Wine Aroma Characterization of the Two Main Fermentation Yeast Species of the Apiculate Genus Hanseniaspora

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article:

Wine aroma characterization of the two main fermentation yeast species of the apiculate genus Hanseniaspora

In study, authors investigated the effect of two main fermentation yeast species on the wine aroma characterization. The workload of the experiment was huge. However, the paper presents some weakness.

There are some comments as following.

1. The Abstract is too long and lacks useful information.
2. Why the fermentation time of this study is set to 12 days? From “table 1 Residual sugars in wines after 12 days of fermentation”, except S.cerevisiae, the other yeast strains were not able to deplete completely the sugars. Without sufficient fermentation, the metabolic formation of aroma compounds may not be sufficient.
3. In Table 2, wine aroma was analyzed by GC-MS and 2-phenylethyl acetate, tyrosol acetate and tryptophol acetate were suggested as the main compounds with significant differences between difference yeast strains. However, as far as I know, 2-phenylethyl acetate, tyrosol acetate and tryptophol acetate were not very important for the aroma of wine. Some important aroma compounds, which formed by yeast metabolism, were not detected, such as 2-methylpropanol, 3-methylbutanol, ethyl acetate, ethyl butanoate, acetic acid, phenylacetaldehyde and so on. I think those compounds were important for wine aroma profile and needed to be concerned.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Wine aroma characterization of the two main fermentation 2 yeast species of the apiculate genus Hanseniaspora" investigated the oenological aptitudes of H vineae, H. uvarum and H. osmophila in comparison with wine obtained witn S. cerevisiae investigating wines not only from an analytical point of view but by studying the strains at genetic levels.

There are some aspect to clarify and to correct

Key words: I suggest adding Hanseniaspora

INTRODUCTION:

Line 37: the number regarding introduction section it is not 0 but 1. Please correct the numbering in each section

Line 38-50: I suggest rewrite the paragraph: consider non-Saccharomyces and then talk about Hanseniaspora. In my opinion in this form is it's a bit confusing

Line 51: replace these references with newer ones

Line 55: delete (2019)

Line 63: change H. uvarum to Hanseniaspora uvarum

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 103:

Line 110: Also S. cerevisiae was inoculated at 10⁵ cells/mL? Why was it not inoculated at 10⁶ cells/mL ?

Line140: I think that a panel with 3 persons is not sufficient to conduct a sensory analysis that is statistically significant

Fig 1: in M&M you reported a fermentation on 90ml of grape must in the figure you reported 100ml, what is the correct volume?

I suggest to report other grape must parameters such as volatile acidity, total so2….and if you monitor these aspect during fermentation I suggest I suggest to bring them

RESULTS

Line 276: S. cerevisiae italics

Line 280: H. uvarum italics

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment