The Role and Application of Redox Potential in Wine Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript titled “The Role and Application of Redox Potential in Wine Technology” (ID: fermentation-2931753) presented an overview of redox potential measurement resulting from Saccharomyces cereviseae activity in making wine. It is an interesting work for guiding and steering wine processing, but this manuscript is not well organized and summarized because of logic mess in expression, unclear information and data sources (see the whole text) as well as many errors in writing and the format of cited references. Additionally, more updated studies should be supplemented with new information, and especially author should find a native speaker to carefully polish the language of this manuscript before resubmitting it. In a word, this manuscript could not be recommended to publish in the Journal Fermentation in the current state. Specific points are listed as follows.
1/Line 8-9, it is right?
2/Line 13-17, how to get the data?
3/Line 21, “as a key physiology criteria” is right?
4/Line 29-30, hard to understand.
5/Line 31-35, and line 38-39, References are necessary.
6/Line 42-44, hard to understand.
7/For section “2. Theory of Redox Potential”, symbols for each equation should be indicated.
8/Line 102-103, References are necessary.
9/Line 107, “Second”, but where is “first” in this paragraph?
10/Line 111-112, what sense? And what logic connection with its previous expression? Not clear.
11/For section “3. Redox Potential in Wine Technology” from line 134 to line 222, should be redrafted with subtitles to clearly show the applications of redox measurement in different aspect of wine fermentation.
12/Line 171-174, how to get the data on redox potential, from figure 2 cited directly by author without any change?
13/The place for “Figure 1. Redox potential in wine technology (line 163) and Figure 2. On-line Redox potential in fementation of unsulphurised grape must of cultivar Sauvignon Blanc – aerobic and anaerobic phases” is right in the text (please check line 187-189, line 205-208)? Additionally, the word “fementation” is wrong spelling.
14/Line 190, “Generally, speaking” is right?
15/Line 225, “Blau Fränkish grape must fermentation [21]” means what?
16/Line 226 for section “3.1. Influence of Mixing”, but “mixing” what (see line 233-234)? Not clear.
17/Line 248-249, references are necessary.
18/Line 259-260 for Figure 5. Redox potential temperature dependence in Sauvignon Blanc must. Fermentation temperatures 15, â– 18 and â–²24 °C [22]”. Please carefully check in the color of symbols for â– 18 and â–²24 °C shown in Figure 5. There are mistakes in color between legend and picture.
19/Line 265-267, line 274-279, and line 288-294, how to get these data? Determined by author?
20/Line 295-301, “At 15 ºC, the lag phase was extended to 27 hours followed by an exponential phase from 23 to 36 hours and a stationary phase from 36 to 165 hours of fermentation. In the second case, at 22 ºC, the lag phase was eight hours shorter and a slightly prolonged exponential growth phase of 17 to 28 hours proceeded from 28 hours to 166 hours into the stationary phase. In the last run at 24 ºC, the lag phase lasted only 5 hours. From 5 to 26 hours, it went into a longer phase of exponential growth, which after 24 hours to 164 hours went into a stationary phase. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1 [16]. Where 15 ºC, and 24 ºC could be found from table 1? Especially, how to find data information on fermentation time from table 1?
21/Section “3.3. Influence of Additional Carbon Dioxide Fluxes” should be redrafted for clear reading.
22/Line 315-318, should be moved to the appropriate place of this section for case example.
24/Line 334-332 for table 2, several terms should be modified clearly, for instance “Malic” should be changed to “Malic acid”. Anyway, how to get the data on table 2, determined by author?
25/Line 380, please define “Pt redox” when it appeared firstly.
26/Line 399 for “Table 4. Redox potential layers in the barrels a) unsulphurized and b) sulphurized must [21]”. Statistically, for two treatments, are there significant differences in redox potential among different layers of the barrels?
27/Line 409-413, and line 419-422, how to get the data, determined by author?
28/First, section “5. Conclusions” should be redrafted for clear reading. Second, for line 436-439, line 455-456, and line 459-460, hard to produce these conclusions from information and data presented by this manuscript.
29/For section References from line 476-511, the format for these references should be unified. Check in references 3 (line 479), 5 (line 481), 15 (line 494), 19 (line 499), and 26 (line 511).
Author Response
In attachment there is complete response to Referee 1 marked in the Text
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the reviewed article “The Role and Application of Redox Potential in Wine Technology”, M. Berovic discusses the role and application of oxidation-reduction potential (Redox) in winemaking. In general, the authors clearly demonstrate that the topic is of high importance for wine production. Furthermore, the topic fits the scope of the journal well and might be of interest to a broad readership. Moreover, no current review article was found in the literature that addresses the topic in such general manner. However, unfortunately, the current overall quality of the manuscript should be rather considered low. It contains several severe linguistic mistakes, typos and also formatting and structural deficits, suggesting that the text was written in haste. Therefore, this manuscript requires immense improvements before it might be resubmitted (reject). I hope my comments in this context are helpful and will help improving the quality of the manuscript. Accordingly, it should be pointed out that not all grammatical or other linguistic or formal errors are covered by the comments. For prospective resubmission it is highly recommended that the author has the manuscript proofread, ideally by an English native speaker.
Comments:
1. Please check the whole manuscript for comma placement. Most comma seem to be used correctly, but some sentenced would require additional ones, especially at the beginning of the respective sentence.
2. Line 14 (abstract): Here, the redox potential (against the hydrogen electode) is named Eh. In other parts of the manuscript, the h is subscripted. Please ensure consistent use and amend where required.
3. Line 82 and equation 1: In line 82, the standard redox potential has a subscripted zero. It should be superscripted, please correct.
4. Line 100: The closing bracket is missing.
5. Equation 5: Does the equation assume a specific temperature? Please check this and add this information to the manuscript when required.
6. Lines 111-112: It is outlined why rH should not be used any longer. However, the phrase “In contrary rH term is continously used in wine technology on !?” appears unscientific and should be rephrased. Also, does the author suggest that a modification of rH might be used instead? If so, please add this point to the manuscript.
7. Lines 118-120: Please provide a reference for the observation that presence of oxygen might lead to misleading results during offline measurements of the Redox potential.
8. Lines 149-153: This sentence is difficult to follow. Please rephrase it. Also check if ,,beck” is spelled correctly.
9. Lines 164-179: Please provide more reference for the described phases and the respective redox course.
10. Line 174: By using “+200 -100 mV” it is not clear what is meant by this. Minus 100 or the range between +200 to +100 mV.
11. Lines 164-179: Please explain in more detail why ethanol formation is described as the main reason for the redox decrease. Is it because the component is excreted? What about other metabolites? Is there a work from literature that directly correlates ethanol concentrations with measured Redox potentials? Please commend and complement.
12. Line 190: Check if the comma should be after “speaking” and not “Generally”.
13. Line 198: Give the reference number for the study of Dikanovic-Lucan and Palic.
14. Lines 209-212: These two sentences are difficult to understand. Please rephrase.
15. Line 225: Is this belonging to the capture of Figure 3? Please correct or remove.
16. Lines 268-279: Please provide references.
17. Lines 284-294: Please provide references.
18. Table 1: Use a capitalized “L” for liters. Also change for other tables.
19. Lines 315-318: Check if parts of this text are repetition of Figure 6’s caption.
20. Line 322: The authors write “Due to changes in the composition and permeability of the yeast membrane,” please explain in more detail what is meant by this.
21. Line 328: It is stated that higher CO2 concentrations did not inhibit lactic acid biosynthesis. However, in table 2, 10% less lactic acid are seen under elevated CO2 pressure. This is a higher relative change than observed for the biomass. Therefore, the statement for lactic acid be indeed be verified by the data? Furthermore, are biomass-specific production rates available to support the different statements? Please comment and amend.
22. Lines 336-338: These sentences appear as a repeatition of the statements in lines 331-333.
23. Line 354: Why is section 3.5 separated from 3.4.? Would it not make more sense to present temperature and use of CO2 for Redox Control as a subchapter of 3.5. (for example 3.5.1 and 3.5.2)? Please comment and amend.
24. Line 374: Check for double spacing (also for other parts of the manuscript).
25. Line 471: Check if the gas constant unit is correct (remove the K).
26. References: While the author presents several interesting and relevant cross-references, the number of references is rather low for a review article. Furthermore, as the most current references, there is only one work fcrom 2019 and one from 2022. It would be much appreciated if the author added a few more recent references to the work, providing the readership with the current development in the field (see for example https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/9/1/7 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996922004264)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See comments no. 1, 6, 8,12 ,14, 24.
Author Response
In attachment there is complete response to Referee 2 marked in the Text
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript titled “The Role and Application of Redox Potential in Wine Technology” (NO. fermentation-2931753) discussed the importance of redox potential monitoring and control in wine technology. Practically, it is interesting work for wine making, but several drawbacks still exist in this revised version of this manuscript. Thus, author should make a major modification to the manuscript before resubmitting to this journal. Major points are issued as follows.
1/Line 177, “Redox systems of organic nature pass from one form to another” should be deleted because the same expression has been presented from Line 172 to line 176.
2/For line 168-289, author should organize the manuscript to discuss the potential of redox as a technological tool in wine making based on the points of Figure 1, particularly according to different phase of wine changing, i.e. young wine, wine in the barrel, and bottled wine together with unsulphurized/sulphurized grape must.
3/For line 185-211, these paragraphs need to be condensed due to lots of repeated expressions. For instance, what sense for line 188-192 which specially described the role of sterilization in clean electrode, as described in one textbook.
4/For section “5 Conclusions”, authors should simplify the conclusions instead of repeated words and general description. For instance, what sense for line 525-544, and what is relation between these sentences and this manuscript? For line 554-557, what sense of the description for this manuscript, because it is not application of redox potential in wine processing!
Author Response
Reviewer 1 – Second revision request
ALL Corrections 2 were made > see text in blue
1/Line 177, “Redox systems of organic nature pass from one form to another” should be deleted because the same expression has been presented from Line 172 to line 176.
Corrections were made
2/For line 168-289, author should organize the manuscript to discuss the potential of redox as a technological tool in wine making based on the points of Figure 1, particularly according to different phase of wine changing, i.e. young wine, wine in the barrel, and bottled wine together with unsulphurized/sulphurized grape must.
Corrections were made, proposed text has been rewritten
3/For line 185-211, these paragraphs need to be condensed due to lots of repeated expressions. For instance, what sense for line 188-192 which specially described the role of sterilization in clean electrode, as described in one textbook.
Corrections were made, requested text was obmitted
4/For section “5 Conclusions”, authors should simplify the conclusions instead of repeated words and general description. For instance, what sense for line 525-544, and what is relation between these sentences and this manuscript? For line 554-557, what sense of the description for this manuscript, because it is not application of redox potential in wine processing!
Corrections were made, Conclusions have been rewritten
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSignificant amendments have been made, improving the quality of the manuscript and addressing most raised points. The authors' efforts are much appreciated, and the article might now be accepted for publication after minor final adjustments:
- Lines 8-9: Check the formatting of microbes here and in other parts of the manuscript (should be italics).
- Lines 47-58, 169-179, and 215-217: Some newly inserted (and original) passages contain several identical sentences. Please recheck and rephrase to ensure that no information is provided twice and that no repetition takes place.
- Line 119: A decimal separator is missing (write 7.0 instead of 70).
- Line 132: A decimal separator is missing (write 57.7 instead of 577).
- Line 143: Check if a "t" is missing in "serializable" and if a comma after "engineering" is required.
- Line 146: Recheck if Eh is formatted consistently throughout the whole manuscript.
- Line 158 and equation: A "u" is missing in "quinhydrone."
- Line 315: Check the whole manuscript to ensure there is a space before using "°C" as a unit. Also, check the entire document for correct use of spacing when using physical units.
- Line 569: Ensure the correct use of "kilo" (10^3) with a small "k" and do not use a tall "K" for this, which is reserved for the unit Kelvin.
- Line 571: Recheck if Coulomb can indeed be expressed in kcal and if it is not Coulombs per second (instead of Coulombs only).
Author Response
Reviewer 2 – Second revision request
ALL Corrections 2 were made > see text in red
- Lines 8-9: Check the formatting of microbes here and in other parts of the manuscript (should be italics).
Correction was made
- Lines 47-58, 169-179, and 215-217: Some newly inserted (and original) passages contain several identical sentences. Please recheck and rephrase to ensure that no information is provided twice and that no repetition takes place.
Corrections were made
- Line 119: A decimal separator is missing (write 7.0 instead of 70).
Corrections were made
- Line 132: A decimal separator is missing (write 57.7 instead of 577).
Corrections were made
- Line 143: Check if a "t" is missing in "serializable" and if a comma after "engineering" is required.
Corrections were made
- Line 146: Recheck if Eh is formatted consistently throughout the whole manuscript.
Corrections were made
- Line 158 and equation: A "u" is missing in "quinhydrone."
Corrections were made
- Line 315: Check the whole manuscript to ensure there is a space before using "°C" as a unit. Also, check the entire document for correct use of spacing when using physical units.
Corrections were made
