Intensification of the Dimethyl Sulfide Precursor Conversion Reaction: A Retrospective Analysis of Pilot-Scale Brewer’s Wort Boiling Experiments Using Hydrodynamic Cavitation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the article is current, and it is written well and in an understandable way.
The Figures 3 and 4 are unreadable with the naked eye.
lines 51-55: The sentence is awkward. Rephrase
lines 58-59: „…release of protons from sulfur atom“ Are there really released protons?
lines 182-185: It should be explained, how p2 was measured for the cavitation number in pump impeller zone?
lines 204-205: Can you quantify the relationship between the intensity of cavitation and the amount of anti-foam product dosed?
line 224: Why is the time step three minutes?
lines 336-345: Sentences containing, in connection with the effectiveness of cavitation, expressions such as very effective, fairly effective, ineffective should be replaced with specific quantified values ​​of half-life or reaction rate.
The discussion is lengthy, it should be shortened by 20-30%.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I read with great interest the manuscript entitled „Intensification of the Dimethyl Sulfide Precursor Conversion Reaction: A Retrospective Analysis of Pilot-Scale Brewer’s Wort Boiling Experiments Using Hydrodynamic Cavitation”, this study demonstrates, for the first time, the significant influence of hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) on the conversion of S-methylmethionine (SMM), the precursor of DMS, during wort boiling. By significantly reducing the SMM half-life, HC offers a promising avenue for optimizing the wort boiling process by potentially reducing boiling time and energy consumption.
To enhance the accessibility and impact of this research, I recommend that the authors expand upon the discussion and conclusions to ensure they are readily understandable by readers outside the immediate research field. Specifically, the authors should emphasize the practical implications of their findings, particularly for industrial applications and economic considerations.
This recommendation can be readily addressed by including a brief paragraph that summarizes the key findings and conclusions in a manner accessible to a broader audience, including potential industrial stakeholders.
Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease, describe each equation with a number, because it is hard to follow them by reading the manuscript.
L. 29 It is in the gaseous form? That does not make a lot of sense.
L. 31 Hopping is the process of adding hops, not the whole procedure of the boiling wort. Wort boiling, during which hops are added is called, well, boiling.
L. 33 Lager styles and ale styles. There is not one ‘ale style’ and one ‘lager style’ there are multiple styles, which are lagers and ales.
L. 69 Wort boiling, not cooking.
L. 82 – 92 This seems like a part for discussion, not introduction section, in my opinion.
L. 106 Why is there a section called ‘hydrodynamic cavitation’? Introduce it as a part of introduction, not a separate section.
Table 1 – why are there so many differences between the parameters of the wort used for the study? Almost each parameter is different in every wort type. Why some of the parameters were not kept constant to determine influence of other parameters on the DMS level?
Also, what was the statistical analysis used to determine that differences between particular trials?
Another important question – why were these worts not boiled using classical boiling used in the breweries to compare results of the two methods?
L. 358-360 So, brewery kettle used in the experiment was not clean after previous batch? This significantly influences the scientific value of the acquired data.
L. 364-365 On which basis you consider that it increased? Especially with such large uncertainties?
L. 365-368 So why do you compare samples which were taken from the process at the different stages? It doesn’t make much sense.
L. 435-453 Important thing, which is not mentioned in this paragraph. You mentioned, that presence of solid particles increases cavitation efficiency. Wort consists of soluble extract. However, addition of hops as well as prolonged heating results in precipitation of solid particles. Could you discuss?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe Introduction and Methods and Materials section is written with variety of errors in the language used. The discussion section is written using more correct English. Please, correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
the manuscript was definitely improved. My main criticism is still the deviation from typical scientific methodology and analysis, but I completely understand that it was done primarily in more, let's call it, 'industrial' way. I see also, that you definitely are aware of that fact and of the limitations of the study. It doesn't change the fact, that some useful information can be withdrawn from the manuscript. Therefore, if that fact is not a flaw in the eyes of the journal editorial board, I will suggest 'accept' to the editors.
