is their average age, gender, are there any other specifics
- standardize writing in equations and their explanations (e.g. in equation 5 use INB, and in the explanation of parameters INb, DF vs d.f, etc.)
- equation 7 - how do you mean weight of fat? How did you determine it?
- Also, instead of "weight" should be used the term "mass"
- Under table 2 is stated "CB= C. zanthorriza", but this is not presented in the table.
- Table 2 - the final score is presented as mean and its SD, but this should be added in the table - it is not appropriate to state below the table that SD is shown, and it is not known where
- Table 3 - it seams that instead of SD is presented SE (it is unusual that the same values are for different samples)
- L501- it is Table 6 not 61, and the title "Proximate Analysis" is not acceptable - it is the basic phisical-chemical analysis
- Table 9: is it a cross-section for all combinations of coffee and spices or only one of them (if yes, which one)
Sincerely
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageParts of the text are not clear, so it is difficult to give an objective assessment of the entire article.
Author Response
Comments 1: The summary is extremely general and too long
Response 1: It has been revised
Comments 2: L79-you mean toxins not diseases ((which are removed from the bogy)
Response 2: It has been revised
Comments 3: L120-121: it is not clear what you wanted to say. Please revise
Response 3: It has been revised
Comments 4: In the sensorial part is missing: how many panelists were included, whether they were educated panelists or not; what is their average age, gender, are there any other specifics.
Response 4: It has been revised
Comments 5: standardize writing in equations and their explanations (e.g. in equation 5 use INB, and in the explanation of parameters INb, DF vs d.f, etc.)
Response 5: It has been revised
Comments 6: equation 7 - how do you mean weight of fat? How did you determine it?
Response 6:
Steps to Calculate % Fat
- Weigh the Initial Sample: Measure the weight of the food sample before extraction).
- Extract the Fat: Use a Soxhlet apparatus with an appropriate solvent (e.g., hexane or ether) to extract fat from the sample.
- Evaporate the Solvent: After the extraction, evaporate the solvent, leaving only the extracted fat.
- Weigh the Extracted Fat: Measure the weight of the extracted fat
Comment 7: Also, instead of "weight" should be used the term "mass"
Response 7: It has been revised
Comment 8: Under table 2 is stated "CB= C. zanthorriza", but this is not presented in the table
Response 8: It has been deleted, Since C. zanthorizza was not tested.
Comment 9: Table 2 - the final score is presented as mean and its SD, but this should be added in the table - it is not appropriate to state below the table that SD is shown, and it is not known where
Response 9: It has been revised
Comment 10: L501- it is Table 6 not 61, and the title "Proximate Analysis" is not acceptable - it is the basic phisical-chemical analysis
Response 10: It has been revised
Comment 11: Table 9: is it a cross-section for all combinations of coffee and spices or only one of them (if yes, which one)
Response 11: GC-MS combination for CH3 (It has been stated in manuscript)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study was conducted in order to evaluate sensory profile, total phenols, flavonoids, caffeine and chlorogenic acids content, antioxidant activity, and chemical composition of the Coffee liberica with addition of Curcuma zanthorrhiza. Appropriate methods for analysis have been selected in the article, the topic is interesting from the aspect of practical application, however, a significant number of shortcomings have been detected in the article, which should be processed in detail:
1. The abstract is too long, it should be shortened and only the most important aspects of the article should be highlighted.
2. Sentences and information are repeated in the article (eg line 45 - said in the previous sentence; line 339-340 - already stated in the methods, etc.). Address this throughout the whole article.
3. Limitations of the study are not stated.
4. Authors should give more information about the coffee and spice samples themselves. Are they commercially acquired or grown for research purposes?
5. Why is text from 126 to 129 line colored?
6. Are the panelist trained? Authors should add this information in the Materials and Methods section.
7. Authors should provide references that confirm information stated in lines 299-303.
8. In the results, there are a lot of statements that do not refer to the results but to the methods (eg lines 311-314). Similar statements should be removed from the article.
9. The calibration curves are an integral part of the methods, not the discussion of the results. Also, the test in lines 33-349 should be part of the method, not the discussion. Authors should correct the article according to this recommendation.
10. What means .. in line 336?
11. Conclusions section should be completed with the obtained results used for the conclusions derivation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors should pay special attention to the English language throughout the text. Extensive editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Cooments 1: The abstract is too long, it should be shortened and only the most important aspects of the article should be highlighted.
Response1: It has been revised
Comments 2: Sentences and information are repeated in the article (eg line 45 - said in the previous sentence; line 339-340 - already stated in the methods, etc.). Address this throughout the whole article
Response: It has been revised
Comments 3: It has been revised
Response: It has been stated in method part
Comments 4: Authors should give more information about the coffee and spice samples themselves. Are they commercially acquired or grown for research purposes?
Comment 5: Why is text from 126 to 129 line colored?
Response 5: It does not mean anything
Comment 6: Are the panelist trained? Authors should add this information in the Materials and Methods section.
Response 6: Yes, Q-Grader, three professional panelist. It has been completed in manuscript.
Comments 7: Authors should provide references that confirm information stated in lines 299-303.
Response 7: It has been added
Comment 8: In the results, there are a lot of statements that do not refer to the results but to the methods (eg lines 311-314). Similar statements should be removed from the article.
Response 8: It has been removed
Comment 9: The calibration curves are an integral part of the methods, not the discussion of the results. Also, the test in lines 33-349 should be part of the method, not the discussion. Authors should correct the article according to this recommendation
Response 9: It has been changed based on comment
Comment 10: Conclusions section should be completed with the obtained results used for the conclusions derivation.
Response10: It has been revised
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted article takes a novel approach by exploring the effects of adding C. zanthorriza to Liberica coffee on coffee profile sensory, chemical compound, antioxidant activity, and Proximity analysis. The proposed research has the potential to create a unique product that is both health-promoting and appealing to consumers. However, there are several areas where the article could be improved.
Specific comments:
Page 1, lines 9-36: The abstract should be revised to a maximum of about 200 words while keeping in mind an objective representation of the article.
Page 3, line 126, only three panelists? A panel of at least 10 to 12 trained panelists is generally considered the minimum to obtain reliable results. Please, elaborate.
Page 5, lines 203, 209, and 269, consider providing abbreviations for variables in equations 2, 3, and 7
Pages 28-29, lines 537-591, Discussion section must be improved. It jumps between different topics and mentions several studies but lacks a critical comparison of the results with those studies. Include elaboration about the practical applications of your findings. Consider discussing the potential health benefits or risks associated with the changes in chemical composition when curcuma is added to coffee.
Page 29, lines 594-602. In the conclusion section, instead of sample code, write the information ratio. Also, consider including quantitative data in the conclusions. For example, specify the percentage increase in phenol and flavonoid content or the decrease in caffeine and antioxidant content. Provide an overall conclusion at the end of the section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCheck the article thoroughly.
Author Response
Comments 1: Page 1, lines 9-36: The abstract should be revised to a maximum of about 200 words while keeping in mind an objective representation of the article.
Response: it has been revised
Comments 2: Page 3, line 126, only three panelists? A panel of at least 10 to 12 trained panelists is generally considered the minimum to obtain reliable results. Please, elaborate
Response: Sensory analysis was performed by three panelists from the Jambi Cupper Team of Ro-busta and Liberica Coffee. Expert panelists 3 Q-Graders from Lymphocite Coffee Workshop PT. Sjah Alam Jaya. The assessment used was a system developed by Specialty Coffee As-sociation of America (SCAA), by giving a score between 1-10 on each variable tested. Score 1 was the lowest score, and 10 was the highest score.
Comments 3: Page 5, lines 203, 209, and 269, consider providing abbreviations for variables in equations 2, 3, and 7
Response: It has been revised
Comments 4: Pages 28-29, 28-29, lines 537-591, Discussion section must be improved. It jumps between different topics and mentions several studies but lacks a critical comparison of the results with those studies. Include elaboration about the practical applications of your findings. Consider discussing the potential health benefits or risks associated with the changes in chemical composition when curcuma is added to coffee
Response 4: It has been revised
Comments: Page 29, lines 594-602. In the conclusion section, instead of sample code, write the information ratio. Also, consider including quantitative data in the conclusions. For example, specify the percentage increase in phenol and flavonoid content or the decrease in caffeine and antioxidant content. Provide an overall conclusion at the end of the section
Response: It has been revised
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe corrections were done with exceptional quality. The authors responded to all my comments, and I certainly now recommend the work for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made adequate corrections in the revised manuscript, in accordance with the previously comments by me as a reviewer.
The percentage of duplication (percent match 34%, iThenticate report) in the text of this manuscript is high. It must be corrected to reduce it.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors reply satisfactorily to my comments.
