Foods Review - Research Critique

Foods review The manuscript establishes a promising and highly topical line of research. However, the research work presents several significant aspects to be improved. Point 1.- The manuscript title referred to the effect of inulin addition, however comparative results between sorbets with and wi...

Foods review The manuscript establishes a promising and highly topical line of research. However, the research work presents several significant aspects to be improved. Point 1.- The manuscript title referred to the effect of inulin addition, however comparative results between sorbets with and without inulin are poor describe and discuss throughout the manuscript. Some of the differences remarked in results between different type of fruit sorbets are expected (ex. Acidity or vitamin C between kiwi and melon sorbets). However, the innovative aspect of inulin and its effect should be discuss more in-depth. Point 2.- Materials and methods must be better describe and completed. Why 2% of inulin and no other percentage has been selected for sorbets formulation? It should be explained. In discussion, authors highlight the great value in bioactive compounds of fruit peels, but they do not describe whether fruit samples used in sorbets were previously peel or not. Point 3.- Analytical methods must be widely describe. Point 4.- Initial fruits characteristics has been indicated has critical in final sensory and chemical properties of sorbets. However, authors do not provide physical and chemical characterization about them. If would be grateful if they could explain why. In my opinion this information is crucial to evaluate and compare the results. For example, authors referred in results (line 193) that the amount of water in the sorbets influenced the sensory evaluation as well as the meltability of the sorbets. The water contribution of each fruit to the final sorbet is different and that could be influencing the results. The same with other aspects such as phenolic compounds, vit C or antioxidant activity. Point 5.- As it has been remarked that inulin acts as a texturing agent, and its addition improves consistency, instrumental physical of sorbet mixture viscosity, should be measured. As indicated, other authors found that higher apparent viscosity resulted in a more stable system with higher overrun and a more stable air bubbles-emulsified. It could explain some of the sensory properties differences found by panelists. Point 6.- Being colour one of the most important features in this type of product, colour instrumental analysis would be appropriate. Point 7.- How many times test each panelist? According Table 2 footnotes, only n=3 was analyzed for each parameter and sorbet type. For sensory analysis does not provide reliable results. Point 8.- Why table 2 statistics show comparisons per row instead of per column? It would be enriching results for the manuscript if compared each sensory characteristic but between type of sorbet. Please correct all the footnote text in table 2, it is grammatically incorrect. Point 9.- Statistical differences are established between mean values per row or per column? Please revised it. Point 10.- In line 273, authors indicate that no losses on polyphenols due to technological processing and freezing could affect their sorbets. Without data about initial TPC in fruit is difficult to assume. Why not? This sentence should be widely discuss. Point 11.- In line 281 "Freezing usually" is repeated. Point 12.- In English language decimals are indicated with dots instead of comas, please revise and correct it through the manuscript. Point 13.- References do not follow *Food Journal* instructions. It must be corrected. The manuscript establishes a promising and highly topical line of research. However, the research work presents several significant aspects to be improved. Point 1.- The manuscript title referred to the effect of inulin addition, however comparative results between sorbets with and without inulin are poor description and discuss throughout the manuscript. Some differences remarked in results between different type of fruit sorbets are expected (ex. Acidity or vitamin C between kiwi and melon sorbets). However, the innovative aspect of inulin and its effect should be discussed more in-depth. Point 2.- Materials and methods might be better described and completed. Why 2% of inulin and no other percentage has been selected for sorbets formulation? It should be explained. In discussion, authors highlight the great value in bioactive compounds of fruit peels, but they do not describe whether fruit samples used in sorbets were previously peel or not. Sorbets preparation section may be described more in detail. Point 3.- Analytical methods must be widely described. Point 4.- Initial fruits characteristics has been indicated has critical in final sensory and chemical properties of sorbets. However, authors do not provide physical and chemical characterization about them. It would be grateful if they could explain why. In my opinion, this information is crucial to evaluate and compare the results. For example, in results line 193, authors referred that the amount of water in the sorbets influenced the sensory evaluation as well as the meltability of the sorbets. The water contribution of each fruit to the final sorbet is different, and that could be influencing the results. The same with other aspects such as phenolic compounds, vitamin C or antioxidant activity. Point 5.- As it has been remarked that inulin acts as a texturing agent, and its addition improves consistency, instrumental physical of sorbet mixture viscosity, should be measured. As indicated, other authors found that higher apparent viscosity resulted in a more stable system with higher overrun and a more stable air bubbles-emulsified. It could explain some detected differences in sensory properties found by panellists. Point 6.- Being colour one of the most important features in this type of product, colour instrumental analysis would be appropriate. Point 7.- How many times test each panellist? According to Table 2 footnotes, only n=3 was analysed for each parameter and sorbet type. For sensory analysis, the number of replications should be considerably higher to obtain reliable results. Point 8.- Why table 2 statistics show comparisons per row instead of per column? It would be enriching results for the manuscript if compared each sensory characteristic but between type of sorbet. Please correct all the footnote text in table 2, it is grammatically incorrect. Point 9.- Statistical differences are established between mean values per row or per column? Please revise table footnote. Point 10.- In line 273, authors indicate that no losses of polyphenols due to technological processing and freezing could affect their sorbets. Without data about initial TPC in fruit, this assertion is difficult to assume. Why not? This sentence should be widely discussed. Point 11.- In line 281 "Freezing usually" is repeated. Point 12.- In English language decimals are indicated with dots instead of comas, please revise and correct it through the manuscript. Point 13.- References do not follow *Food Journal* instructions. It must be corrected. Dear Editor, Despite the promising and highly topical line of research, in my opinion this manuscript does not provide a deep enough research to consider its publication in a journal such as Foods. The research design does not include important analysis, such as fruit samples characterization, rheology or instrumental colour, to analyse and discuss properly the results obtained. Results are poorly described and the role of inulin is scarcely discussed.