The authors have clearly considered the reviewer comments and made appropriate edits.

Some stylistic suggestions:
- I would replace the last sentence of the summary with "In contrast, considering average Serbian portion sizes for bread, bread made from flour type "110" could supply almost 75% of the recommended daily intake for Mn". (Please modify the sentence if needed, I'm not sure if "portion sizes" is correct - would it be the average bread consumption instead?)
For your consideration: At the end of the Results and discussion section you emphasize how white bread would supply ca. 40% of Mn, but that using whole-meal flours would increase that to 75%. This could be stressed more in the abstract, if the word count allows for it and it aligns with what you see as the main conclusions of the study. Might it be a good argument for promotion of whole grain products?
- In the Material and methods sections, under "grain materials", the authors write "Five increments (approximately 2 kg each)". I was not sure what that meant? Batches? Sample lots?
- The authors are using "T" and "S" to refer to total and soluble mineral contents throughout the text. I think it would be best if the abbreviations were introduced in the material and method section, for instance in the "Calculation of mineral composition..." section.
- In the first sentence of the Results and Discussion section, under "Preliminary study...", I would change the tense and write "In order to select the wheat cultivars which would be milled..." or "to be milled" (because I wouldn't mix future and past tense in a sentence the way it was done here). However, it would actually even work better to simplify the sentence to "In order to select which wheat cultivars to compare to cultivars NS Moma and NS Tordorka, the cultivars' grain sizes and total mineral contents were considered" (I hope I understood the sentence correctly - please modify as you see fit).
- It seems to me that the low ash content and high % of kernel fraction > 2.8 mm in Zvezdana would have been arguments against including it - was that done so that the samples would span a wider range in their properties?
I suggest making the reasoning clearer.
- I found "It is confirmed with positive relation..." a bit unclear (in the "Mineral composition..." section). What is "it"? The previous sentence refers to high ash and low TGW potentially being indicative of high total iron but low soluble iron, which is not the same as a relationship between total iron and total phosphorous (also: you should consistently use P for phosphorous, since you introduced it a few lines above).
- In "Distribution of total and soluble micronutrients..." the authors write "...of the investigated cultivars was higher with the one ...". I didn't quite understand that. Was that supposed to mean "higher than contents ..."?
- In the same section, towards the end, the authors write "Ninety degrees of the above mentioned parameters...". I'm not sure if I follow - what do the degrees refer to? Is this about where scores are located on the PCA plot? The sentence did not seem correctly phrased to me.

There are still some sentences that are not quite correct. While I recommended acceptance of the manuscript, I would encourage the authors to consider rephrasing the following statements:
p.13 Last sentence in the introduction "(...) ash content will be determined" - I would change the sentence to past tense. You have already completed the study and the previous sentence that stated the aim was also in past tense.
p. 12 "sourdough fermentation reduced almost completely degraded phytates..." - did it really reduce "almost completely degraded" phytates? This would indicate that there were fewer phytate molecules that were "almost completely degraded" (not quite sure what that would mean), and it does not align with the next sentence
In "Mineral composition of the whole grains" there is the sentence "(...) since about two thirds of total P in cereals and by-products bound to phytate" I think the word "are" is missing, it should be place before "bound"
p. 25 Last sentence before the conclusion: "would be considered in the continuation of this study" sounds a bit odd. Is this a possibility or are studies underway? I would not use "would". If you want to indicate that this is a possible option, use "could" and maybe "future studies" or "follow-up studies" instead of "the continuation of this study"