Effect of Grape Pomace Varieties and Soil Characteristics on the Leaching Potential of Total Carbon, Nitrogen and Polyphenols
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reported paper is dedicated to the investigation of the leaching potential and mobility of total carbon, nitrogen and polyphenols derived from pomace of four grape varieties (two red and two white) in three different soil types, using a column model. The work provides interesting theoretical bases and knowledge, but the authors should pay attention to the several remarks:
There is too much information in the introduction that is not closely related to the topic and the goal of the manuscript, for example composting of grape pomace before application. The introduction is certainly overwritten, shorten it and concentrate on the theoretical background related to the research.
At the end of the introduction, it should be emphasized what is the novelty offered by this research compared to similar ones on the topic of macronutrient leaching from the different pomaces into the soil.
Line 462-465, This sentence is more suitable to stand in the introduction.
Line 129, Provide a reference for OECD guidelines.
Line 144-148, Determination of water,carbon and nitrogen content in accordance with which AACC methods were used, also list these methods in the references section.
Line 146, Granule size of the samples?
Line 428-433, Compare the obtained results for TPC (1.7-4.7%) with those presented here in the literature (9-12%, 7.5%) Why the obtained values for TPC are less than in the mentioned literature?
Through the discussion take into account the fact that the red grape samples are fermented and the white ones are not.
Also, it is mentioned in the introduction considering soil parameter such as particle size distribution on the mobility of C, N, and polyphenols, but in discussion is not elaborated.
The impression is that the findings summarized in the conclusion are too general, emphasize the key conclusion and innovation offered by this research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
on behalf of the authors, we would like to thank you for your suggestions. We highly appreciate the feedback and constructive comments. Based on the review, changes were made to the manuscript. Please find the detailed changes attached in a separate PDF.
Kind regards,
Sven Korz and co-authors
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A few comments:
1. Please italicize all “Vitis Vinifera” and “Vitis labrusca” in the text and references.
2. In the introduction, explain why fresh GP is used instead of composed GP.
3. P. 240: Which guideline is based on for three depth (0-10, 10-20 and 20-30cm) study?
4. p. 438: Please double check “being anthocyanins much higher in pulp than in the seeds”. Anthocyanin is a berry skin pigmentation.
5. Some references included DOI. Most of them did not. Make sure all references follow the journal guideline.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
on behalf of the authors, we would like to thank you for your suggestions. We highly appreciate the feedback and constructive comments. Based on the review, changes were made to the manuscript. Please find the detailed changes attached in a separate PDF.
Kind regards,
Sven Korz and co-authors
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript is well written and it clearly presents contribution for the field of study. There are corrections and suggestions in the file attached.
Please note that some sections are too long such as INTRODUCTION and CONSLUCIONS.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
on behalf of the authors, we would like to thank you for your suggestions. We highly appreciate the feedback and constructive comments. Based on the review, changes were made to the manuscript. Please find the detailed changes attached in a separate PDF.
Kind regards,
Sven Korz and co-authors
RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
