Properties of Fermented Beverages from Food Wastes/By-Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the paper is interesting and it is worth publishing after some minor revisions. The review deals with a topic of interest and it is well focused.

Apart from some grammatical or idiomatic mistakes, I would only make some small comments or recommendations:

1-. With regard to English language, I am not a native English speaker but I have recognized some mistakes. See some examples below:

Line 179- also have been (it should be “have also been…”)

Line 192. due to (to is missing)

Help (not to) (to should be removed)

Line242 write “generally dependent on the properties”

Line 289 Remove point at the beginning of the sentence.

Line 386 beverage

Line 410 to trace or undetected levels (please revise)

Line 419 and help to preserved (please revise)

Line 442 Table 3 summarizes (I recommend not to used the past tense when describing a table or figure content. It is better to use the present tense).

2-. At the beginning of the paper (Figure 1), a general procedure for obtaining beverages from fruit or vegetables by-products is presented. I see this procedure generates other residues since only the extracted fraction is used for obtaining the beverage. Maybe this should be discussed in the text. On the other hand, I guess this is the procedure for some of the beverages described, but not others (please, try to clarify this point; are all beverages discussed in the review produced using a similar procedure?? Do some of they use solid sate fermentation approaches??).

3-. Finally, I recommend to revise the conclusions to be more focused on the interest and opportunities of fermentation, rather than being so centered in the valorization issue. Of course, both come together but I believe fermentation should be highlighted in this section. In addition, perspectives or the need for future research should be more specific, and not only generally stated.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to the pertinent and useful comments of the reviewers (the text changed was indicated by red color in manuscript), and detailed corrections/answers are listed below point by point, in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors who have taken the time to share information on the properties of fermented beverages produced from/with by-products.

The topic is up-to-date and is part of the trend to support the green economy and the circular economy, as well as the growing demand for plant-based products. In addition, the fermentation process provides valuable nutrients.

However, some clarifications need to be made:

- From my point of view, I think some clarifications need to be made regarding Probiotics and Prebiotics, lines 66-67.

- "Additionally, they have advantages as refrigerated products and can maintain their consumption viability for longer times", is not clear what you wanted to emphasise, lines 119-120.

- Line 66 "added bioactive substances (e.g. probiotics)"; line 131" bacterial probiotic strains", some clarification should be made.

- "fermented substrates" line 142, please find another word instead of substances.

- "types of cancer, like stomach, lung, breast and ovary cancers" Please rephrase this, lines 134-135.

- "for many gastrointestinal diseases, such as anti-pathogenic, anti-allergic, anti-angiogenic, anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory effects" Please rephrase this, lines 151-152.

- References are missing, lines 172-179

- line 189 - one point should be deleted

- "dryness is about 11–14 Bx" please add ° - line 320

- The conclusions section must be improved, adding dates from the present research, lines 492-509.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to the pertinent and useful comments of the reviewers (the text changed was indicated by red color in manuscript), and detailed corrections/answers are listed below point by point, in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Very good review on fermented beverages from food wastes. The manuscript has described the representative scheme of the development of plant-based fermented beverages, health benefits of fermented beverages, microbial agents associated with fermentation processes, etc. I recommend the following changes before publication:

1. The manuscript title should be changed to "Properties of fermented beverages from food wastes/ by-products"

2. Page 2 line 58: Change 'increase' to 'increased'

3. Page 2 line 74: 'drinks also increases' should be 'drinks is also increasing'

4. Page 2: para 3 & 4 should be merged.

5. Page 2 lines 90 to 94: The sentence should be restructured, 'Figure 1' appears twice in the same sentence.

6. Page 5, section3, line 178: Full expansion of LAB should be given in the first appearance.

7. Page 7, section 4, line 273:  'been' be replaced by 'seen'.

8. Page 9, Tabe 1, row 2: 'Substract' should be replaced by 'Substrate'

9. Page 10, row 4: 'Yast' should be 'yeast'

10. Page11, line 382: 'were' should be 'are'

11. Page 11, line 416: delete 'as well as'

12. Page 15, line 504: 'potential' should be 'potentials'

13. Page 15, line 507 &508: 'In this review, different approaches....properties' should be restructured as 'In this review, different approaches so far developed for the potential use of by-products in the production of fermented beverages with functional properties have been recorded'

14. Above mistakes are randomly indicated, there are more such mistakes. The manuscript should be thoroughly checked.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to the pertinent and useful comments of the reviewers (the text changed was indicated by red color in manuscript), and detailed corrections/answers are listed below point by point, in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx