Impact of Corn, Bean, and Semolina Flour Blends and Processing Methods on the Physical Properties and Antioxidant Activity of Instant Noodles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: The effect of blend of corn/bean/semolina flour and processing (dry/fry) on the physical and antioxidant characteristics of instant noodles.

Aim to study the use of common bean flour, corn flour, and semolina to obtain instant noodles using two different processes (hot drying and frying). Presenting an evaluation of the proximate analysis, TPC, antioxidant capacities by DPPH and ORAC assays, phenolic acids and flavonoids profile by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS, the optimal cooking time (OCT), the color and texture analysis (TPA).

Overall, the manuscript is structured, clear and easy to read, but I would like to suggest some changes and improvements.

I suggest a title revision in order to simplify it by removing the dashes and brackets.

The abstract is ok presenting the overall main studies, methodologies with principal results and conclusion.

The introduction is well prepared but could be enriched with more information and some minor corrections.

The methodology is well described, with only minor incorrections or repetitions that can be easily solved.

The results and discussion are well explained, and the results obtained are compared with those of other works, just needing minor corrections.

The conclusions are okay but can be improved.

The references list needs to be reviewed. Please add a reference to WINA, 2021 and redo the all references list. Also remove all the numbers in straight brackets since they are repeated and add the missing references, number 14 and 21.

Please insert DOI in bibliographic references to make it easy to the reader to find them.

Considering the comments, I recommend a revision of the article.  In the annexed file are the main comments and proposed modifications.

------------------------additional comments----------------------------

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?   

The main question addressed by the research and aim of the study was the use of common bean flour, corn flour, and semolina to obtain instant noodles using two different processes (the hot air drying and the frying). Being frying process the most usual but resulting in a higher lipid content to the final product and so not such a healthier food processing as the hot air drying process.

For achieving an answer to this question the authors presenting an evaluation of the proximate analysis, TPC, TFC, antioxidant capacities by DPPH and ORAC assays, phenolic acids and flavonoids profile by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS, the optimal cooking time, the color and texture analysis of 8 different instant noodles (with different composition and preparation). Assays were done in triplicate.  

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?  

I consider the topic original and relevant and that the authors explained the originality and relevance of the study in their introduction.

Main goal of the study was to assess the efficacy of combining common bean flour with corn flour and semolina to produce instant noodles to increase the nutritional properties of the noodles. Also the use frying process (usually used) or hot-air drying process techniques was assessed to achieve a healthier product.

The possible use of broken grains, an underutilized by-product, a cost-effective raw material with a nutritional profile comparable to that of the intact beans is original and address a specific gap in the field. Their combination with others cereals like corn flour can increase nutritional noodles properties as the authors mentioned in the introduction.

There are several pasta products with chickpea or beans flour additions to pastas but I don’t know about works adding the broken grains to instant noodles.

The use the hot-air drying process compared to the mostly used frying process intends to find a healthier food processing.  

3. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?  

I forgot to write in my annex with comments to the authors a very important missing in the materials and methods. The authors presented (total) flavonoids content (TFC) in table 1 of the results, but they don’t describe this methodology neither the units of the obtained results, neither the references in wish they were based.

They need to write the TFC test description with a phrase for the results expression like they did to the TPC results. Like as an example: TFC was expressed as milligrams of catechin  equivalents per 100 grams of dry weight. We don’t know wish flavonoid the authors used for the TFC calibration: rutin, catechin, quercetin or epicatechin? 

Also a better description of the HPLC method calibration could be done, they don’t write about the standards and methods they used to do the calibration.

Products sensory evaluation is missing and that could improve the conclusions but, in my opinion, this might be consider for future work.  

4. Illustrate what are, in your opinion, its strengths and weaknesses (this is an essential step, as the editor will consider the reasoning behind your recommendation and needs to understand it properly);  

The main goal is important has novelty and can be useful for other works methods and materials description and also results and conclusions need to be improved. For more comments about results we need to know the samples composition what I supposed will be in the missing table 1 of the methods and materials section.

It will be easier to review results and discussion knowing that table. So I change the decision of manuscript acceptance to - Reconsider after major revisions (control missing in some experiments)  

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?  

The incorporation of common bean flour and corn flour enhanced the nutritional noodles profile,  in the case of common bean flour resulted in noodles’ protein and phenolic compound contents increasing.

Concerning the processes, hot dry process affects mechanical characteristics in comparison to the frying process. Is this an impediment to the use of the healthier food processing? It seems not, but that should be better explained.  

6. Are the references appropriate?  

The references are appropriate but the references list need to be redo since some are missing and they have list numbered twice. Also the insertion of DOI identification is due.  

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.  

As I said in the comments to the authors, is missing a Table 1 in the section 2. Materials and Methods. This table is fundamental in order to know the composition difference between the samples N1 to N8, but I supposed the inserting of the planned table, a lack easy to solve by the authors.

After that insertion the presented Table 1 in the results section will be Table 2 and so on.

I  did not find the results for the semolina proximate analysis the authors mentioned to performed, are they not important to the conclusions? Why were they performed?

Tables need to be reviewed since they need foot notes and normalization (including in all the results a space between the number and the letters, because this is not consistent), but I already mentioned this in the previous anex.

The TPC, Flavonoids, DPPH and ORAC units are missing In Table 1.

Consider to change Favonoids to total falvonoids content (TFC).

I do not feel comfortable commenting further on the results, their discussion and the conclusions without knowing the constitution of the samples used, so I await the insertion of the missing table.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the possibility and nutrition benefit of using bean, corn, and semolina to make instant noodles. My biggest question for the authors, and editors, too, is that whether Physchem is a suitable place for this study, because it is very application and industry facing, and does not directly involved in physical chemistry. In my opinion, MDPI's journal Foods is a better place for this study. If this paper is to be published in Physchem, the authors should give a more comprehensive introduction of the chemicals analyzed in the study, or categories of chemicals, for example phenolics and flavonoids (and potentially draw their chemical structures).

The Introduction and Material and Method sections metion the flour has bean, corn, and semolina contents, but the composition of samples N1 to N8 is never clearly explained anywhere in the manuscript. I think this information is crucial to this study and should be put before Table 1.

The labels in the graphs are too small and illegible. The data points are not clearly shown. I don't think 3D graphs are useful, 2D contour maps with scattered data points are already adequate to present data. Additionally, how can ingredient contents be less than zero? This simply just doesn't make sense.

The study lists the results of many tests and the contents of many chemicals, but are there standards about the contents of these chemicals in foods for readers to refer to? Or at least the contents of these chemicals in instant noodles available to consumers?

Should there be volunteer studies to better evaluate the taste and texture? Only a standard test is not sufficient to evaluate the potential to convert this study into products. After all, instant noodles is not like common physical chemistry subject, even if it is a physical chemistry subject to begin with, and it's supposed to end up on the goods shelf, not the book shelf.

Ref 21 is missing. The references aslo have redundant labels in square brackets.

Figure 1 caption "is" after "a)" and "b)" are not useful. Semolina is misspelled, also for Figure 2 and 3.

I think the authors should really think about where they should publish their study, I would not recommend them to publish in Physchem, I think Foods is definitely a more suitable place.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the manuscript corrections.

Please look at the comments and corrections still needed in the manuscript pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The axes of Figure 2a and 3a need to be revised: either not starting from 0, or used computer notation (XXEYY).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for accepting the suggestions.

The manuscript was improved very much.

I still notice some possible corrections (only formatting) in Table 3: Protein values have 2 decimals and the other results show only one decimal,  it will be better to change protein results to only one decimal.

Table 4 Thanks for the ANOVA addition i suggest altering the footnote and removing the SD numbers 0.0, explaining it in the footnote, please put the p in italics: "Values were the mean (n=3) and the standard deviations were less than 0.00 for all data. Tr means traces and ND means Not detected. Different letters within the same column indicated a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05, Tukey test)."

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is ready to publish. Congratulations.

Author Response

Answer Reviewer 2

The manuscript is ready to publish. Congratulations.

R= Thank you very much for suggestions and comments

Dr Jose Alberto Gallegos-Infante