Innovative “Soft” Maceration Techniques in Red Grape Fermentation
, Basma Najar 1, Raffaele Cerreta 2, Andrea Bellincontro 2, Giuseppe Floridia 3 and Fabio Mencarelli 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall this paper provides useful insights between different technologies which may be employed in the wine industry. This paper should hold interest for both wine researchers and winemakers, however in order to make the most of this data, certain aspects of the paper need to be revisited. In particular, the materials and method section should be expanded with regards to the differences between the employment and principals of each technique. While it would have been beneficial to have treatment replicates of each system this may not have been available due to cost/availability. Whichever so, the lack of this type of replication needs to be addressed in the paper in order to better frame the preliminary status of these results. I commend the authors for highlighting differences in energy consumption and labor between the three techniques, however feel that this could be expanded upon. In general the paper would benefit from another read through by the authors, paying particular attention to grammar and sentence construction.
Examples, but not all instances that should be reviewed, include:
Line 14 to 15: Please reword this sentence.
Line 25: ‘A’ should be ‘At’.
Line 41 to 42: Suggest rewording to ‘…depends on various chemical and physical factors.’
Line 44 to 46: Suggest that this sentence be reworded, and perhaps split into two sentences, in order to give more information and improve clarity/readability. For example, can an example of a factor which does increase extraction and also a factor which does not increase extraction be provided.
Line 47 to 48: Please clarify/name the ‘key role’ you are referring to, as the sentence suggests that they are important for colour and…
Line 54: Suggest a reword of ‘two barrier steps of extraction/diffusion are implicated’ – this sentence sounds awkward.
Line 66: ‘which inhibits the effective’; please remove ‘the’.
Line 68: Suggest ‘few times a day’ to ‘typically a few times a day’.
Line 73 to 78: Please split this into multiple sentences, this is current sentence spans over 6 lines.
Line 83: Remove unwanted space.
Line 89 to 90: Suggest a reword, perhaps, ‘The results from this initial analysis can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.’
Line 93: Out of curiosity, how was the volume of the tank calculated, as a volume of a cylinder follows v = π x radius2 x height.
Line 95: What is meant by ‘to automate the practice of reassembly’? Is this referring to pump overs?
Line 98: Suggest a rewording of the sentence, e.g. ‘Each tank was filled with 15 ton of destemmed and crushed grape from a single vineyard.’
Line 101: Please add detail of how the yeast/nutrient was added. For example, rehydrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions/standard winery protocol.
Line 105: Please add detail regarding the stabilisation and filtering procedures.
Line 107: Suggest ‘underwent’ instead of ‘undergone’.
Line 111: Suggest ‘at the halfway point of alcoholic fermentation’.
Line 112: Remove the word ‘The’ at the start of the line.
Line 116 to 120: Some further detail of how the ADCF technology works could be interesting for the reader and to match the greater explanation of how the AIR MIX system works in the following paragraph. At the same time, please try to avoid restating information from the introduction. Does ‘ADCF’ stand for something in particular?
Line 118: Please correct the spelling of ‘Oxigenation’.
Line 116/Line 121: Have you already mentioned the suppliers details for these pieces of equipment? If not, please include them in this section.
Line 129: Why is the temperature measurement on a separate day compared to the control? And please change ‘1st’ to ‘first’.
Line 131 to 132: Where does this information fit in, is it equipment only used for the Control? It seems like the energy consumptions are just randomly listed here with no point of reference. Also, please state where the ‘time of running expressed minutes’ can be found in the paper. Or is this referring to information already stated above (e.g. lasted from 20 through 90 sec).
Line 135: Suggest a rewrite. I would guess that this ‘hand squeezing’ is only relating to the berries set aside for chemical analysis. E.g. ‘A 500 (the value you used) g portion of crushed by hand before the must was extracted by use of a juice extractor…’. Also, how was the portion of grape berries chosen? How was a representative selection of grapes/grape bunches taken from the harvest in order to gain the initial chemical analyses? How was homogeneity best insured?
Line 137: Exchange the comma for a full-stop before ‘Musts’.
Line 142 to 143: Suggest a reword of this sentence. Were three portions of berries (for each vintage) hand squeezed and the must extraction for analysis, or was one lot of extracted must analysed three times by WineScan.
Line 146: Did the 500 mL only contain the liquid part of the fermentation? Or was part of the cap also obtained and then the sample homogenised before analysis?
Line 178: How was the end of fermentation determined? E.g. sugars were less than 2 g/L and ferments were considered dry?
Line 179: Suggest reword to ‘to the 2020 experiment:’
Line 180: What is an explanation or possible hypothesis for the difference in fermentation time between the ADCF and the AIR MIX treatments?
Line 182: Remove ‘one’. Change ‘1st’ to ‘first’.
Line 183: Change ‘resulted’ to ‘was considered’
Line 184 to 187: Suggest this is split into two sentences. What is meant by ‘right’ temperatures and oxygen levels, do you have examples of these requirements for this particular yeast species? Do you have any measurements of the temperature/oxygen levels at different places in the tank/cap, or is it just a hypotheses that these were consistent and evenly spread throughout all areas which the yeast inhabited.
Figure 1: Please correct ‘Fermentation kinetic 2020; (b) Fermentation kinetis 2021’ to ‘Fermentation kinetics 2020; (b) Fermentation kinetics 2021’. Also correct ‘in X axis’ to ‘on the X axis’.
Figure 1: Suggest the graph is reformatted to improve readability. Can the sugar points be in the same colours but represented by dashed lines/unfilled points, to help set them apart from the ABV readings?
Line 196: What is meant by ‘A regards wines,’.
Line 197: Change to ‘significantly’
Line 208 to 209: Please remove reference to yourselves in this sentence. Please also reword this sentence to improve readability.
Line 225: Why/how did this mismanagement happen? What does this mean for the results overall, and was this extended maceration past fermentation mentioned in the materials and methods section?
Line 242: Change ‘wine’ to ‘wines’
Line 245: Please add a definition for the ‘-‘ in the table.
Line 247: Change ‘wine’ to ‘wines’
Line 250: Please add a definition for the ‘-‘ in the table.
Table 2: Please add a space before the ± in the row for ‘tonality’
Line 243: What is meant by ‘each one taken after liquid removal in the tank.’ Was a larger sample of liquid removed from the tank, and them 3 x 500 mL subsamples taken of this? Why was this done?
Line 235: Please correct the spelling of ‘temperatture’
Line 254: Please add a reference for the 60% comment. Also, remove the space in ‘60 %’.
Line 265: Please describe why it was appropriate to average the two harvests for each treatment in order to create a bi-plot in terms of patterns between the years. Was a t-test text conducted for each year, for each treatment, in order to show that they were sufficiently similar? Or was the only reason to combine the two years due to the lack of treatment replicates for each technique employed?
Line 266: Change to ‘highlight’
Figure 3: Please make clear in the caption what the numbers are representing, e.g. each day of fermentation.
Line 275 to 276: Please reword this sentence. Perhaps include information regarding the length of the lag/log phase with respect to this observation of the first part of the fermentation process for the control sample.
Figure 3: Please correct the spelling of ‘alcool’. Please also read over the captions and ensure that all spaces are present as needed.
Line 292 to 294: How may this increase in alcohol facilitated or be related to the extraction profile of the polyphenols etc? Also, from the data, can any information be gained about the timing or threshold of alcohol concentration and then the extraction rate of colour/mouthfeel related compounds?
Line 297: Suggest a reword to improve readability; what is this sentence saying? How do we know that these are outliers, could this be a sampling issue?
Figure 4: Please correct the spelling of ‘alcool’ in all figures. Also, please move the text labels so all of the points are visible. E.g. where is the point for day 20 for AIR MIX? These types of overlapping can be found in all of the graphs.
Line 294: Please also comment on the tight grouping of the phase III points for the AIRMIX, compared to the greater variability in the other two treatments. What was happening during this time period that it seems like the AIRMIX extraction/fermentation was relatively stable.
Table 4: Suggest moving this table into the materials and methods section as it greatly helps the reader to understand how the treatments were applied. Also these are just timings, and so this information is better suited for the materials and methods section, if instead all of these timings had been translated into energy use/man hours, then this information would be even more interesting. Is there any information available regarding the installation costs of this equipment?
Line 321: This is an interesting point about the lack of personal needed. A few sentences regarding the manual aspects of each treatment should be added to the materials and methods section for each treatment, so the reader can better understand how these techniques were applied during this experiment.
Supplementary material: It would be great to see diagrams of the three techniques in order to better understand the physical set up and employment between them.
Author Response
Review #1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall this paper provides useful insights between different technologies which may be employed in the wine industry. This paper should hold interest for both wine researchers and winemakers, however in order to make the most of this data, certain aspects of the paper need to be revisited. In particular, the materials and method section should be expanded with regards to the differences between the employment and principals of each technique. While it would have been beneficial to have treatment replicates of each system this may not have been available due to cost/availability. Whichever so, the lack of this type of replication needs to be addressed in the paper in order to better frame the preliminary status of these results. I commend the authors for highlighting differences in energy consumption and labor between the three techniques, however feel that this could be expanded upon. In general the paper would benefit from another read through by the authors, paying particular attention to grammar and sentence construction.
Examples, but not all instances that should be reviewed, include:
Line 14 to 15: Please reword this sentence.
DONE
Line 25: ‘A’ should be ‘At’.
THANKS FOR SIGNALLING. WE CORRECTED IN ‘BY THE END’
Line 41 to 42: Suggest rewording to ‘…depends on various chemical and physical factors.’
WE TOTALLY REPHRASED
Line 44 to 46: Suggest that this sentence be reworded, and perhaps split into two sentences, in order to give more information and improve clarity/readability. For example, can an example of a factor which does increase extraction and also a factor which does not increase extraction be provided.
DONE
Line 47 to 48: Please clarify/name the ‘key role’ you are referring to, as the sentence suggests that they are important for colour and…
DONE
Line 54: Suggest a reword of ‘two barrier steps of extraction/diffusion are implicated’ – this sentence sounds awkward.
DELETED
Line 66: ‘which inhibits the effective’; please remove ‘the’.
AMENDED
Line 68: Suggest ‘few times a day’ to ‘typically a few times a day’.
DONE
Line 73 to 78: Please split this into multiple sentences, this is current sentence spans over 6 lines.
REPHRASED
Line 83: Remove unwanted space.
AMENDED
Line 89 to 90: Suggest a reword, perhaps, ‘The results from this initial analysis can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.
REWRITTEN
Line 93: Out of curiosity, how was the volume of the tank calculated, as a volume of a cylinder follows v = π x radius2 x height.
THE VOLUME IS CORRECT BUT THE DIAMETER IS SLIGHTLY GREATER THAN 2 m.
Line 95: What is meant by ‘to automate the practice of reassembly’? Is this referring to pump overs?
SPECIFIED
Line 98: Suggest a rewording of the sentence, e.g. ‘Each tank was filled with 15 ton of destemmed and crushed grape from a single vineyard.’
REPHRASED
Line 101: Please add detail of how the yeast/nutrient was added. For example, rehydrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions/standard winery protocol. DONE
Line 105: Please add detail regarding the stabilisation and filtering procedures.
THE WINERY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE FOR RED WINE
Line 107: Suggest ‘underwent’ instead of ‘undergone’.
OK
Line 111: Suggest ‘at the halfway point of alcoholic fermentation’.
DONE
Line 112: Remove the word ‘The’ at the start of the line.
TOTALLY REPHRASED
Line 116 to 120: Some further detail of how the ADCF technology works could be interesting for the reader and to match the greater explanation of how the AIR MIX system works in the following paragraph. At the same time, please try to avoid restating information from the introduction. Does ‘ADCF’ stand for something in particular?
WE CORRECTED AND WE ADDED SOME SPECIFICATION
Line 118: Please correct the spelling of ‘Oxigenation’.
CORRECTED
Line 116/Line 121: Have you already mentioned the suppliers details for these pieces of equipment? If not, please include them in this section.
ENCLOSED AT THE END OF INTRO
Line 129: Why is the temperature measurement on a separate day compared to the control? And please change ‘1st’ to ‘first’.
WE BETTER EXPLAINED IN THE TEXT
Line 131 to 132: Where does this information fit in, is it equipment only used for the Control? It seems like the energy consumptions are just randomly listed here with no point of reference. Also, please state where the ‘time of running expressed minutes’ can be found in the paper. Or is this referring to information already stated above (e.g. lasted from 20 through 90 sec).
THESE DATA REFER TO THE EQUIPMENT USED (BETTER, OENOLOGICAL PROCESSES, E.G. PUMP-OVER AND/OR DELESTAGE) AND THE ENERGY POWER ABSORBED BY THE EQUIPMENT IN THE CASE OF CONTROL AND ADCF SAMPLE; AIRMIX DID NOT USE. IN ANY CASE, WE BETTER PHRASED THIS PART
Line 135: Suggest a rewrite. I would guess that this ‘hand squeezing’ is only relating to the berries set aside for chemical analysis. E.g. ‘A 500 (the value you used) g portion of crushed by hand before the must was extracted by use of a juice extractor…’. Also, how was the portion of grape berries chosen? How was a representative selection of grapes/grape bunches taken from the harvest in order to gain the initial chemical analyses? How was homogeneity best insured?
WE HAVE PUBLISHED A LOT OF PAPERS AND WE KNOW HOW GETTING SAMPLE FOR MAKING ANALYSES TO BE REPRESENTATIVE AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL THE TIME. ANYWAY, WE ADDED SOMETHING FOR BETTER CLARYFING
Line 137: Exchange the comma for a full-stop before ‘Musts’.
AMENDED
Line 142 to 143: Suggest a reword of this sentence. Were three portions of berries (for each vintage) hand squeezed and the must extraction for analysis, or was one lot of extracted must analysed three times by WineScan.
SPECIFIED
Line 146: Did the 500 mL only contain the liquid part of the fermentation? Or was part of the cap also obtained and then the sample homogenised before analysis?
SPECIFIED
Line 178: How was the end of fermentation determined? E.g. sugars were less than 2 g/L and ferments were considered dry?
YES, MOREOVER CO2 SENSOR WAS INSIDE THE TANK FOR MONITORING FERMENTATION; WE ADDED
Line 179: Suggest reword to ‘to the 2020 experiment:’
THE PART HAS BEEN CHENGED
Line 180: What is an explanation or possible hypothesis for the difference in fermentation time between the ADCF and the AIR MIX treatment?
WRITTEN
Line 182: Remove ‘one’. Change ‘1st’ to ‘first’.
OK
Line 183: Change ‘resulted’ to ‘was considered’
WE SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED THE SENTENCE, SO WE CHANGED THE SPECIFIC WORD IN A DIFFERENT WAY. WE HOPE NOW IT IS OK WITH YOU
Line 184 to 187: Suggest this is split into two sentences. What is meant by ‘right’ temperatures and oxygen levels, do you have examples of these requirements for this particular yeast species? Do you have any measurements of the temperature/oxygen levels at different places in the tank/cap, or is it just a hypotheses that these were consistent and evenly spread throughout all areas which the yeast inhabited.
YOU ARE RIGHT. IT WAS NOT WELL EXPLAINED. WITH THE SYSTEM SAEN 5000 WE CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE, AND TWO SENSORS WERE PLACED IN THE UPPER AND LOWER PART OF THE TANK; WE HAVE ADDED IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL THE TEMPERATURE PATTERN. I THOUGHT WAS ONLY ONE SENSOR BECAUSE THIS IS MANAGED AUTOMATICALLY BY SAEN AND WE FOLLOWED ONLY THE EXPERIMENTATION. NOW IT IS SPECIFIED IN THE TEXT. FOR THE OXYGEN, IS OUR SPECULATION BECAUSE BY THE TIME A CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT AND MORE UNIFORM TEMPERATURE IN THE TANK, TOGETHER WITH A MORE UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION OF ALL COMPONENTS, LIQUID AND GAS WAS OBSERVED.
Figure 1: Please correct ‘Fermentation kinetic 2020; (b) Fermentation kinetis 2021’ to ‘Fermentation kinetics 2020; (b) Fermentation kinetics 2021’. Also correct ‘in X axis’ to ‘on the X axis’.
CORRECTED
Figure 1: Suggest the graph is reformatted to improve readability. Can the sugar points be in the same colours but represented by dashed lines/unfilled points, to help set them apart from the ABV readings?
OK
Line 196: What is meant by ‘A regards wines,’.
OK
Line 197: Change to ‘significantly’
OK
Line 208 to 209: Please remove reference to yourselves in this sentence. Please also reword this sentence to improve readability.
MODIFIED
Line 225: Why/how did this mismanagement happen? What does this mean for the results overall, and was this extended maceration past fermentation mentioned in the materials and methods section?
WE SPECIFIED BETTER
Line 242: Change ‘wine’ to ‘wines’
AMENDED
Line 245: Please add a definition for the ‘-‘ in the table.
DONE
Line 247: Change ‘wine’ to ‘wines’
DONE
Line 250: Please add a definition for the ‘-‘ in the table.
AMENDED
Table 2: Please add a space before the ± in the row for ‘tonality’
DONE
Line 243: What is meant by ‘each one taken after liquid removal in the tank.’ Was a larger sample of liquid removed from the tank, and them 3 x 500 mL subsamples taken of this? Why was this done?
IT HAS BEEN REPHRASED
Line 235: Please correct the spelling of ‘temperatture’
CORRECTED
Line 254: Please add a reference for the 60% comment. Also, remove the space in ‘60 %’.
WE SPECIED THAT IT WAS IN OUR CASE
Line 265: Please describe why it was appropriate to average the two harvests for each treatment in order to create a bi-plot in terms of patterns between the years. Was a t-test text conducted for each year, for each treatment, in order to show that they were sufficiently similar? Or was the only reason to combine the two years due to the lack of treatment replicates for each technique employed?
WE DECIDED TO MATCH THE YEARS TO REDUCE THE NUMBERS OF FIGURES AND ALSO BECAUSE MOST OF THE SINGLE COMPONENT BEHAVED SIMILARLY IN THE TWO YEARS IN EACH SYSTEM. FOR THIS REASON IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS REPLICATION. MOREOVER, PCA SCOREPLOT WAS AN EASY REPRESENTATION OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE FERMENTATION IN THREE SYSTEMS AND IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC COMPOUNDS, MATCHING SCORES (SAMPLES) AND LOADINGS (VARIABLES) IN A UNIQUE GRAPHICAL RESULT
Line 266: Change to ‘highlight’
AMENDED
Figure 3: Please make clear in the caption what the numbers are representing, e.g. each day of fermentation.
DONE
Line 275 to 276: Please reword this sentence. Perhaps include information regarding the length of the lag/log phase with respect to this observation of the first part of the fermentation process for the control sample.
WE CHENGED, HOPING IT WILL BE OK WITH YOU
Figure 3: Please correct the spelling of ‘alcool’. Please also read over the captions and ensure that all spaces are present as needed.
CORRECTED
Line 292 to 294: How may this increase in alcohol facilitated or be related to the extraction profile of the polyphenols etc? Also, from the data, can any information be gained about the timing or threshold of alcohol concentration and then the extraction rate of colour/mouthfeel related compounds?
WE GOT YOUR POINT AND WE ADDED IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTRACTION
Line 297: Suggest a reword to improve readability; what is this sentence saying? How do we know that these are outliers, could this be a sampling issue?
OK
Figure 4: Please correct the spelling of ‘alcool’ in all figures. Also, please move the text labels so all of the points are visible. E.g. where is the point for day 20 for AIR MIX? These types of overlapping can be found in all of the graphs.
OK
Line 294: Please also comment on the tight grouping of the phase III points for the AIRMIX, compared to the greater variability in the other two treatments. What was happening during this time period that it seems like the AIRMIX extraction/fermentation was relatively stable.
OK
Table 4: Suggest moving this table into the materials and methods section as it greatly helps the reader to understand how the treatments were applied. Also these are just timings, and so this information is better suited for the materials and methods section, if instead all of these timings had been translated into energy use/man hours, then this information would be even more interesting. Is there any information available regarding the installation costs of this equipment?
WE HAVE INFORMATIONS CONCERING THE COST INSTALLATION BUT IT CAN VARY IN EACH COUNTRY AS WELL AS ENERGY USE. WE DECIDED TO ADOPT THE TIME IN MINUTES.
Line 321: This is an interesting point about the lack of personal needed. A few sentences regarding the manual aspects of each treatment should be added to the materials and methods section for each treatment, so the reader can better understand how these techniques were applied during this experiment.
Supplementary material: It would be great to see diagrams of the three techniques in order to better understand the physical set up and employment between them.
ADDED
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution is thematically focused on the issue of innovative maceration techniques during fermentation of red grape. I think the authors could improve the title at the end to red grapes. Overall, the contribution is done to a good standard. I recommend improving the introduction with a short text devoted to the issue of currently most commonly used fermentation devices and their principles. In the methodology, I recommend a more thorough description of the tested systems, especially for AIRMIXING M.I.™, to add the pressure at which the air is dosed. How was electricity consumption measured? Need to correct KW/h units to kW/h. In the results, a better color differentiation of the evaluated variants (Fig. 3 and 4) is needed by choosing other shades. I consider it important to complete the discussion in which only a limited number of literary sources are used to confront the results. I also recommend performing a language correction. After incorporating these comments, the text can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Review #2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The contribution is thematically focused on the issue of innovative maceration techniques during fermentation of red grape. I think the authors could improve the title at the end to red grapes.
CHANGED
Overall, the contribution is done to a good standard. I recommend improving the introduction with a short text devoted to the issue of currently most commonly used fermentation devices and their principles.
WE REPORTED THE REFERENCE BY SACCHI ET AL 2005 AND ONE MORE RECENT AND EXHAUSTIVE BY SMITH ET AL., 2015.
In the methodology, I recommend a more thorough description of the tested systems, especially for AIRMIXING M.I.™, to add the pressure at which the air is dosed.
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE TANK SIZE, THE MASS, AND IT IS VARIABLE WITH THE TIME, BUT IT CAN BE PROGRAMMED
How was electricity consumption measured? Need to correct KW/h units to kW/h.
THE ENERGY WAS THE ONE REPORTED ON THE LEAFLET OF THE EQUIPMENT. WE DID NOT MEASURE ELECTRICITY BUT ONLY THE TIME OF USING THE MACHINE ASSUMING IT WORKED AT THE POWER REPORTED
In the results, a better color differentiation of the evaluated variants (Fig. 3 and 4) is needed by choosing other shades.
WE MADE CHANGES ON THE LINES
I consider it important to complete the discussion in which only a limited number of literary sources are used to confront the results. I also recommend performing a language correction.
WE ADDED
After incorporating these comments, the text can be accepted for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
thank You, here are some comments:
Line 14: „have been compared with the most used system in today's wine sector“ – it is not clear which maceration techniques are the most used – please specify
Abstract: Grape variety is missing, we don't know anything about grape material
The abstract should be structured as follows: background - a broad context and the purpose of the study
Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied – we don't know anything about analytical methods used as HPLC…
3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings
4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.
Introduction:
Line 35-38 is too long; please split it in two.
Line 37: „they also characterize the body, the color [4] and some of the organoleptic attributes in red wines [5,6].“ – this should be the second sentence
Please be specific - exactly which sensations and organoleptic characteristics depend on polyphenols
Line 88-89 please be specific, which analytical determinations were carried out?
Line 89: In Table 1 and Table 2, the chemical characteristics of grapes at harvests. Please insert are given.
Line 145-146 „Sampling of must in fermentation was done every day at the same time, three 500 mL bottle each sampling from each tank.“ Did you have troubles with CO2 during the determination of fermentation kinetics and how did You solve this problem?
Line 150 620nm or 620 nm
Line 191: „The final alcohol concentration was, in the three samples, around 14.5°.“ please take care which unit You use for the alcohol content in wine samples
Line 235 „and temperatture control“ please change temperature
Figure 3. and Figure 4. please make all numbers and words in figure visiable, check spelling of each word (alcool ?)
Line 285: three days of fermentantio/maceration (check spelling)
Line 302: (a) Phase I
Author Response
Review #3
Dear Authors,
thank You, here are some comments:
Line 14: „have been compared with the most used system in today's wine sector“ – it is not clear which maceration techniques are the most used – please specify
DONE
Abstract: Grape variety is missing, we don't know anything about grape material
DONE
The abstract should be structured as follows: background - a broad context and the purpose of the study
Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied – we don't know anything about analytical methods used as HPLC.
3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings
4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.
Introduction:
Line 35-38 is too long; please split it in two.
IT HAS BEEN REPHRASED
Line 37: „they also characterize the body, the color [4] and some of the organoleptic attributes in red wines [5,6].“ – this should be the second sentence
DONE
Please be specific - exactly which sensations and organoleptic characteristics depend on polyphenols
DONE
Line 88-89 please be specific, which analytical determinations were carried out?
DONE
Line 89: In Table 1 and Table 2, the chemical characteristics of grapes at harvests. Please insert are given.
DONE
Line 145-146 „Sampling of must in fermentation was done every day at the same time, three 500 mL bottle each sampling from each tank.“ Did you have troubles with CO2 during the determination of fermentation kinetics and how did You solve this problem?
DONE
Line 150 620nm or 620 nm
DONE
Line 191: „The final alcohol concentration was, in the three samples, around 14.5°.“ please take care which unit You use for the alcohol content in wine samples
DONE
Line 235 „and temperatture control“ please change temperature
DONE
Figure 3. and Figure 4. please make all numbers and words in figure visiable, check spelling of each word (alcool ?)
DONE
Line 285: three days of fermentation/maceration (check spelling)
DONE
Line 302: (a) Phase I
WE CORRECTED, BUT WE CHANGED ‘PHASE’ TO ‘STAGE’
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for effort in addressing the comments regarding the manuscript. This is an enjoyable and interesting read.
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments.
