Modelling of Malt Mixture for the Production of Wort with Increased Biological Value
, Desislava Teneva 2, Rositsa Denkova-Kostova 3, Kristina Ivanova 4, Petko Denev 2 and Georgi Kostov 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work "Modeling of malt mixture for the production of wort with in- 2
creased biological value "is exciting and easy to read.
The introduction is well written and provides adequate information on state of the art.
The results are precise, and the discussion exhaustive.
The biggest problem with the work is the lack of conclusions.
Minor corrections should be made in the "materials and methods" section:
· The statistical analysis currently reported on page 2, line 80 should become section 2.6.
· Section 2.3.2. Wort analysis should be described in detail, and the equipment used listed
· On page 3, line 99 "method 2.2.1 should be corrected in method 2.3.1.
Author Response
Please, find attached the responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work Modelling of malt mixture for the production of wort with increased biological value contain interesting but contain a lot of mistakes and is not explained in a correct way.
The discussion is very incomplete and there is a lot o section that must rewrite or improved.
Some comments
Keywords list very extensive, please reduce and replace all names of antioxidant test by “antioxidant activity”
2.1. Malt – more information is need or if they are commercial give their information and the characteristics of the supplier
“..which consisted of 27 different mixtures” some are equal for example 27 and 13
More information was needed about the statistical analysis and the references of the software used
The section Materials and Methods must be rewrite is to confuse, incomplete and in some parts not very well described
“The wort obtained according to method 2.2.1” where is the section 2.2.1?
Revise all equation format and complete the indication of the abbreviatures
Figure 1 is not correct, what is the yellow and gray bar? What is variant? The units of yy axis is not correct. I do not understand the figure legend.
Some comments are similar for the other tables
What are flavonoid phenolic compounds? Revise
The Mixture optimization are impossible to understand because the variables are not identified. Please revise and rearrange in a more suitable way.
The discussion is very poured and there aren’t conclusions
“Variants 4 and 5 were characterized by better sensory profile” where is the sensory analysis section?
Supplementary material 2 must be in the main document
Supplementary material 1 do not make sense, a summary of the analysis is better.
Table 2. needs also statistical analysis to understand who is different from the other one
Author Response
Please, find attached the responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
