The Impacts of Frozen Material-Other-Than-Grapes (MOG) on Aroma Compounds of Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon
, Xiaoyu Xu 1, Jiaming Wang 2,3, Emily Aubie 2,4, Marnie Crombleholme 2,5 and Andrew Reynolds 2,6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments in attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see our attachment "responses to reviewers"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript addresses influence of material-other-than-grape on volatile compounds of wines produced from two kind of varieties. The authors already published two papers including reference 13 and 14, harvest technologies and yeast strains. I suspect that this manuscript contains redundant content because the introduction of this manuscript L43- should be same as one of reference 14 (Am J Enol Vitic 73:3 p142 (2022) ).
This manuscript could provide useful information to process of wine making, however, I recommend that the authors should revise this manuscript in accordance with scientific manner.
Author Response
Please see our attachment "responses to reviewers"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the work is well done, well-constructed. The introduction is well-articulated and gets the reader well into the topic under study. The methodology is appropriate and well-articulated, as are the results and discussion. I thank the authors for the scientific contribution of this study.
The only critical issue in the study, which I kindly ask the authors to improve, is the issue of floral taint. From the abstract, the consequences of the presence of MOG on this defect are well understood. However, reading the results and discussion, one gets the impression that one does not quite understand what the impact of leaves and petioles is on floral taint. Even more specifically, I think it may be appropriate for the reader to understand how to prevent or rather avoid the occurrence of floral taint.
Specific comments are given below:
Check in the whole manuscript (including tables and figures) that cis- and trans- are always in italics.
Moreover, I would suggest making the explanation of PCAs as uniform as possible (e.g., I would always emphasize the % of variance explained).
Line 36. Abstract: I think that there is an error when authors wrote “contributed norisoprenoids and C6 alcohols”…please check and correct.
Lines 90-91. There might be a phrasing error…modify as follows: 1) fermentation leads to wines with higher concentrations of several monoterpenes and other aroma compounds or 2) fermentation leads to higher concentrations of several monoterpenes and other aroma compounds in the obtained wines.
Lines 95-97. However, contrary to other aroma compounds and other studies [25], methoxypyrazines can be reduced with high petiole concentrations, possibly through adsorption by petioles in fermenting wines [17].
Line 119. Delete “and” after “;”.
Line 121. Change aglycones--due to aglycones — due.
Lines 125-127. Reformulate better the following sentence: These initial sensorial and chemical analyses were ultimately used by participating wineries to identify the source material in terms of variety and vineyard location.
Line 215. Add a “.” between day and Replicated.
Line 321. Change “most important” in “more important”.
Lines 453. Add “with” as follows: and were associated with the highest …..
Lines 548-549. Write Saccharomyces cerevisiae in italics.
Lines 620-622. Authors hypothesized that previous works [10] examined the impact of fresh petioles rather than post-frost petioles, which could explain the differences observed in terms of methoxypyrazines. I could not fully understand the motivation behind the hypothesis; therefore, I would suggest to better explain this observation.
Line 649. γ (γ-terpinene) and β (β-ionone) are missing.
Line 671. β (β-damascenone) is missing.
Line 672. α (α-terpineol) is missing.
Author Response
See our attachment "responses to reviewers"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript addresses influence of material-other-than-grape on volatile compounds of wines produced from two vintages and two kind of varieties. The authors already published three papers including reference 12, 13 and 14, difference of harvest method, yeast strains and analysis of volatiles in these conditions, respectively. Also, there are some data and results from previous papers which they published already and provide in supplement document. These could lead confusion for reader.
1. Data set in previous papers
It is likely that designs of experiments in three papers and this manuscript are almost similar. Since then, volatiles contributed to floral defect due to frozen MOG are already shown in previous papers, terpenes, norisprenoids and esters. I strongly argue that the authors should not show privious data in this manuscript.
2. Introduction
I argue that the authors should demondtrate a review of three papers briefly and unsolved issues at first in introduction. The introduction section contains redundancy of general information and the authors should show “what’s new in comparison with previous three papers” and issues in this manuscript. Probably data set is similar with three papers and new one might be the results of PCA and PLS. Therefore, it should be necessary to show the reasons of conducting stastiscal anlysis although candidates of floral off flavor were already shown in previous papers. Please rewrite introduction breifly.
3. non-frozen MOG vs frozen MOG.
The authors prepared frozen MOG of 2016 vintage in lab. The author already showed influence of frozen MOG in previous paper. I recommed that authors compare between non-forozen and frozen in the future.
L158: 1000g?
L291-382: The authors showed results of two grape varieties and two vintagesFigure1-4. It is difficult to understand the similarity and differece between four results. Please integrate all results briefly.
The authors analyzed 100 voaltiles and quntified 41 compounds, however, the authors showed only 15 compounds. Please show the reasons.
Table 1: Reconsider whether this table is necessary or not.
Figure 5 and 6: Please show error bars in all graphs.
L491-: Please show results which were provided using PLS.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank reviewer 2 for his/her comments. We have attached our responses as a cover letter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the requested changes, and I believe the manuscript is improved and ready for publication.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer 3 for his/her comments
