Staged Fermentation with a Saccharomyces cerevisiae Consortium and Monascus purpureus for Sustainable Valorization of Persimmon into High-Quality Wine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper (manuscript ID: fermentation-3592433) reports a staged fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae consortium and Monascus purpureus for the sustainable valorization of persimmon waste into wine. Below are some comments and suggestions for authors.

1. Indicate equipment, drying and freezing modes for persimmons (line 100). Describe the methods for determining pH and tannins in more detail or add references to standard/literature protocols (line 89). In addition, the description of statistical processing and software can also be added to the section "Materials and Methods".
2. Line 155: apparently there should be a "three-factor, three-level Box-Behnken design" since a four-factor design cannot be implemented with three independent variables and only 17 experimental runs.
3. There is inconsistency in the inoculum concentration values ​​for Monascus purpureus in the manuscript (subsections 2.6, 2.7, 2.9 and 3.4.1) and supplementary materials (Table S3). What is the optimal inoculation ratio (0.3 or 3.0 g/kg)? Please note that 1–5 g/kg (biomass: juice) is approximately equivalent to 0.1–0.5%.
4. In Figures 1 and 2, it is recommended to evaluate the significance of differences between the average values ​​of the studied indicators.
5. In subsection 3.3, the results of the ANOVA analysis should be considered in more detail. At a minimum, the absence of variables AB, BC, 𝐴^2, 𝐵^2 and 𝐶^2 in the model should be discussed (Table 2). Note that the polynomial equation (1) is of the first order.
6. Add units to Table 4. Since phenethyl acetate, ethyl octanoate, decanal, ethyl decanoate, 2,3-butanediol, 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol and citronellol are included in the discussion (lines 402–408), it is recommended that data for these compounds be added to Table 4. In any case, the data in Table S5 should be checked, since the "MSF" column has a "-" sign next to some odorants.
7. Check the correctness of the references to works [20] and [21] in lines 419 and 422.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This interesting manuscript is dealing with the investigation of different approaches during the fermentation whit application of various cultures responsible for this process.

First suggestion and very important suggestion is regarding the title which make big confusion. In the title you have two words-persimmon waste which is not correct since you have not made wine from waste obtained after processing persimmon but from persimmon fruit itself. Correct it.

In the subsection 2.1. are missing information regarding persimmon from which were produced wines. Content of biologically active compounds in fruit depends from agro-technical approach applied during the production.

How did you grow persimmon fruit used in this manuscript?

Did you use any fertilizers?

What kind of fertilizers you have used?

Did you use any substances for the protection against pests? If yes what kind.

On what kind of soil did you grow persimmon fruit?

When you homogenized fruit into the pulp did you have gelation of pulp due to presence of pectin. Explain it in manuscript.

What was initial content of sugar in persimmon fruit expressed in Brix?

Did you conduct chaptalization of persimmon fruit? If yes highlight amount of added sugar in Brix.

In the subsection 2.4.2. what was initial content of sugar in persimmon juice. Insert it.

In the subsection 2.4.3. insert initial sugar content of juice before adjustment.

What was the reason for ethanol decrease during the increase of pH in the subsection 3.2.3? Explain it in manuscript.

Highlight that some volatile compounds are responsible for undesirable aroma or flavor of wine.

Make discussion broader observing same approach during the fermentation of other fruits.

Highlight that spontaneous fermentation and inoculated fermentation with different yeasts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae influenced on the content of biologically active compound and antioxidant potential of wine. Kindly consider to cite Food and Feed Research, 51 (1), 119-129, 2024. 

As I have highlighted for title in this manuscript you are making confusion since you have not made wine from persimmon waste, but from persimmon fruit. Correct it in the whole manuscript.

Correct in the conclusion that you have not produced wine from persimmon waste but from fruit which could be waste if it is not used fresh or processed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Persimmons are an important fruit in some world regions and are the subject of continuous research. The paper highlights useful data for the persimmon grower that could be used in practice.

The manuscript is relevant to the persimmon grower and the scientific community and is presented in a well-structured manner.

There are a few points to address to the authors:

From 2.2. Section – it is not clear that the experiment is coordinated as ”micro fermentation” or ”macro fermentation” regarding the quantity of the material used

- In my opinion, the number of 10 panelist members is too few for this kind of analysis. Also, there is no indication or reference to describe more precisely the sensorial method used in the manuscript.

The supplementary tables should be included in the main material, as they are useful to support the data

- The research results are appropriately interpreted and compared with other studies in the field.

-  The discussions and conclusions section is well presented, with proper arguments to sustain the results.

- There are recent references on the topic of the manuscript

Thank you!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors considered all comments and suggestions. The revised Discussion section significantly increased the scientific validity of the study. The manuscript was sufficiently improved and is recommended for publication in its current version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for revised version of manuscript it is fine for me. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.doc