Volatile Profiles of Sparkling Wines Produced by the Traditional Method from a Semi-Arid Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to the Authors
Manuscript: beverages-399977
Research paper
Volatile profiles of sparkling wines produced by the 2 traditional method from a semi-arid region
Authors described the characteristics of volatile profiles of sparkling wines produced by the traditional method, using Chenin Blanc and Syrah grapes in São Francisco Valley, Northeastern Brazil.
In general, the manuscript is divided by well-balanced sections. The section Background describes the state-of-the-art of the study, providing to the readers enough information to understand the work. Aim of the study is clearly presented. Materials and methods are clear and enough informative to allow reproduction of the experiments. Results and discussion separate parts are well presented and organized. In my opinion, the manuscript has a good rationale and uses sound scientific tools.
The literature should be verified acc. to editorial requirements.
Author Response
We provided some adjustments in the text improving English as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
This work deals with the chemical characterization of four sparkling wines (two varietals and two blendings) produced following the Champenoise method in a tropical region. The volatile profile is highlighted for its relevance to the sensory quality of the wines, but also other quality parameters such as ethanol content, residual sugars, total and volatile acidity… and antioxidant activity have been measured.
In general, the manuscript has enough quality for acceptance in beverages, but with some previous modifications:
- The abstract does not allow to identify the whole magnitude of the experiment, the other analyzes carried out in addition to the volatiles should (at least) be mentioned.
- Line 22: Replace “CG-MS” with “GC-MS”
- Line 67: 2.1. Standards and chemical reagents Why not include in this section all the chemicals used, e.g. bentonite, activated carbon, PVPP, fermentation activator...
- Line 74: 2.2. Grape samples and obtention of the musts and base wines This section should state how much grapes were processed and the final volume of fermentation, saying that fermentation was carried out in bottles of 20 L is not enough. How much headspace was left?
- Line 75: Correct “harvest” with “harvested”
- Line 90: It would be interesting to have more information about the base wines, not only ethanol content and residual sugars, but also, pH and acidity. If available, I would suggest to include the information as supplementary material. Also nutrients composition (specially PAN) if measured.
- Line 102: Please, specify how much time after disgorging were the analysis done.
- Line 108: “milligrams of gallic acid per liter of sparkling wine (mg GAE L-1)”. What is the meaning of E in the units? If it refers to equivalents, please, indicate it in the text.
- Line 112: ABTS and DPPH. Show the full meaning of these abbreviations.
- Line 114: (mM TEAC L-1). Units are wrong; you have two options, replace mM by mmol or delete L-1.
- Line 124: “according method by” Include the particle “to” à “according to method”
- Line 147: Place the abbreviation “(LTPRI),” after the words “retention indices”.
- Lines 163-166: Do you have any explanation for these results?
- Line 174: Table 1 à Could you please explain the difference between the two methods used for measuring the antioxidant activity¿? Why the differences found in the results?
- Line 183: This reference “[13]” seems not to be related to the bioactive activity of phenolic compounds. Check it, please.
- Line 183: It would be nice to see a correlation value.
- Line 334: Delete “were not”
- Line 342: Replace “sensorial” with “sensory”
Author Response
Please see document with answers attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf