Effects of Aging in Wood Casks on Anthocyanins Compositions, Volatile Compounds, Colorimetric Properties, and Sensory Profile of Jerez Vinegars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript submitted for review describes physicochemical and organoleptic tests of vinegars with different degrees of maturation from Spain. I believe that the manuscript is not concise, that the text could be shortened. In addition, exaggerated terms such as "for the first time" were repeatedly misused. Every scientific work contains elements of novelty, however, too frequent use that it is a novelty is an exaggeration and it is incorrect. Many of the statements are speculative, they are not substantiated by one's own research, only conjecture based on the literature. I would ask you to remove terms like "for the first time" and speculation from the text. I will excerpt the comments below in the order they appear in the text.
1) I would remove "A Study Examining..." from the title of the manuscript.
2) l. 14 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "chemical structure". This is not quite correct. It is more about composition.
3) l. 15 and elsewhere further on. "aging reactions." Also, in my opinion, this is not the most accurate term. I would change it.
4) l. 22 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "...ethyl butyrate and ethyl butanoate...." These are not two different substances. They are two different names for one substance. Please correct this throughout the manuscript.
5) l. 37. "JV". This abbreviation is not explained. One can guess, but an abbreviation was used that was not explained.
6) l. 39. "JV". This time this abbreviation is written in italics. The spelling should be standardized throughout the manuscript.
7) l. 55-56. "...volatile compounds are one of the distinctive properties of the vinegars." Linguistic error.
8) In the experimental section, please state the purity of all reagents, what degree of purity.
9) l. 125. "w/v". Shouldn't it be "v/v" regarding the preparation of sample dilutions?
10) l. 182. "...C6-C40 alkane (...) mixing." What does the author mean here? A solubility test? Was this method actually used in this work? I have my doubts. In addition, the company name should be capitalized.
11) l. 193 and further in the body of the manuscript. "...at the absorbance of 420 nm...". 420 nm means wavelength. Absorbance can be measured at this wavelength. Absorbance is a measure of absorption.
12) l. 206-207. "... study described by [2]." This term is incorrect.
13) Table 1. m/z values should be given with the same precision, the same decimal expansion. Most values are given to two decimal places, but there are times when values are rounded to whole numbers. Please correct this, it is very important.
14) p. 8, l. 27 and on throughout the manuscript. (Line numbering has been restarted from this page). The names of chemicals should not be capitalized. In the table it may be so but in the body of the manuscript it is unjustified. In addition, a mixed convention was used, some names with a lowercase letter, some with a capital letter.
15) p. 8, l. 40 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "92.73" does not specify the unit of concentration.
16) p. 9, l. 60. "a pioneering study". Exaggerated term. This should be corrected.
17) p. 9, l. 75 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "Figure 1(a-b)." There is no need to add the letters a and b. The figure number alone is sufficient.
18) Table 2. "Active amyl alcohol". The term "active" is incorrect. What did the author mean?
19) Table 2. "L-alpha-Terpineol". We write the configuration series (L and D) in smaller font.
20) p. 15, l. 14. "...has a similar odor with glue...". . Used in reference to ethyl acetate. This term seems to me unprofessional and unnecessary.
21) p. 15, l. 26. "(Z)-3-Hexenol". I wrote about this earlier. The name of the chemical compound with a capital letter, it should be with a lowercase letter.
22) p. 15, l. 42. "...from figure 1-a". This is editorially incorrect.
23) p. 15, l. 47. "...alpha-Terpineol". Another example of a chemical name capitalized. I will not give any more places where this is, but please correct the spelling of chemical names, they should be lowercase, they are not proper names, proprietary names, etc.
24) p. 15. l. 60-67 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "-1" The exponent of the power in the unit of concentration should be in the superscript.
25) p. 16, l. 70. "...from 0.098 to 0.288...". Unit missing.
26) p. 16, l. 87. "2-ethylphenol...". This time the sentence begins with the chemical name, and although the name begins with a number, the first letter in the name should be capitalized. It should be "2-Ethylphenol...".
27) p. 16, l. 89 and 90. lowercase chemical names.
28) p. 16, l. 96. ref. 10. When providing a reference, we do not list all the authors' names. We give the name of the first author and add the abbreviation "et al." in italics.
29) p. 16, l. 102. "...first-time...". Exaggerated term.
30) p. 16, l. 114-117. In my opinion, values given as percentages should be rounded to whole numbers. Giving values in percentages is indicative, there is no need to use decimal expansion, especially since the values in question are significantly different from each other.
31) p. 17, l. 140-142 Here the statement is speculation. Please delete.
32) Table 3. I would round the values in percentages to whole numbers . Values differ significantly from each other, there is no need to give them to two decimal digits.
33) p. 19, l. 5-9 Speculation, no research.
34) p. 19, l. 10. "the first investigation" Exaggerated term.
35) p. 19, l. 25 "The table reveals..." . The table number should be given, the word table with a capital letter and without "The".
36) p. 21, l. 48 and 49, l. 52 and 53, l. 60 and 61 Speculation, without evidence.
37) p. 21, l. 68 "To the best of our knowledge". This is an incorrectly used statement in this context, moreover, there is one author, so "our" is incorrect.
38) p. 21, l. 74 "chemical structures". This is about composition, not about chemical structure.
39) p. 21, l. 81. "...marking a significant scholarly contribution." This is exaggerated.
40) p. 21, l. 83. "...as the first analysis in the literature." Every research delivers new insights, however, this is exaggeration.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language from grammatical and spelling site is quite good, however, the flow should be corrected.
Author Response
- REBUTTAL LETTER
Authors’ Response to the Review Comments
Journal: Fermentation
Manuscript #: fermentation-3166253
Title of Paper: A study examining the effects of aging in wood casks on anthocyanins compositions, volatile compounds, colorimetric properties, and sensory profile of Jerez vinegars
Date Sent: 03-Aug-2024
I would like to thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable comments. We believe that they will certainly contribute to our manuscript. We carefully read comments and considered all the recommendations and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find our responses (blue) to all the reviewers' comments (black,italic) below.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author and Responses:
Reviewer 1
1) I would remove "A Study Examining..." from the title of the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your revision suggestion. L2-4, The title of the manuscript was changed to “Effects of aging in wood casks on anthocyanins compositions, volatile compounds, colorimetric properties, and sensory profile of Jerez vinegars”.
2) l. 14 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "chemical structure". This is not quite correct. It is more about composition.
Response: L14, “Chemical” was removed from the sentence and it is written as “characterize the physicochemical structure and composition”. Additionally, “chemical” expression was removed in the -L48 in Introduction and -L74 in Conclusion. L74, “chemical structures” was changed with the word of “composition” in Conclusion chapter.
3) l. 15 and elsewhere further on. "aging reactions." Also, in my opinion, this is not the most accurate term. I would change it.
Response: It is corrected as just “aging process” by removing “reaction” in L 15, Abstract and L87, Introduction chapters.
4) l. 22 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "...ethyl butyrate and ethyl butanoate...." These are not two different substances. They are two different names for one substance. Please correct this throughout the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your warning. L22-Abstract and L24-P15, Ethyl butyrate was removed throughout the manuscript.
5) l. 37. "JV". This abbreviation is not explained. One can guess, but an abbreviation was used that was not explained.
Response: L34, the abbreviation (JV) is given after open expression of Jerez vinegar in the text with red color.
6) l. 39. "JV". This time this abbreviation is written in italics. The spelling should be standardized throughout the manuscript.
Response: L 39, The spelling was checked and corrected as “JV”.
7) l. 55-56. "...volatile compounds are one of the distinctive properties of the vinegars." Linguistic error.
Response: The sentence was changed and rewritten as “In the analysis of aged vinegars, volatile compounds serve as significant indicators of their distinctive properties” in L55-56, P2”.
8) In the experimental section, please state the purity of all reagents, what degree of purity.
Response: The degree of purity of all reagents (methanol, acetonitrile, formic acid and 1-hexanol) were stated in L93, and L95, P2 with red color.
9) l. 125. "w/v". Shouldn't it be "v/v" regarding the preparation of sample dilutions?
Response: The reagent mixes of extractant (it is also used for preparation of calibration samples of pure-anthocyanins) was prepared with the volume ratio because all reagents are pure-liquid. For this reason, it is stated with volume ratio. However, the sample was diluted by weighing in volumetric flask (5 mL) to avoid errors in calculation at the end of LC-MS/MS analysis.
10) l. 182. "...C6-C40 alkane (...) mixing." What does the author mean here? A solubility test? Was this method actually used in this work? I have my doubts. In addition, the company name should be capitalized.
Response: In GC-MS analysis, C6-C40 alkanes refer to a range of linear and branched hydrocarbons containing carbon atoms from 6 to 40. These compounds are part of the alkane series. C6-C40 alkanes were used for retention index (RI) matching. Each alkane in the C6-C40 range has a known retention time under specific conditions. By comparing the retention times of volatile compounds in our sample to the retention times of these alkanes, we could calculate the retention index of those compounds. The calculated retention index for a compound could then be compared to literature values or databases. This helped identify the compounds based on their retention behavior.
L182, the company name was written with capital letters.
11) l. 193 and further in the body of the manuscript. "...at the absorbance of 420 nm...". 420 nm means wavelength. Absorbance can be measured at this wavelength. Absorbance is a measure of absorption.
Response: Thank you for the warning. The incorrect expression has been corrected and it can be seen in P4-L192.
12) l. 206-207. "... study described by [2]." This term is incorrect.
Response: The term was corrected as “and a study described in an article by Tesfaye, García‐Parrilla, and Troncoso [2]." In L206-207, P5.
13) Table 1. m/z values should be given with the same precision, the same decimal expansion. Most values are given to two decimal places, but there are times when values are rounded to whole numbers. Please correct this, it is very important.
Response: Table 1 was reviewed, and all decimal values were standardized to the same number of decimal expansions.
14) p. 8, l. 27 and on throughout the manuscript. (Line numbering has been restarted from this page). The names of chemicals should not be capitalized. In the table it may be so but in the body of the manuscript it is unjustified. In addition, a mixed convention was used, some names with a lowercase letter, some with a capital letter.
Response: Yes, the line numbers are not in order throughout the manuscript. When I submitted the manuscript, I could not add the tables to the manuscript because the table content was too much, and it was disrupting the text's layout. For this reason, I submitted the tables in another file. When the tables and text file are merged, the line numbers start over again as in every section. But, if I change the line numbering, every comment and response gets mixed up. I hope it will be accepted if I give the answers with page numbers like this.
Secondly, the initials of chemical names were written in lower case from L27 to L30, P8.
15) p. 8, l. 40 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "92.73" does not specify the unit of concentration.
Response: Thank you for reminding me. The unit of concentration was added to concentration in L 39, P8.
16) p. 9, l. 60. "a pioneering study". Exaggerated term. This should be corrected.
Response: p.9, L. 60. “pioneering” was removed from the sentence and it is changed with “a notable study”.
17) p. 9, l. 75 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "Figure 1(a-b)." There is no need to add the letters a and b. The figure number alone is sufficient.
Response: It was removed.
18) Table 2. "Active amyl alcohol". The term "active" is incorrect. What did the author mean?
Response: "Active amyl alcohol" refers to 2-methyl-1-butanol, an organic compound that is one of the isomers of amyl alcohol (pentanol). The term "amyl alcohol" typically refers to a mixture of isomers with the chemical formula C5H12O but "active amyl alcohol" specifically denotes 2-methyl-1-butanol due to its optical activity. Therefore, it was used to define the compound. I hope the explanation was sufficient for this comment.
19) Table 2. "L-alpha-Terpineol". We write the configuration series (L and D) in smaller font.
Response: It was changed to smaller font (l).
20) p. 15, l. 14. "...has a similar odor with glue...". . Used in reference to ethyl acetate. This term seems to me unprofessional and unnecessary.
Response: The term was deleted from the sentence.
21) p. 15, l. 26. "(Z)-3-Hexenol". I wrote about this earlier. The name of the chemical compound with a capital letter, it should be with a lowercase letter.
Response: p. 15, l. 26. It was done and written with a lowercase letter.
22) p. 15, l. 42. "...from figure 1-a". This is editorially incorrect.
Response: p. 15, l. 42. It was corrected and deleted.
23) p. 15, l. 47. "...alpha-Terpineol". Another example of a chemical name capitalized. I will not give any more places where this is, but please correct the spelling of chemical names, they should be lowercase, they are not proper names, proprietary names, etc.
Response: It was corrected in p. 15, l. 46. Additionally, spelling of chemical names were checked throughout the manuscript.
24) p. 15. l. 60-67 and elsewhere in the manuscript. "-1" The exponent of the power in the unit of concentration should be in the superscript.
Response: It was corrected with superscript.
25) p. 16, l. 70. "...from 0.098 to 0.288...". Unit missing.
Response: p. 16, l. 68. The unit was added.
26) p. 16, l. 87. "2-ethylphenol...". This time the sentence begins with the chemical name, and although the name begins with a number, the first letter in the name should be capitalized. It should be "2-Ethylphenol...".
Response: p. 16, l. 84. The first letter of chemical name was capitalized.
27) p. 16, l. 89 and 90. lowercase chemical names.
Response: All chemical names were checked and corrected.
28) p. 16, l. 96. ref. 10. When providing a reference, we do not list all the authors' names. We give the name of the first author and add the abbreviation "et al." in italics.
Response: p. 16, l 93. The citation style was corrected in the manuscript.
29) p. 16, l. 102. "...first-time...". Exaggerated term.
Response: p. 16, l. 98. It was removed from the sentence.
30) p. 16, l. 114-117. In my opinion, values given as percentages should be rounded to whole numbers. Giving values in percentages is indicative, there is no need to use decimal expansion, especially since the values in question are significantly different from each other.
Response: p. 16, l. 110-112 and p. 17, l 122-123. Values were rounded to whole numbers.
31) p. 17, l. 140-142 Here the statement is speculation. Please delete.
Response: It was deleted.
32) Table 3. I would round the values in percentages to whole numbers . Values differ significantly from each other, there is no need to give them to two decimal digits.
Response: Table 3, the values in percentage were rounded to whole numbers.
33) p. 19, l. 5-9 Speculation, no research.
Response: The sentence was deleted from the text.
34) p. 19, l. 10. "the first investigation" Exaggerated term.
Response: p. 19, l. 6. “the first investigation” was removed and replaced with “this study is one of the earliest to investigate”. I hope this is found appropriate.
35) p. 19, l. 25 "The table reveals..." . The table number should be given, the word table with a capital letter and without "The".
Response: p.19, l. 21, it has been done.
36) p. 21, l. 48 and 49, l. 52 and 53, l. 60 and 61 Speculation, without evidence.
Response: --p. 21, l. 48 and 49, The reference cited in the manuscript (49) was given below with the results which explain the source of oaklactone. In addition, an additional article (50) was added at the end of the sentence to support the comment. I hope these references would be sufficient.
(49) Masson, Gérard, et al. "Stereoisomers of ß-methyl-γ-octalactone. II. Contents in the wood of French (Quercus robur and Quercus petraea) and American (Quercus alba) oaks." American journal of Enology and Viticulture 46.4 (1995): 424-428. The sentence given below is from the abstract of the article: “Multidimensional gas chromatography was used to determine ß-methyl-γ-octalactone (oak lactone) in wood extracts obtained from 30 newly felled oaks (Pedunculate, Sessile, and White) from French and American forests”.
(50) Piggott, J. R., J. M. Conner, and J. L. Melvin. "The contribution of oak lactone to the aroma of wood-aged wine." Developments in Food Science. Vol. 37. Elsevier, 1995. 1695-1702.
--p. 21, l. 52 and 53. “the pungent” term was deleted from the sentence. Also, the sentence was replaced with “… may be…” instead of “..can…”. But “the sourness profile” was supported by new references explaining the perception of sourness coming from acids.
(52) Salles, Christian. "Acids in foods and perception of sourness." Handbook of Molecular Gastronomy. CRC Press, 2021. 7-12.
(53) Junge, Jonas Yde, et al. "Taste interactions between sweetness of sucrose and sourness of citric and tartaric acid among Chinese and Danish consumers." Foods 9.10 (2020): 1425.
--p. 21, l. 60 and 61. This sentence was removed from the text.
37) p. 21, l. 68 "To the best of our knowledge". This is an incorrectly used statement in this context, moreover, there is one author, so "our" is incorrect.
Response: p. 21, l. 62. The statement was corrected as “To the best of my knowledge”.
38) p. 21, l. 74 "chemical structures". This is about composition, not about chemical structure.
Response: p. 21, l. 69. It was deleted and corrected.
39) p. 21, l. 81. "...marking a significant scholarly contribution." This is exaggerated.
Response: p. 21, l. 76. It was deleted.
40) p. 21, l. 83. "...as the first analysis in the literature." Every research delivers new insights, however, this is exaggeration.
Response: The sentence was deleted in the text.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the revised manuscript is novel; however, the following is recommended:
Line 20,21: It is recommended to remove the value of the concentration obtained
Line 124: In this section, what reference was used for the procedure?
Line 133: 50 °C
Line 139: 40 °C
Line 148: 300 °C
Line 148: 250 °C
Line 153: mg/L
Line 165: remove underlined text format
Line 170: remove underlined text format
Line 215: use 5 min instead of 5 minutes
Line 245: μg/L
Page 8, line 7: … product [12] was
Page 8, line 22,27-30,38,39,42,46,50,55,56: μg/L
Page 8, line 40,41: Check font size and type format
Page 10: mg/L
Figure 1(a) and (b): mg/L
Figure 1(a) and (b): Include the standard deviation in each of the bars
Page 14, line 6-8,12: mg/L (note: correct through the manuscript)
Page 16, line 114, 116-118: add a space between the value and the % symbol (note: correct through the manuscript were required)
Reference section: use italic text format for scientific names
Note: A multivariate analysis (principal components) could be used to determine the association between all the variables used.
Author Response
- REBUTTAL LETTER
Authors’ Response to the Review Comments
Journal: Fermentation
Manuscript #: fermentation-3166253
Title of Paper: A study examining the effects of aging in wood casks on anthocyanins compositions, volatile compounds, colorimetric properties, and sensory profile of Jerez vinegars
Date Sent: 03-Aug-2024
We would like to thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable comments. We believe that they will certainly contribute to our manuscript. We carefully read comments and considered all the recommendations and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find our responses (blue) to all the reviewers' comments (black,italic) below.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author and Responses:
Reviewer 2
Line 20,21: It is recommended to remove the value of the concentration obtained
Response: L. 20, 21. The value of the concentration was removed from the text.
Line 124: In this section, what reference was used for the procedure?
Response: P. 3, l. 130, 131. The reference used for LC-MS/MS analysis was added to the text.
Line 133: 50 °C
Response: It was corrected.
Line 139: 40 °C
Response: It was corrected.
Line 148: 300 °C
Response: It was corrected.
Line 148: 250 °C
Response: It was corrected.
Line 153: mg/L
Response: The spelling of the unit has been changed.
Line 165: remove underlined text format
Response: It was removed.
Line 170: remove underlined text format
Response: It was removed.
Line 215: use 5 min instead of 5 minutes
Response: It has been changed.
Line 245: μg/L
Response: It has been changed.
Page 8, line 7: … product [12] was
Response: The point was removed from the sentence.
Page 8, line 22,27-30,38,39,42,46,50,55,56: μg/L
Response: The spelling of unit has been corrected.
Page 8, line 40,41: Check font size and type format
Response: Font size and type format was checked.
Page 10: mg/L
Response: It has been changed.
Figure 1(a) and (b): mg/L
Response: Figure 1, It has been changed.
Figure 1(a) and (b): Include the standard deviation in each of the bars
Response: Figure 1, The standard deviation was included in each of the bars.
Page 14, line 6-8,12: mg/L (note: correct through the manuscript)
Response: It has been corrected and checked throughout the manuscript.
Page 16, line 114, 116-118: add a space between the value and the % symbol (note: correct through the manuscript were required)
Response: The space between the symbol and value was added throughout the manuscript.
Reference section: use italic text format for scientific names
Response: For reference section, I have used MDPI style in Endnote program. I have tried to check all references as much as I could and correct scientific names in italics. I hope the corrections made will be sufficient.
Note: A multivariate analysis (principal components) could be used to determine the association between all the variables used.
Response: Thanks for your valuable feedback. I will take this suggestion into consideration in future studies.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has corrected the manuscript quite thoroughly. However, I still have concerns about two phrases: “physicochemical structure and composition” (p. 1, l. 14) and ‘To the best of my knowledge...’ (p. 21, l. 69). Terms like “chemical structure,” “crystal structure,” etc. are correct. Whereas in this case it should be “physicochemical properties", not "physicochemical structure". The term “To the best of my knowledge...” is used when, according to one's literature review, there is a lack of certain data, studies, etc. Therefore, this phrase elsewhere (p. 19, l. 5 and 6) “To the best of my knowledge...” is now justified.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs I wrote before, English is not the worst, but improvement in style would be advisable.
Author Response
I would like to thank the editor and reviewer for their valuable comments. I carefully read comments and considered all the recommendations and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find our responses (blue) to all the reviewers' comments (black,italic) below.
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author and Responses:
Reviewer 1
The author has corrected the manuscript quite thoroughly. However, I still have concerns about two phrases:
“physicochemical structure and composition” (p. 1, l. 14) and ‘To the best of my knowledge...’ (p. 21, l. 69). Terms like “chemical structure,” “crystal structure,” etc. are correct. Whereas in this case it should be “physicochemical properties", not "physicochemical structure". The term “To the best of my knowledge...” is used when, according to one's literature review, there is a lack of certain data, studies, etc. Therefore, this phrase elsewhere (p. 19, l. 5 and 6) “To the best of my knowledge...” is now justified.
Comment 1: Terms like “chemical structure,” “crystal structure,” etc. are correct. Whereas in this case it should be “physicochemical properties", not "physicochemical structure".
Response: p.1, L. 14, “physicochemical structure” was changed to “physicochemical properties”.
Comment 2: The term “To the best of my knowledge...” is used when, according to one's literature review, there is a lack of certain data, studies, etc. Therefore, this phrase elsewhere (p. 19, l. 5 and 6) “To the best of my knowledge...” is now justified.
Response: p. 19, l. 5 and 6, the sentence was removed from the manuscript.
Note: Improvement in style would be advisable.
Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. The whole manuscript was carefully read and double-checked. The flow of the text (introduction (literature review, the aim of the study), materials and method (the methodology, the order of the methods), result and discussion (all results of the analysis and their comparison with literature results), conclusion, and tables) and style was controlled generally. Punctuation marks, writing style, fonts were checked repeatedly. I hope the new version of manuscript will meet expectations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
