Sensory Analysis as a Simple and Low-Cost Tool to Evaluate and Valorize a New Product from Local Fruits in Rural Communities: The Case of Highly Aromatic Vinegar from Prickly Pear Fruits

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper treats an interesting topic related to sensory characterization of the prickly pear vinegars, comparing the results obtained by applying the Descriptive Quantitative Analysis (DQA) and the Free Choice Profiling (FCP) method.

There are some adjustments that need to be made:

1. Although some characteristics of FCP method were presented to Introduction, a short description of DQA and FCP methods would be useful for readers.

2. The sensory evaluation procedure should be described distinctly from the analyzed samples.

3. The characteristics of panelists (trained / untrained; how they were selected etc.) must be better underlined.

4. How it was ensured that the number of judges was sufficient, in relationship with the number of samples, the differences among samples and / or other target objectives?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

L24: ‘best vinegars’: better to change wording, as the analysis is descriptive.

L52: ‘Since these are new consumer products’: delete ‘consumer’, replace by ‘food’

L71: ‘The objective of this work has been to characterize’: replace ‘has been’ by ‘was’

L72: ‘It also aims to confirm whether comparable’: replace ‘confirm’ by ‘investigate’

Table 1. Instead of ‘culture’, you could use ‘acetification methods’ as described in L85.

L87-88. Phrase is confusing, did not understand please reword.

92: which tasting room are you referring to: sensory booths?

L94-95: what was the temperature of the vinegar, ambient?

L99: why only 4 judges? Small number

L101-102: please specify how many hours of training was carried out. I suggest you describe the objectives referred in Table 2 instead. Table 2 is not adding any value to the paper, I suggest you delete Table 2.

L104: please define the consensus index

L112-116: this is statistical analysis, please detail more and add reference. How the performance of these judges was evaluated.

L119-122: this is study procedures (M&M - material and methods). I suggest you create subsections in M&M to be easier to follow: Samples, Participants, etc

3.1. Stage 1. Generation of the odor descriptors, L119: what do you mean by intermediate samples?

L123-126: this is data analysis, please refer to literature and move this to data analysis section

Table 3, L136: add n of assessors.

Table 3: Fresh/Balsamic, Wet earth/Infusion: are they supposed to be 2 different attributes or one? They sound different to me.

Ethyl acetate, what is the sensory perception/attribute it is referring to? This is a chemical compound, not a sensory descriptor. Please change this by what the assessor meant by this molecule. Correct this in the respective places (plots etc) in the manuscript.

L160-163, and 166-169: same comment as per L119-122: this is study procedures (M&M - material and methods).

3.1.2. Descriptive Quantitative Analysis (DQA) methodology: please rethink what goes in M&M, what goes in Statistical analysis. And what is actually a result. Suggest to re-write the section.

L190: At Session 3: not needed

Figure 3. Why Olfactory quality was not included?

L205-206: ‘surface culture as less aromatic and with some clear defects when compared against those that had been produced by submerged culture, which had been described as more fruity and floral’. – this is the only part you commented about the effect of those treatments on the sensory profile of the vinegars. How about the outcome from Fig 1 and 2 in this regard (bacetria, temp and method)? Please add in respective section.

3.2.2. Descriptive Quantitative Analysis (DQA): same as previous comments, please rethink what goes in M&M, what goes in Statistical analysis. And what is actually a result. Suggest to re-write the section.

Table 5. Please add letters, and statistical method used. In L236, it is stated only the p-value as it is in table, but post hoc test not reported.

L257: higher scores of – is it in terms of intensity? Please specify

L300-301: please address similarities and differences considering the results from this study.

L323: same comment made for the abstract. Those vinegars (submerged culture at 30 ºC and 322 using Acetobacter malorum) were rated higher for…? To say ‘best rated’ is not correct.

It was easy to follow overall, but some parts the wording need further clarification.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This version is clearer now. It was quite difficult though to follow the changes in the manuscript as the lines changed, so my advice for next time is to refer back to the new lines to facilitate the revision process. I still have some minor comments:

In L103-104 I can see that the temperature of the room was added. Please add the serving temperature of the samples under this section: 2.2. Methodology too.

L117: there is a repetition please amend.

L121, L168: replace conductor by leader.

L133: specify each label for the ends of scale. In L133 it is saying 9-point interval scale and in L137 is saying nine-point scale (0-8). Please clarify if same scale and use same terminology.

1.1. Stage 1. Generation of the odor descriptors – please revise punctuation and spacing missing. In L198 there is double :: too, please verify if there is any other typo in the paper.

L152: two-way analysis, please amend

L159: QDA spare – please delete

Conclusion: please add limitations of the study and future perspectives.

It was easy to follow overall, but it is still a bit wordy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx