The Effect of Sea Salt with Low Sodium Content on Dough Rheological Properties and Bread Quality
, Sorina Ropciuc, Adriana Dabija and Georgiana Gabriela Codină *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript entitled „The effect of sea salt with low sodium content on dough rheological properties and bread quality” is an interesting research study, properly developed and carried out.
However, there is not a new topic, even the Authors cite a lot of similar publications in bibliography. Thus, it should be emphasized the novelty of the study.
The dough and bread characteristics are described in relation to control sample (without salt addition). It will be interesting to compare the physical properties of the samples with sea salt with the product with the addition of common high sodium chloride salt (e.g. with 1.5% salt content).
Sensory evaluation of bread samples need clarifications. How the judges was trained (cite the standards). It was sensory evaluation or maybe consumer test? In the case of consumer tests, 30 people is not a representative sample. Describe the hedonic scale on each point. Where the sensory analysis was performed (in laboratory made according to EN/ISO standards?).
All of the Standards cited in text, should be cited in References section.
The English in paper should be carefully checked due to a lot of typing errors (e.g., line 79, 125, 265, 337, 338).
Author Response
20 April 2022
Dear Referee,
We would like to thank the referee for the close reading and for the proper suggestions. We hope that we provide all the answers to the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for the recommendations to publish our paper entitled “The Effect of Sea Salt with Low Sodium Content on Dough Rheological Properties and Bread Quality”.
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 red color for the addition text.
REFERE COMMENTS:
Reviewer Comments
Manuscript entitled „The effect of sea salt with low sodium content on dough rheological properties and bread quality” is an interesting research study, properly developed and carried out.
Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her close reading of our manuscript and for his/her appreciation. Also we want to thank to his/her recommendation to publish our manuscript in Applied Science journal.
Reviewer: However, there is not a new topic, even the Authors cite a lot of similar publications in bibliography. Thus, it should be emphasized the novelty of the study.
Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her recommendation. We agree with the referee point of view and therefore we underlined in a more extensive way the novelty of our study.
Reviewer: The dough and bread characteristics are described in relation to control sample (without salt addition). It will be interesting to compare the physical properties of the samples with sea salt with the product with the addition of common high sodium chloride salt (e.g. with 1.5% salt content).
Response: According to the referee suggestions we added the physical properties of the samples with 1.5% salt content in order to compare to our data.
Reviewer: Sensory evaluation of bread samples need clarifications. How the judges was trained (cite the standards). It was sensory evaluation or maybe consumer test? In the case of consumer tests, 30 people is not a representative sample. Describe the hedonic scale on each point. Where the sensory analysis was performed (in laboratory made according to EN/ISO standards?).
Response: We added more explanations in the manuscript related to the sensory analysis made according to the referee suggestions. We made our sensory data in our sensory lab from our faculty. Unfortunately, it did not comply with the criteria from EN/ISO standards but was specially created for this purpose (sensory analysis). We added in the manuscript the standard sensory for evaluator’s selections which was semi-trained ones.
Reviewer: All of the Standards cited in text, should be cited in References section.
Response: We added in the manuscript all the standards according to the referee suggestions.
Reviewer: The English in paper should be carefully checked due to a lot of typing errors (e.g., line 79, 125, 265, 337, 338).
Response: We revised once again the manuscript from the English point of view.
Sincerely,
Georgiana Codina et co.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript deals with the analysis of the effects of sea salt addition in a refined wheat flour and the evaluation of the sensorial, rheological, and technological parameters of the bread prepared with these ingredients. The aim is to evaluate the substitution of common salt with sea salt which has a lower sodium content with the focus on the reduction of the consumption of sodium. The experimental design is well structured and the article is well written. I have a couple of concerns about the work.
1) On lines 49-50 the authors report that “The addition of salt increases dough strength, presumably by affecting the distribution of charges on the protein.”, without any reference. Actually, even if this effect of salt on the dough rheology is commonly accepted and verified in most literature studies, also contrary results were found, depending on the kind of flour and salt amount. I think that it would be more correct to briefly say about these discrepancies, with literature references on both sides. For example, I suggest the following references reporting both rheological fundamental creep (10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113345, 10.1002/jsfa.4612) and frequency sweep (10.3390/su12072705, 10.1016/j.foostr.2020.100154) tests.
2) Why the authors do not compare the samples also with ones prepared with other kinds of salts? Are these results better or worse than other cases with other salts? Maybe you can compare some literature results.
3) Line 118, please specify the mixer model. Moreover, how did you choose the mixing time? Please explain in the article.
4) There are other articles on this topic, what is the novelty of this one? Could be useful to highlight this aspect in the manuscript.
5) lines 76 and 107 typos (fallowing instead of following).
Author Response
20 April 2022
Dear Referee,
We would like to thank the referee for the close reading and for the proper suggestions. We hope that we provide all the answers to the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for the recommendations to publish our paper entitled “The Effect of Sea Salt with Low Sodium Content on Dough Rheological Properties and Bread Quality”.
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 red color for the addition text.
REFERE COMMENTS:
Reviewer Comments
This manuscript deals with the analysis of the effects of sea salt addition in a refined wheat flour and the evaluation of the sensorial, rheological, and technological parameters of the bread prepared with these ingredients. The aim is to evaluate the substitution of common salt with sea salt which has a lower sodium content with the focus on the reduction of the consumption of sodium. The experimental design is well structured and the article is well written.
Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her close reading of our manuscript and for his/her appreciation. Also we want to thank to his/her recommendation to publish our manuscript in Applied Science journal.
Reviewer: On lines 49-50 the authors report that “The addition of salt increases dough strength, presumably by affecting the distribution of charges on the protein.”, without any reference. Actually, even if this effect of salt on the dough rheology is commonly accepted and verified in most literature studies, also contrary results were found, depending on the kind of flour and salt amount. I think that it would be more correct to briefly say about these discrepancies, with literature references on both sides. For example, I suggest the following references reporting both rheological fundamental creep (10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113345, 10.1002/jsfa.4612) and frequency sweep (10.3390/su12072705, 10.1016/j.foostr.2020.100154) tests.
Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her recommendation. We completed the introduction part with more informations related to salt effect on dough rheology according to the referee suggestions. Also we introduced more references to certify our affirmations according to referee suggestions.
Reviewer: Why the authors do not compare the samples also with ones prepared with other kinds of salts? Are these results better or worse than other cases with other salts? Maybe you can compare some literature results.
Response: According to the referee suggestions we added the physical properties of the samples with 1.5% salt content in order to compare to our data. Also others mention have been added in the manuscript such as sea salt improves dough behavior to a higher level than in the case when only sodium chloride was added in dough recipe, data previously published by Voinea et al. [21]
Reviewer: Line 118, please specify the mixer model. Moreover, how did you choose the mixing time? Please explain in the article.
Response: We added in the manuscript the mixer model and we completed more informations related to the mixing time choose.
Reviewer: There are other articles on this topic, what is the novelty of this one? Could be useful to highlight this aspect in the manuscript.
Response: We completed the introduction part of the manuscript the novelty of our study according to the referee suggestions.
Reviewer: lines 76 and 107 typos (fallowing instead of following).
Response: We revised this mistake which was in entire manuscript. We also wants to thank to the referee for his/her close reading of our manuscript and for pointing to us this mistake.
Sincerely,
Georgiana Codina et co.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 152:
two-way analisis? – What analysis? I suppouse that authors have used ANOVA.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models and their associated estimation procedures (such as the "variation" among and between groups) used to analyze the differences among means. ANOVA is based on the law of total variance, where the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation.
Two-way (what factors ?)
The tables contain only averages for six (with control) levels of factor SS . I dont see averages for second factor and interaction in tables.
In my opinion autors have used one-way ANOVA.
Please explain and describe correct mathemathical model of analysis.
Author Response
20 April 2022
Dear Referee,
We would like to thank the referee for the close reading and for the proper suggestions. We hope that we provide all the answers to the reviewer’s comments.
Thank you very much for the recommendations to publish our paper entitled “The Effect of Sea Salt with Low Sodium Content on Dough Rheological Properties and Bread Quality”.
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 red color for the addition text.
REFERE COMMENTS:
Reviewer Comments
Line 152:
two-way analisis? – What analysis? I suppouse that authors have used ANOVA.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models and their associated estimation procedures (such as the "variation" among and between groups) used to analyze the differences among means. ANOVA is based on the law of total variance, where the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation.
Two-way (what factors ?)
The tables contain only averages for six (with control) levels of factor SS . I dont see averages for second factor and interaction in tables.
In my opinion autors have used one-way ANOVA.
Please explain and describe correct mathemathical model of analysis.
Response: We would like to thank to the referee for his/her close reading of our manuscript and for his/her remark. Yes, it was our mistake, the analysis was one-way ANOVA. We corrected now and we revised the sub-paragraph 2.7, statistical analysis. We really thank to the reviewer for pointing to us this big mistake.
Sincerely, Georgiana Codina et co.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
none
