Optimization of the Ginkgo Wine Fermentation Process and Influence of Fermentation Starter Types on the Brewing Flavor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     Yeast and jinqu were used as starters, and it seems necessary to mention this in the introduction. In particular, jiuqu is an unfamiliar starter. A detailed explanation is needed to make it easier for readers to understand.

2.     Line 27: GBS full name not detected; the full name should be mentioned separately from the abstract.

3.     Additional explanation is needed on how the three yeasts and jiuqu used in the study were each selected.

4.     Line 78: What materials are solid and liquid referred to here? It's hard to understand just by looking at this part. Please add more explanation.

5.     The effect of the starter type on the flavor of the wine was investigated, but it seems correct to see that the starter group is affected by the microorganisms of each starter rather than depending on the type.

Author Response

Receiving your review is a fortunate thing for me. I have responded to your comments one by one in the attachment and made revisions and supplements in the manuscript of the paper. Thank you again for the reviewer's recognition of my paper manuscript. Thank you for your suggestions and corrections. Wishing you a happy life and smooth research. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It's interesting and well-drafted scientific work about fruit wines. Fruit wines are more and more popular, and thus the importance of such scientific research is also increasing.

Author Response

Receiving your review is a fortunate thing for me. I have responded to your comments one by one in the attachment and made revisions and supplements in the manuscript of the paper. Thank you again for the reviewer's recognition of my paper manuscript. Thank you for your suggestions and corrections. Wishing you a happy life and smooth research. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors present a work where they evaluate the potential use of ginkgo seeds to produce a fermented beverage by the optimization of some operational parameters.

The work is interesting, and authors present a good quality data result. However, there are some inconsistencies that make difficult the understanding of the work. In this sense, the M&M section is not clear enough to interpret de results and the performed work. That is why I recommend the authors to rewrite and better address the presented information. The article is not publishable at the current form, and I am not able to really understand some of the results due to the inconsistent methodology explanation.

Some specific comments:

L10 (s) contains.

L14 You should explain what this means more clearly. Makes no sense in the abstract without context.

L27 please introduce the abbreviation.

L38 Revise the sentence, English is confusing.

L47 to what other substrate?

L58 Introduction should also discuss some chemical parameters and microbial characteristics of these wines.

L62 I suggest authors to rewrite this section. It could be improved with higher degree of redaction and connection between ideas.

L71 how was the medium inoculated?

L100 you already say that at the beginning of the sentence.

Table 2 L or l, unify. These are the mean of the replicates?

L178 Results and discussion?

L182 If you introduce an abbreviation, use it during the whole manuscript

L194 why is not enough sugar?

L203 14,9 % (vol/vol) of ethanol with an initial sugar concentration of 120 g/L or 120 g/L addition to the initial 60 g/L, still very high ethanol content for 180 g/L fermentable sugars...

L210 This information is obvious and can be avoided.

Figure 1 Since I do not really understand which is the initial sugar concentration, I am not able to evaluate these results. If the initial sugar concentration in B is 60 g/L is absolutely impossible to reach 10 % (vol/vol) of ethanol.

L281 why bold letters?

L291 these parameters were evaluated?

Table 7 volatile acidity/ total acidity / free... Check the spelling. volatile acidity is very low...

L305 This is repetitive if you present the same information as in the table.

L310 You really discussed and evaluated the T?

L316 Unify if space between the number and the %.

Table 9 Since the fermentation starters are not introduced, neither the temperatures studied I cannot follow the discussion from here.

Author Response

Receiving your review is a fortunate thing for me. I have responded to your comments one by one in the attachment and made revisions and supplements in the manuscript of the paper. Thank you again for the reviewer's recognition of my paper manuscript. Thank you for your suggestions and corrections. Wishing you a happy life and smooth research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Still some points must be addressed. In general, English of the manuscript should be revised, and some responses are hard to understand.

- Carefully revise the nomenclature of the microorganisms. Some appear without italics, others with capital letters when introducing the species.

- Alcohol content’s units (% vol/vol)

Figure 1: why ethanol content decreases after reaching a maximum when increasing the sugar concentration?

Figure 4. Revise the kilogram/gram nomenclature.

- Starter inoculation methodology and nomenclature should be better explained. There is a lack of connection with Table 1 where they are presented and Table 9 where they appear as A-F. Also, in the first part of the results, which starter is used?

Some sentences of the manuscript, and mainly the authors responses, are hard to understand. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable insights and suggestions you provided for our paper. I have made the necessary revisions in accordance with your guidance and have carefully considered each of your points.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf