Brewing a Craft Belgian-Style Pale Ale Using Pichia kudriavzevii 4A as a Starter Culture
, Christian Bryan Ballinas-Cesatti 1, Fernando Abiram GarcÃa-GarcÃa 1,3,4, Jorge Alberto Jose-Salazar 1, César Mateo Flores-Ortiz 3,4, Eliseo Cristiani-Urbina 1,* and Liliana Morales-Barrera 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript and my comments have been attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors appreciate your comments and the responses to each of them have been attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors need to improve the scientific content of the manuscript.
For a manuscript published in a journal with microorganisms topic there are not presented any image with Pichia kudriavzevii 2 4A. There are not described factors which influence the yield and fermentation process. Aromatic compounds profile are presented by a chromatogram; authors need to determinate, quantify and discuss the concentration in methanol, esters, aldehydes, and higher alcohols. Aromatic profile need to presented during fermentation process and during maturation process.
Overall I recommend reconsider the manuscript after major revision.
Author Response
The authors appreciate your comments and the responses to each of them have been attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper brews a Belgian-style beer using a non-Saccharomyces yeast (Pichia kudriavzevii 4A) as the fermenting microorganism. The beer ingredients and the brewing process were monitored to assure the quality and innocuousness of the resulting craft beer, which according to the physicochemical and microbiological analysis complied with national and international guidelines in physical characteristics and chemical content. Sensory analysis showed that the beer as refreshing and flavorful, with a fruity flavor and a good level of bitterness, and more preferred by sensory evaluators. The use of non-Saccharomyces yeast to brew beer is a break from traditional brewing thinking and is innovative, but there are some shortcomings in the text. As follow:
1. line 234: Here should be written clearly each subparagraph indicates……
2. line 249: Is “proximate analysis” for chemical composition analysis?
3. In section 3.1, the word "suds" is proposed to be changed to "foam", because "foam" is more commonly used.
4. line 286: “The humidity of the raw seeds was 8.22%”, where does this data come from?
5. line 289: “it is necessary to previously convert complex substrates rich in starch, such as barley seeds, into simple sugars”, this expression needs to be changed.
6. line 308: The ANOVA in Table 3 should be marked with the difference sign.
7. The content of section 3.3 turned out to be confusing and it is suggested to divide it into two sections (e.g., 3.3 Sugars, alcohol content and biomass changes in beer before and after main fermentation. And 3.4 Evaluation of the beer). The data in section 3.3 should be presented in a new table, including sugar content, alcohol content and biomass before and after main fermentation, and the pH value after the main fermentation (without adjustment of alcohol)).
8. line 326: “90.08%”, how this value is calculated.
9. Ethyl acetate is also a substance that provides a fruity aroma to beer, and it is hoped that this will be discussed in section 3.5 to enhance the relevance of the paper.
Author Response
The authors appreciate your comments and the responses to each of them have been attached.Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. I am happy with the corrections made and no further suggestions and comments from me. Good luck!
Reviewer 2 Report
Revised form was improved. Experimental part is correct presented. I recommend the publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be accepted for publication.
