Understanding the Mellowing Effect of Bottle Aging on the Sensory Perceptions of Varietal Dry White Wines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have revised your manuscript titled “Understanding the mellowing effect of bottle aging on the sensory and aesthetic perceptions of varietal dry white wines”. The work made a general positive impression on me, however, several points require in my opinion, attention:

Line 2&3; 11; 191: I suggested not using the words “aesthetic”, and “synthetic”, and “analytic flavour attributes”, which could be substituted by the word sensory. The word sensory includes visual, aromatic, and taste perceptions.

Lines 44 to 51: In this experiment, it’s clear that you don’t want to consider the oxidation of wines, but acetaldehyde is a clear biomarker of how the wine develops during mellowing. In my opinion, a mention of acetaldehyde will help to understand if there is a negative evolution of the wine.

Line 122: Considering the data obtained in Table S4, I think that could introduce an explanation of the methodology of FTIR calibration, due to Resolution 390/2010 specifying a minimum of 50 samples for calibration. Besides could be a clarifier a Tukey test for each parameter.

Line 289: It needs to clarify the differences between Vegetal_A and Vegetal_F, here, after that just use the acronym (Line 313).

 

Line 337: The winemaking process in Monforte et al (36) is the same as the wines used in this experimentation, as consider the methodology to establish these two different categories of wines. Are the same varieties at least? As is presented in several studies, each variety had different behavior.

Author Response

We are grateful for the improvements of the article suggested by Reviewer 1. 

Our responses are in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many detailed information was lack of introduction, including the sensory evaluation method and procedures. The aroma identification method was also missing. Therefore, I recommended major revision.

1. Too much keywords were listed, I recommended deleted the fine wine, quality, complexity. The sensory space and aroma should be combined into one keyword.

2. As for the sensory evaluation test, the panelists training, selection, and the detailed evaluation procedures should be provided. For example, the aroma and attributes references. Please reference from the sensory evaluation method (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2022, 70(41), 13367-13378.; Food Chemistry, 2020, 318, 126520. Foods, 2023, 12(19), 3693.). Besides, panelists were requested to evaluate the years of white wine, did author set the corresponding samples represented the different year of wine?

3. Line 154, How much volume was used for solvent extraction

4. Line 161, why author just inject 0.5 µl rather than 1 µl?

5. The aroma identification and quantification should be provided in manuscript. The retention indexes of calculated or referenced value should be added at Figure S9. Several aroma compounds should be deleted like L-serine, please check the aroma compounds carefully. The data presentation please reference from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2022, 70(41), 13367-13378. Since no internal standard compounds were added, how author obtain the aroma compounds with quantification result (mg/L)?

6. The definition (detailed description) of complexity, balance, body, linger, evolution, faulty should be listed a table at the manuscript.

7. The Figures 1 and 5 should be conducted by origin software rather than the excel, please revise.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many detailed information was lack of introduction, including the sensory evaluation method and procedures. The aroma identification method was also missing. Therefore, I recommended major revision.

1. Too much keywords were listed, I recommended deleted the fine wine, quality, complexity. The sensory space and aroma should be combined into one keyword.

2. As for the sensory evaluation test, the panelists training, selection, and the detailed evaluation procedures should be provided. For example, the aroma and attributes references. Please reference from the sensory evaluation method (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2022, 70(41), 13367-13378.; Food Chemistry, 2020, 318, 126520. Foods, 2023, 12(19), 3693.). Besides, panelists were requested to evaluate the years of white wine, did author set the corresponding samples represented the different year of wine?

3. Line 154, How much volume was used for solvent extraction

4. Line 161, why author just inject 0.5 µl rather than 1 µl?

5. The aroma identification and quantification should be provided in manuscript. The retention indexes of calculated or referenced value should be added at Figure S9. Several aroma compounds should be deleted like L-serine, please check the aroma compounds carefully. The data presentation please reference from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2022, 70(41), 13367-13378. Since no internal standard compounds were added, how author obtain the aroma compounds with quantification result (mg/L)?

6. The definition (detailed description) of complexity, balance, body, linger, evolution, faulty should be listed a table at the manuscript.

7. The Figures 1 and 5 should be conducted by origin software rather than the excel, please revise.

Author Response

We are grateful for the comments of Reviewer 2, who enabled us to improve the manuscript.

The responses are in attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf