Preparing Sponge Dough for Making Bread Using Wheat Flour Cultured in 5% Saline
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The abstract clearly states the objective and key findings. However, the phrase “the dough’s rise was promoted” is vague. Quantify the rise (e.g., percentage increase in volume) for clarity.
- The claim of “healthier bread with reduced sugar and fat content” is not directly supported by data in the manuscript. A brief mention of nutritional analysis (e.g., sugar/fat measurements) should be added.
- The introduction effectively contextualizes the sponge dough method and salt’s role in fermentation. However, the rationale for using 5% saline (vs. 2–10% as mentioned) is not explicitly justified. A clearer hypothesis or research gap should be stated.
- References to traditional Japanese foods (e.g., Inaniwa udon) are relevant but require more connection to bread-making literature.
- The following relatively new literature can be referred to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101754.
- Section 2.2 (“Noodle dough culture”) is ambiguously described. Clarify whether this was a preliminary experiment or part of the main study.
- The sponge dough preparation (Figure 1) omits critical details: mixing time, kneading speed, and fermentation conditions (e.g., humidity).
- Microbial Counts: The use of 3M Petrifilm™ is acceptable, but the dilution protocol (e.g., how many dilutions were performed) and incubation conditions (e.g., aerobic/anaerobic) need elaboration.
- The dominance of salt-tolerant bacteria (>10⁸ cfu/g) over yeast (<10³ cfu/g) contradicts the hypothesis that salt-tolerant yeasts drive fermentation. This discrepancy is not adequately addressed in the text.
- LAB counts vary significantly between flour types (e.g., Strong A: 4.6×10⁸ vs. Strong B: 1.1×10⁸). Potential reasons (e.g., flour composition) should be discussed.
- The specific volume increase (2.25 → 3.47 cm³/g) is notable, but the mechanism (e.g., gas production by bacteria vs. yeast) is unclear. Link microbial data to bread structure (e.g., bubble size).
- The discussion attributes the improved bread volume to “salt-tolerant bacteria” but does not identify specific species or their metabolic contributions (e.g., CO₂ production). Compare with known salt-tolerant fermentative bacteria (e.g., Halobacillus).
- The absence of yeast growth in 5% saline cultures conflicts with prior work (Ohisa et al., 2019, 2022). Address this inconsistency (e.g., propose differences in flour microbiota or culture conditions).
- Claims of “reduced sugar and fat” lack experimental validation (e.g., no compositional analysis). Either remove the claim or provide supporting data.
- Error bars are missing in Table 2. Add standard deviations to demonstrate reproducibility.
- The footnote “n=3” in Table 2 is inconsistent with the text (n=3–4 in Section 2.4). Clarify sample sizes.
- Line 181 and line 204: Misspelling, Kosaconia coranii or Kosaconia koranii??
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present work is far from being able to be published. The objective is not completely clear, the experimental plan is absent, the methodology is not reported, and therefore it is not even possible to repeat the work, as well as in some cases has serious methodological errors. The results presented in a disorganized manner and the discussions out of context. I do not feel it is appropriate to add specific comments as I believe it needs to be totally rewritten.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English especially in the introduction is disconnected and unclear and needs to be improved anyway throughout the text.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my concerns have been addressed properly.
Author Response
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI really appreciate the authors' effort in reorganizing the work again, which appears in my opinion to be ready for publication.
Minor comments:
- Line 14, correct unit of measure.
Author Response
thank you, I have revised the manuscript according your comments
