This work prepared several kinds of Brewer’s spent grain-based noodles, and evaluated their cooking properties, nutritional value, antioxidant and biological activity. The authors made great efforts for this work, and it merit to publish after some revisions. The specific comments to the authors are as follows.
1. Comment: line 53, keywords, please clarify the uppercase and lowercase.
2. Comment: Line 71-74, please rephrase this sentence.
3. Comment: line 80-82, what is that mean? Noodles are the main culprit for the obesity etc.? It is not appropriate.
4. Comment: line 208, remove the full stop.
5. Comment: line 255, “5 mg of sample and 5 mg KBr” is that right? Please clarify it.
6. Comment: line 259, for the microorganism, what is purpose of determination total plate count and fungi count?
7. Comment: line 305 rephrase this sentence.
8. For the discussion, i think, personally, it was fairly hard understandable. All of the discussions should use analogical comparison. For example, the cooking lost, firstly, compare the control with other noodles, secondly, in the same addition condition which samples are significant each other, which samples are not significant. And then give the brief reason for the result.
9. Comment: DPPH is not radical, “DPPH.” is radical. Please correct it throughout the paper.
10. Comment: line 479, did the authors use the total phenol content test assay kit for this section? I think the extraction method of this study not appropriate for the bound phenolic compound. Barley vinasse contains both free and bound phenolic compounds, can the ethanol extraction method fully extract the bound phenolic compound? The author should consider this point.
11. Comment: line 508, the comment with the same comment 10 for this section.
12. Comment: line 510, “capacity” is not appropriate for here.
13. Comment: line 534, please correct the format of the “IC50”, and make the change throughout the manuscript.
14. Comment: line 565, “Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy”section, the purpose of the author want to know the changes of the protein secondary structure. But they did not calculate the secondary structure content like α-helix, β-sheet. Hence, i recommended the authors calculate the secondary structure content.
15. Comment: line 727, in this section, did the author want to know if the noodles are edible from the point of microbes? I hope they give brief description for this?
16. Comment: line 787, do not use % symbol directly, use the words instead.
17. Comment: The whole manuscript should be carefully checked for the language, format etc.