A. Overall statement

The study is addressing the question regarding the suitability of oil extraction by-products (oil cakes) as the substrate in lipase production from T. lanuginosus. This is interesting because commercial production of the enzyme always limited by the substrate price. However, the title of the paper should be revised in order to indicate all of the study findings. Also, the discussion should be separated from the results to make it more comprehensive.

Title: The title indicates that the paper is only about lipase production from cold-pressing oil waste. However, from the results in the abstract, the study also evaluated the produced lipase in synthesizing biodiesel. The title should be indicating all of these findings

Abstract: The abstract is written nicely. It stated the results and methods of the study. However, the aim is not explicitly stated. It is suggested to write the aims in the abstract clearly to inform the reader what is the study about.

Introduction: The authors explain the fungal lipase and its production substrate adequately. References used in the introduction also relevant and up-to-date. Research questions and aims are clearly outlined.

Methods: The authors described the variables and methods to obtain them clearly and in details. All materials' sources also stated.

Results (and discussion): The data are presented clearly, however several notes must be considered (see in 'Minor Weaknesses'). Overall, the discussion can explain the findings in the study. However, it is suggested to separate results and discussion to make the discussion more comprehensive.

Conclusions: The conclusions answer the aim of the study and prove that oil-cake can be used as a production substrate of fungal lipase.

B. Strength and impact

Lipase production data from oil cake can become basic information for other studies. The study also showed that oil cake can be used directly without any addition of carbon and nitrogen. This information can be used in production optimisation studies using similar types of substrate.

C.Weakness

Major: 1. The misleading title which does not reflect all the findings of the study. It should be revised. 2. The results and discussion are not separated. It is suggested to separate them to make the discussion more comprehensive.

Minor: 1. Fig. 1, the title of Y-axes is should be made clearer. It is suggested to write the y-axes title in full, not abbreviated. 2. Fig. 2, why the relative activity is expressed in %? It is better to use U cm-3 like in Fig. 1. 3. Fig. 3 and 5, the title of Y-axes should be “residual activity”. 4. The authors mention mycelial growth which fully covered all fermentation vessel after 9 days, however, no graph, table, or figure supporting this statement. It is suggested to add the data or delete the statement.