The Influence of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration on Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols, Flavonoid Content and Individual Polyphenolic Compounds in White Wines during Storage
, Růžena Bednaříková 1, Lukáš Snopek 1,3, Sezai Ercisli 4,5 and Ondřej Tureček 1
Shela Gorinstein
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review on “The Influence of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration at Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols and Flavonoids Content and Individual Polyphenolic Compounds of White Wines During Storage”
The subject of the article is interesting and applicable in wine chemistry, wineries and biotechnology.
The article can be accepted after answering and correcting the following comments:
Abstract
Comment: is written well in details, but without disclosure of some abbreviations which we know, but the reader maybe not. You did not put any results in quantity, and then maybe it was not done. In order to answer this comment, please, put shortly the main results in numbers and their changes during the storage process.
Introduction
Comment: see the last paragraph: “So, the aim of presented research paper is to evaluate the effect of addition of different doses of SO2 on nutritive quality of wines –total polyphenols content, total flavonoids content, antioxidant activity determined by DPPH and ABTS methods and selected polyphenolic compounds. Moreover, to previous studies (????), we investigated also changes 79 of chemical parameters during 5-month storage”
In the last paragraph underline deeply the new approach of this research, what are the selected polyphenolic compounds, add citation to previous studied.
Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Comments: Except the title use non Italic font in the text.
Check carefully all this section and correct commas or points; subscript or superscript
How the samples of wines were presented from oxidation before the determination of phenolic substances and antioxidant activities
Line 135: substances was expressed as gallon (GAE) in mg.L-1. What is this? Please, check in all text mg.L-1
The methods used for determination of phenolic substances and antioxidant activities have to be cited by original authors with modification of authors as you did in the case of Singleton for polyphenols.
Results and discussion
Comments:
Check carefully once more the points and the commas in all your article and in the Tables especially.
The five Figures are in the same design; it can be chosen another one not to be confused with the substances in the Figures. Where are the standard deviations in the Figures, not possible just pictures of lines?
From my point of view you have so many dates that it looks as a report to the industry as you were granted for this project. It would be more scientific for the article to put in the legends the dates and in the figures the stages of storage… etc
It is impossible to repeat the same data in Table and in the Figure, only in one way, please, change all the presentation or Figures or Tables.
Table number 9 is very long; it has to be moved to supplementary and instead of this to put even bars to show the changed in different phenolic substances, and it will look more attractive and more scientific presentation.
References
The citation of your references is not equal in the article, check carefully all the citations and as well the list of References, there are many mistakes, make the list equal. Your main explanation of the changes in the substances was based on Reference 28. I understood that it is a PhD thesis, but you have to identify in the list.
Author Response
Review 1 on “The Influence of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration at Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols and Flavonoids Content and Individual Polyphenolic Compounds of White Wines During Storage”
Thank you very much for all valuable comments. They were taken into account.
Abstract
Comment: is written well in details, but without disclosure of some abbreviations which we know, but the reader maybe not. You did not put any results in quantity, and then maybe it was not done. In order to answer this comment, please, put shortly the main results in numbers and their changes during the storage process.
We added the clarification of abbrevations, and added more interesting and relevant results in numbers.
Introduction
Comment: see the last paragraph: “So, the aim of presented research paper is to evaluate the effect of addition of different doses of SO2 on nutritive quality of wines –total polyphenols content, total flavonoids content, antioxidant activity determined by DPPH and ABTS methods and selected polyphenolic compounds. Moreover, to previous studies (????), we investigated also changes 79 of chemical parameters during 5-month storage”
In the last paragraph underline deeply the new approach of this research, what are the selected polyphenolic compounds, add citation to previous studied.
We clarify the significance of our manuscript and add novelty based on determination of predominant polyphenolic substances.
Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Comments: Except the title use non Italic font in the text. It was corrected.
Check carefully all this section and correct commas or points; subscript or superscript It was checked.
How the samples of wines were presented from oxidation before the determination of phenolic substances and antioxidant activities
It was added.
Line 135: substances was expressed as gallon (GAE) in mg.L-1. What is this? Please, check in all text mg.L-1.
It was made clear.
The methods used for determination of phenolic substances and antioxidant activities have to be cited by original authors with modification of authors as you did in the case of Singleton for polyphenols.
Results and discussion
Comments:
Check carefully once more the points and the commas in all your article and in the Tables especially.
It was chacked.
The five Figures are in the same design; it can be chosen another one not to be confused with the substances in the Figures. Where are the standard deviations in the Figures, not possible just pictures of lines?
We deleted figures and preffered tables.
From my point of view you have so many dates that it looks as a report to the industry as you were granted for this project. It would be more scientific for the article to put in the legends the dates and in the figures the stages of storage… etc
It is impossible to repeat the same data in Table and in the Figure, only in one way, please, change all the presentation or Figures or Tables.
We deleted figures and preffered tables.
Table number 9 is very long; it has to be moved to supplementary and instead of this to put even bars to show the changed in different phenolic substances, and it will look more attractive and more scientific presentation.
We send our version into lie out format so it was more precious.
References
The citation of your references is not equal in the article, check carefully all the citations and as well the list of References, there are many mistakes, make the list equal. Your main explanation of the changes in the substances was based on Reference 28. I understood that it is a PhD thesis, but you have to identify in the list.
We added it
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: agriculture-2491985
Manuscript Title: The Influence of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration at Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols and Flavonoids Content and Individual Polyphenolic Compounds of White Wines During Storage
The manuscript entitled “The Influence of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration at Antioxidant Activity, Total Polyphenols and Flavonoids Content and Individual Polyphenolic Compounds of White Wines During Storage” is reviewed in the current version. The experiments are well organized and it is a meaningful study. I think it can be accepted for publication in the current journal provided some clarifications and corrections are done.
Comments:
1) There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript, please check and revise the grammatical problems of the manuscript.
2) Line 32-33, 217: Pay attention to punctuation.
3) Line 104: “H 2SO4” → “H 2SO4”.
4) Line 103: Please explain how to determine SO2 ?
5) Line 109, 114-118, 141: Please revise the sentence “we add 3 ml of 16% H 2SO4.......”. As a research article, it is best not to include personal word in the paper.
6) Line 129: Please delete the sentence “Determination of total polyphenol content (TPC)”.
7) Line 166: “at said wavelength” → “at 515nm”.
8) he sLine 233: “So” → “SO2”.
9) Line 234: Please delete the word “Riesling”.
10) Line 235-236: “Between the first measurement 29.10.2021 and measurement from 25.11.2021 we registrated the average decrease in sulfur dioxide by 16 %” should be revised by “The results showed an average reduction of 16% in sulfur dioxide from 29.10.2021 to 25.11.2021”. As a research article, it is best not to include personal word in the paper.
11) Line 236-237, 242, 255, 275, 326, 327 : It is best not to include personal word in the paper, except for these please check the full text.
12) Lines 255: Please delete tentence “interval between them”.
13) Lines 270-271, 299, 341-344, 448: Here it is not clear what you would like to say. Please be precise or explicit.
14) Lines 313: “table”→“table 6”.
15) Lines 347: Please delete the sentence “In the same way ”.
16) Lines 350: Please delete the word “c”.
17) Lines 369: “table”→“table 7”.
18) Lines 374-376: Please check the data, the two sets of data are too different from the author's description.
19) Lines 376-377: “According to author ”→“The results showed that ”, “mg/l”→“mg·L-1”. The unit form used in the full text should be unified.
20) Lines 399: “table”→“table 7”.
21) Lines 463: “tables”→“table 9”.
22) Lines 482: “but in our study, we cannot see this trend”→“ which is not consistent with our study”.
23) Lines 483: Please delete the sentence “Morena et al. (2018)”.
24) Lines 513: Please delete the word “it”.
25) Lines 514-516: “On the other hand, we must see also negative effect of sulfides on human health. All facts taken in account with the adequate addition of sulfur dioxide we can prepare health promoting beverage”→“So adding the right amount of SO2 can improve the quality of the beverage”.The conclusion needs a brief introduction.
26) Some data in table 5, 7 and 8 not have analytical significance, please add.
There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript, please check and revise the grammatical problems of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for all valuable comments, they were taken into account.
Comments:
1) There are some grammatical errors in the manuscript, please check and revise the grammatical problems of the manuscript. All manuscript was revised and checked.
2) Line 32-33, 217: Pay attention to punctuation. It was done
3) Line 104: “H 2SO4” → “H 2SO4”. It was corrected.
4) Line 103: Please explain how to determine SO2 ? It was added.
5) Line 109, 114-118, 141: Please revise the sentence “we add 3 ml of 16% H 2SO4.......”. As a research article, it is best not to include personal word in the paper. We substituted personal words.
6) Line 129: Please delete the sentence “Determination of total polyphenol content (TPC)”. It was deleted.
7) Line 166: “at said wavelength” → “at 515nm”. It was corrected.
8) he sLine 233: “So” → “SO2”. It was done.
9) Line 234: Please delete the word “Riesling”.It was deleted
10) Line 235-236: “Between the first measurement 29.10.2021 and measurement from 25.11.2021 we registrated the average decrease in sulfur dioxide by 16 %” should be revised by “The results showed an average reduction of 16% in sulfur dioxide from 29.10.2021 to 25.11.2021”. As a research article, it is best not to include personal word in the paper. We substituted personal words.
11) Line 236-237, 242, 255, 275, 326, 327 : It is best not to include personal word in the paper, except for these please check the full text. We substituted personal words.
12) Lines 255: Please delete tentence “interval between them”. It was deleted.
13) Lines 270-271, 299, 341-344, 448: Here it is not clear what you would like to say. Please be precise or explicit. It was clarify – rewrited by another words.
14) Lines 313: “table”→“table 6”. It was corrected.
15) Lines 347: Please delete the sentence “In the same way ”. It was deleted.
16) Lines 350: Please delete the word “c”. It was deleted.
17) Lines 369: “table”→“table 7”. It was corrected
18) Lines 374-376: Please check the data, the two sets of data are too different from the author's description. It was unified.
19) Lines 376-377: “According to author ”→“The results showed that ”, “mg/l”→“mg·L-1”. The unit form used in the full text should be unified. Unit were checked.
20) Lines 399: “table”→“table 7”. It was corrected
21) Lines 463: “tables”→“table 9”. It was added.
22) Lines 482: “but in our study, we cannot see this trend”→“ which is not consistent with our study”. It was corrected,
23) Lines 483: Please delete the sentence “Morena et al. (2018)”. It was deleted.
24) Lines 513: Please delete the word “it”. It was deleted.
25) Lines 514-516: “On the other hand, we must see also negative effect of sulfides on human health. All facts taken in account with the adequate addition of sulfur dioxide we can prepare health promoting beverage”→“So adding the right amount of SO2 can improve the quality of the beverage”.The conclusion needs a brief introduction. It was inputed.
26) Some data in table 5, 7 and 8 not have analytical significance, please add. Numbers without upper indexes mean statistically significant differences
