New Online Monitoring Approaches to Describe and Understand the Kinetics of Acetaldehyde Concentration during Wine Alcoholic Fermentation: Access to Production Balances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigated the evolution of acetaldehyde concentration during wine alcoholic fermentation, specifically the impact of temperature that holds fermentation kinetics but also acetaldehyde dynamics synthesis. It appears a very promising work with interesting findings. However, there are areas that the authors need to consider, which would help to improve the quality of the work:
a) The introduction needs more organisation, please authors consider having maximum of four paragraphs, and bring together the points as much as possible, make sure it does not exceed 4 paragraphs
Please start the intoduction with wine alcholic fermentation process, what it entails, then from there, bring in the evolution of acetaldehyde concentration during wine alcoholic fermentation, etc etc.
Please, dedicate a paragraph also to what online monitoring approaches entails, make it to stand out clearly, bring in studies that have performed this, and why it is needful to apply it to this context.
All the points that are basis of rationale for this study, please move all to the last paragraph, ok
b) Please, start your materials and methods with a new subsection captioned 'Schematic overview of the experimental program', which should comprise 4-5 sentences, with a flow diagram. The idea here is to provide a snapshot of the methods, how were samples allocated, how does online monitoring come in..use visuals to draw the readers into the work, and connect the methods with the objective of this work.
The reviewer will examine this very thoroughly

c) I really like the results and discussion, it is very promising. Authors, please, apply your discretion to sharpen it further, and provide more indepth literature discussion ok
Also, please, in the results and discussion, please use only (a), (b), (c) (do not use (i),(ii), (iii) or (1), (2), ) in the all the places where you are trying to outline some points, hypothesis, etc. This will help it to clearly stand out,ok
e) Please, in your conclusions, kindly provide direction for future work ok
Look forward to your revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing this paper very carefully.

Please find below our responses.

Best regards,

Charlie Guittin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs minor revisions.

1.      Title: maybe it is possible to improve it:

Description and comprehension of acetaldehyde concentration evolution during wine alcoholic fermentation: the value of new online monitoring approaches providing access to production balances

Here is a suggestion:

New online monitoring approaches to describe and understand the acetaldehyde (concentration) evolution during wine alcoholic fermentation.

 2.      Abstract: please revise all the abstract following the instructions for the authors.

Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

3.      Line 85: the time at which maybe better the moment when

4.      Line 104: However, to this day maybe better However, to date,

5.      Line 108: SO2 change in SO₂

6.      Line 142 or line 148: please add to assimilable nitrogen the abbreviation (=Nass)  or add Nass/L in line 148 after 200 mg Nass/L (= assimilable nitrogen/L)

7.      Line 197: dry matter and Eq. 1: please explain better Eq.1

8.      Line284-292: please remove this paragraph because these are the aims of the work, and the correct position is at the end of the introduction (line 116-122).

9.      Line 304: remove the s between activity and was

10.   Line 493: put the comma in the correct position activity , in this way: activity,

11.   Line 492-494: please improve this sentence, I think is possible to simplify it.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing this paper very carefully.

Please find below our responses.

Best regards,

Charlie Guittin

Author Response File: Author Response.docx