Freeze-Dried Cooked Chickpeas: Considering a Suitable Alternative to Prepare Tasty Reconstituted Dishes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work proposes the study of the application of the freeze-drying process for the development of a typical Spanish dish in the context of ready-to-eat products after adding water.

The work is interesting, however, it has some errors that can be improved.

- Paragraph l19-l20 looks disconnected, please check the wording and relationship with the rest of the text.

In several parts of the paper freeze-dried and liophylized are used interchangeably, if possible use freeze-dried and standardise the paper.

In l64 there is talk of varieties of cocido, but only cocido madrileño is mentioned as an example.

In 2.1 materials and methods, no information is given on the origin, quality and other data that would allow the experience to be standardised and reproducible.

l112 and others, is there any specification of the freezing process, temperatures used, cooling agents, etc.?

l115-l122 The wording needs to be improved, it is not clear what they mean.

 

In texture profile analysis there is no specification of the type of probe used for textural testing.

In l138, the use of rigid containers for vacuum packaging is not clear?

 In l142 it is not detailed how the samples were weighed, generally the samples are dried with an absorbent and then weighed, review the literature in this regard, it is not clear the rehydration times.

 

In the same sense the complementary material shows a rehydration curve, the article would be improved if the rehydration data were adjusted to the typical models for this phenomenon.

In l151 mention is made of the use of ISO standards, but no mention is made of which standard was used.

L159-161 is not clear about the assignment of minimum and maximum scores.

In point 2.5 the information that the samples were kept at 35ºC is repeated, avoid redundancies and/or improve the wording.

In l170 there is no support for using 90% confidence and not 95%, this needs to be revised.

Important: the discussion of the results is disorganised and contains information that is not included, it is also limited to presenting the results but there is no deeper analysis and interpretation or search for reasons or mechanisms, it also contains information that should be in materials and methods.

There are undefined variables, and there is no justification as to why values are discarded.

The work is very ambitious and by having so many variables control is lost, it is recommended to reduce the work or divide it into two publications, as it is not well understood what exactly they wanted to demonstrate.

 

The conclusions should be improved: It is not possible to assert from the experiments that commercialisation is possible without analysing other technical and economic aspects.

The validity of the work is very local and its contribution to knowledge is limited.

 

The last paragraph on packaging is not related to the work and is therefore not a conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1) when I looked into the manuscript name first feeling came to me was freeze drying'. But reading the manuscript never provided any clue about the freeze drying conditions or their effects. This is the major draw back of this manuscript. This has to be addressed to recognise the paper. Even they never mentioned the conditions and advantages of freeze dried. This major issue should be addressed.

2) Rehydration procedure was not described in detail and some bar graphs were provided with final change comparisons with water and salt

3) The way authors conducted the experiments are just mixing and adding water, this is not research study

4) Improve all sections of the manuscript very scientifically to understand freeze drying effects and their contribution to final product is very essential

5) also found some typo errors and spelling mistakes but they are very minor

Quality of English presentation is acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors' responses to the comments and suggestions were made. The article was substantially improved. It is recommended that the paper be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Need to check grammar and typo again

language is okay