Wine Minerality and Funkiness: Blending the Two Tales of the Same Story
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review is interesting and will contribute to the knowledge about sensory perceptions of minerality in wine. There are a few spelling and grammatical issues that need to be corrected. Attached, please see my detailed comments. The author mentioned some of the difficulties associated with describing minerality in wine, but did not really spend a lot of time on the information gaps and what research is needed to provide clarity. The author should provide one or two sentences about the research needs in the Conclusion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the improvements requested.
Responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript (fermentation-2076088) provides an overview of the sources, sensory concepts, and influencing factors of mineral flavors in wine. The theme is novel, but the expression and logic make this manuscript difficult to read. Some of the main problems are listed below.
1. The title is confusing because it does not even mention the primary object, wine.
2.摘要的逻辑混乱。矿物风味与低硫风味之间没有联系，也没有提到作者用时髦代替矿物的想法。这对于没有读过整篇手稿的读者来说，是很难理解的。结论部分比摘要部分更合乎逻辑。摘要需要重写。
3.引言部分缺少目前存在的葡萄酒中矿物质问题，体现了本稿件的意义。
4.第41-45行，表达不明确。作者的意思是夏布利PDO的矿物风味不是来自土壤矿物质吗？
5.表1，为什么有些葡萄品种名称是斜体，有些则不是？
6.第98-100行，作者的意思是图1是从参考文献[30]总结出来的吗？如果是这样，请在图 1 中标记它。
7.第136行，请将“这些标签”改为“这些果味标签”。
8.第157-158行，它是琥珀酸盐而不是琥珀酸，具有鲜味，请检查。
9.150-151行和163行，这两句话似乎矛盾，新鲜度和矿物质到底是什么关系？
10.第 163 行、第 167 行、第 169 行，正/负预测变量到底是什么意思？
11.186行，什么是“无味葡萄品种”？
12.199-200行，请注明具体的低发酵温度和酶型。
13.第207-209行，为什么“紧张和坚持的口感”推断气候驱动矿物质？这句话和上一句有什么联系？
14.第256行，错误的“幼稚”字。
15.第263行，请在此引用具体文献。
16.279行，什么是“折旧特征”？
17.304行，给出DIAM的全名。 作者必须在任何缩写首次出现在文本中时详细说明它们。检查稿件。
18.我强烈建议作者在重新投稿前获得一位母语为英语的经验丰富的科学编辑的帮助，以帮助修改本稿件。
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for the improvements requested.
Responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This well-written review paper is dedicated to the minerality of wines and discusses the olfactory concept and consumer preferences of wines. In my opinion, the article clearly presented the topic and the aim of the review. Some minor comments are below.
From one exception, references are considered up-to-date literature. Only ref. no. 57, from 1997 could be changed. The references are not correctly cited in many places.
Line 35. I propose to write PhD dissertation,
Table 1. column with references as the last one, instead of "wines" could be "type of wine", then added a column with "number of analysed samples",
Figure 1 any references that were used to prepare the wheel?
Is there any other word that could be used instead of "predictors" (page 5), attributes? markers? descriptors?
Table 2. Please add information on the source of these consumers' answers.
page 11 Acknowledgments: it is written "we", however, there is only one author.
Author Response
Thank you for the improvements requested.
Responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript submitted by Malfeito-Ferreira mainly dealt with minerality and funkiness of the wine. It's a good article. Author had very deep understanding in this area. The article was instructive and applicable. However, some problems or errors need to be revised according to the following suggestions.
In Table 1, don't put the reference into the first column of the table.
Figure 1, please improve the resolution of the figure.
In Table 2, authors summarized the typical answers given to fruity and mineral wines by naive participants in educational workshops. All these descriptive analysis lack of quantitation scale, please explain why.
Author Response
Thank you for the improvements requested.
Responses are in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
There have been some improvements in revision. However, there is plenty of polishing needed in fine details.
1. Figure 1, seashore, not ‘sea-hore’. What is ‘white pulp’?
2. The author has replaced the confusing ‘predictors’ to ‘descriptors’, which is much clearer than before. However, some places seem to have been forgotten to revise, such as line 172, line 178, line 180, etc. The same problem is ‘naïve’ in line 278, line 281. Please check carefully.
3. Some spell checks. ‘Eleven whites’ in Table 1. Unclear abbreviation, e.g., S. blanc.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
