From Fruit to Beverage: Investigating Actinidia Species for Characteristics and Potential in Alcoholic Drink Production

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Incomplete title. Suggest to improve it as: From fruit to beverage: investigating Actinidia species for characteristics and potential in alcoholic drink production

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the title of the paper as you suggested: “From fruit to beverage: investigating Actinidia species for characteristics and potential in alcoholic drink production”.

Comments 2: Please revise the abstract thoroughly: Methods are not clearly described and treatments are vague. Results are not properly reported. Suggest to divide your results based on the experiments you have conducted and clearly mention the significant differences among the treatments. In the end of abstract, add a conclusion

Response 2: As the reviewer suggested, the abstract was modified resuming the general part and including more details about the results (lines 23-33).

Comments 3: Citric acid.

Response 3: Done.

Comments 4: Full name please.

Response 4: Done.

Comments 5: What about SunGold?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we changed the text as follow: “The outcome of this work may facilitate the reduction of waste and the market expansion of these kiwi species through the implementation of alternative processing methods” (lines 101-103).

Comments 6: Please mention how much juice was obtained from each fruit.

Response 6: As the reviewer suggested, the juice extraction yields were included: “…obtaining a juice extraction yield up to 70%, specifically 70%, 32% and 65% for SunGold, Rua and Tahi, respectively.” (lines 114-116).

Comments 7: What is the difference between 2.2 and 2.3; both of which are analyzing physiochemical of juice

Response 7: Probably it was a misunderstanding. In Section 2.2. we described the analyses performed on the fruit pulp, while in the Section 2.3 we described the analyses performed on kiwifruit juices obtained with the extractor.

Comments 8: Please clearly mention fruit or juice. If juice, you can report at 2.3 otherwise, why you didn't use pulp for the analysis.

Response 8: We agree with this comment; it was a refuse. The titration was made on extracted pulp of kiwi with the seed elimination. Therefore, we added this sentence “Pulp fruit from each sample was extracted and the titratable acidity (TA) was measured with an automatic titrator; results were expressed as % (w/v) acid citric.” (lines 122-124).  

Comments 9: What about physical characterization?

Response 9: It was a preliminary evaluation of these juice and we have focused our attention on chemical aspects; we modified the title of the section as follows “Chemical and Nutraceutical Evaluation of Kiwifruit” (line 119).

Comments 10: Kiwi juice of drink?

Response 10: In this context we were speaking about the product of the fermentation, so it was correct talk about drink. We decided to refer to the product as drink, while the raw material as juice.

Comments 11: Please use either juice or drink.

Response 11: We decided to refer to the product as drink, while the raw material as juice.

Comments 12: Please focus more on your results and differences between cultivars. Here, I only see some explanations about hardness. not about the results and findings.

Response 12: Thank you for your comment. We have improved this part as follows: “Among varieties the SunGold is the sweater with also the lowest acidity (%) value while the cv Rua is the baby kiwi with the lowest TSS content.” (lines 265-266); “With regard to the dry matter (DM) measurements, minimal differences were observed in the baby kiwi samples, whereas variations were evident in the SunGold with the highest level (22%).” (lines 273-275); “In particular, Oh et al. [14] indicate that for the hardy kiwifruit, the development of DM, starch and sugars occurs independently of environmental conditions in pre-harvest. In our case all samples with Nergi® brand are from the same cultivation area (Cuneo province, Italy).” (lines 278-281); “Hardness values found in this work were generally higher for all the kiwifruit varieties considered than those found as outcomes [33]. In any case the SunGold fruits showed a higher hardness, due also their bigger shape, and this can be positive correlated with the highest DM content (Table 1).” (lines 294-297); “Among cultivars can be concluded that baby kiwifruit cultivar Rua show the highest nutraceutical profile.” (lines 307-308).

Comments 13: Please insert full name in caption.

Response 13: Amended.

Comments 14: There is not a single sentence about the differences between the cultivars. You used 3 cultivars in this study. Please mention which one is more promising.

Response 14: As the reviewer suggested, we proposed the most promising cultivars in lines 580-583: “Among the three varieties tasted, the most promising seems to be the Tahi if the desired characteristics include the passion fruit character. Nonetheless, pleasant drinks can be also obtained with the SunGold due to its apple note.”

Comments 15: Please write about the future direction as well.

Response 15: As the reviewer suggested, the future perspectives were reported in lines 584-595: “These findings provide valuable insights into the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of various kiwifruit varieties, highlighting their potential applications in the food and beverage industry with a sustainable approach to reduce food waste of fruits rich in bioactive compounds. The evaluation of kiwifruit varieties and their juice fermentation potential facilitates the creation of unique alcoholic beverages with distinct sensory profiles, thereby enhancing product differentiation for targeted consumer segments. This promotes sustainable practices through the utilization of fruit waste and supports the development of functional beverages rich in bioactive com-pounds. The growing consumer interest in health-conscious, value-added products is expected to drive market growth for kiwi-based beverages. Furthermore, collaborative efforts among researchers, industry stakeholders, and agricultural producers could further amplify sustainable and economic benefits.”

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.