Meat Analogues from Pea Protein: Effect of Different Oat Protein Concentrates and Post Treatment on Selected Technological Properties of High-Moisture Extrudates
, Dejan Knezevic 1, Cátia Saldanha do Carmo 2, Hanne Zobel 1, Svein H. Knutsen 1, Stefan Sahlstrøm 1 and Tzvetelin Dessev 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Meat analogues from pea protein: effect of different oat protein concentrates and post-treatment on selected technological properties of high moisture extrudates” is well-written and presents valuable information about the techno-functional properties of pea protein-based meat analogues mixed with different oat protein concentrates produced by HME. However, it needs some improvements before publication.
Be consistent!
- when using the references, sometimes you write 2 authors and then the reference number; in other places you have written one author and then et.al. In addition, you are also referring to references without including reference numbers in several places in the manuscript, these references are also missing in the reference list.
- when writing units, for instance, °C, where you sometimes have space between the number and sometimes you do not.
- with British versus American English, not you are mixing.
Line 3: A t is missing in the word "Extrudates"
Line 42: Delete the word however
Line 58: The company name is Lantmännen with dots over the a.
Line 59: it states "dry and wet milling" - do you mean "dry and wet fractionation"?
Line 72: Explain your abbreviation (OPC) when you use it for the first time in the paper.
Line 82: ...was to study...
Line 95: If the pea protein has a level of 78.6% of protein it is a concentrate and not an isolate. To be an isolate the protein content should be above 90%.
Lines 97 & 99: Lantmännen
Line 105: a "." is missing after UK) for a new sentence
Line 107-108: 31% of what? and what does NSP stand for?
Line 117: Please include the screw configuration in the paper, not just reference. There is also a space too much after the reference.
Line 117: was connected
Line 118-119: was used.. and ...water at variable feeding rates
Line 121: rates ... and dimensions of
Line 125: what is SRS? Please include explanation also in text.
Line Table 1: Please include the target moisture content
Line 134-135: The explanations of PP, PP_OP, and PP_OA are not the same as in line 109-110. What is OATP and OATA? In the table it is written GFS1 and NDO2 - but in the explanation text it is written 1GFS and 2NDO - be consistent!
Line 139: Also include the real conversion factors for your materials, which are lower than 6.25.
Line 144: correct the circle for the degree
Line 158: Which is section 0? Should it be section 2.6?
Line 160: delete extra space after immersed
Line 160 & 166: be consistent when writing the dimensions, and please indicate which numbers correspond to which dimension.
Line 163: Should it not be section 2.7?
Line 167: placed in or on a white plastic cup?
Line 208: delete the extra space before With
Line 221: Active addition? In which form are the Active grains? Or do you mean the OA?
Line 224: Include the abbreviation OP when talking about the samples with PrOatein.
Line 227-228: Clarify what you mean by stability and consumer preparation, How do you measure consumer preparation?
Line Table 2: Remove the extra "0"s for HME a*
Line 288-289: Be consistent when writing the hardness values, 36.3, 49.0 etc.
Line 290: What sample is SP? What do you mean by rendered their texture strength?
Line 312: The table heading is missing
Line Table 3: be consistent with numbers. 0.290
Line 327: reference number missing
Line 327-329: To what temperatures? How to separate the proteins in decanter if they are already denatured?
Line 399: What was the water contents of the extrudates?
Line 434: A harder texture is not the same as a chewier texture.
Line 447: Reference number missing
Line 454-460: I suggest to move this section to Line 463 - conclusions
Line 470: Lantmännen
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language needs to be improved, especially to make sure that American and British English is not mixed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAre the composition data described in table 1 already results? If so, they should not be in this methodology section. Does the following item, 2.3, refer to these analyzes presented?
Remove excess spacing between lines 408 and 411.
I suggest rewriting and better ordering the discussion, mentioning the tables and figures presented in the previous topic. In fact, I suggest placing discussion items with topics as well and not with the beginning in bold, followed by the current text.
Note that no paragraph between lines 317 and 424 makes mention of the data presented in the tables and figure, making it difficult for the reader to follow the discussion on the results presented.
I found it quite unfortunate that the authors did not present conclusions for the work presented. I suggest including them.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript comprises the use of oat protein concentrates in high-mixture extrudates. The topic is of interest given the consumer demand for analogous products with defined properties. However, in my opinion, changes must be made to the manuscript to be considered for publication.
Check the title (exudates?)
2 Materials and methods:
Indicate whether the suppliers established the compositions or were determined by the authors.
A description is requested of how the visual differences were assessed (trained panel, use of images, etc.) (line 247).
In Table 1:
Check the nomenclature (GFS1 or 1GFS). Indicate the percentages used in PP, PP_OP, PP_OA mixtures.
Line 158:
Check: section “0”
2.9 Statistical analysis
It is necessary to describe in detail the statistical analysis carried out: effects, interactions, sampling unit, normality, homogeneity, etc. Additionally, describe the correlation analysis performed (lines 222, 429, 439). Also, indicate if a trend was considered at 0.1<p<0.05 (line 222).
Table 2
How do the authors explain the great difference in standard deviation between treatments observed for WAC% - HME?
Figure 2 a)
It is requested to control the letters that indicate statistical significance in chicken.
Line 286:
"The percentage reduction…." ¿in average?
Line 360:
It is requested to explain this idea since no differences are reported in Table 2.
Line 376
Please add more references. The relation between ΔE values and visual perception depends on the color of the sample.
Line 454:
"This is because food texture is multidimensional and complex parameter that considers many other parameters such as food composition, rheology and fracture mechanics, tribology etc."
I do not agree with this phrase since physical concepts are being mixed.
It is requested to modify it.
5 Conclusion
It is suggested to include in the conclusion an overview of the contribution of the study, without summarizing the results again.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMeat analogues from pea protein: effect of different oat protein concentrates and post treatment on selected technological properties of high moisture exudates (Manuscript ID 2641041) is the study to use oat protein concentrates of different origin for making pea protein high moisture extrudates. The authors did multiple experimental approach to reach to the conclusion. The experimental pathway is well designed and the results are well discussed. However, following minor points are noted:
Throughout the manuscript: Please make a space between a number and a unit; for example, 60 oC, 18 h, 7 mm etc.
Line 180: “25 x 7 x 25 mm dimensions” – please revise it as “25 x 7 x 25 mm3” (superscript 3)
Line 181: “1.5 mm.s-1” – please revise it as “1.5 mm.s-1” (superscript -1)
Section 2.6: L*, a* and b* values should be italicized. (Also ΔE should be italicized; please amed it throughout the manuscript!)
Equation 1: The L, a and b values should bear a star (*).
Line 211: “P < 0.05” – P should be italic.
Table 2 (footnotes): L*, a* and b* values should be italicized.
Fig. 2, and Fig. 3: Please draw a line for y-axis.
Reference list: Please revise properly, especially for scientific name (italicized) and journal names.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached file and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I think the manuscript has been improved and you have answered and approached the questions and issues in a good way.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for the work done in including the requested modifications. These changes have improved the quality of the manuscript.
