Effect of Biofortification with Iodine by 8-Hydroxy-7-iodo-5-quinolinesulfonic Acid and 5-Chloro-7-iodo-8-quinolinol on the Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Potato Tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.) in a Pot Experiment
, Sylwester Smoleń 2, Iwona Kowalska 2, Joanna Pitala 3, Olga Sularz 1 and Aneta Koronowicz 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript AS-2282222 " Effect of biofortification with iodine by 8-hydroxy-7-iodo-5- 1quinolinesulfonic acid and 5-chloro-7-iodo-8-quinolinol on the 2chemical composition and antioxidant properties of potato tu-3 bers (Solanum Tuberosum L.) in a pot experiment" is try to assess the effect of biofortification with iodine in the form of two iodoquinolines on the chemical composition of the antioxidant properties of potato. The topic is meaningful. However, there remains some major concerns about the manuscript. Also, the diagram needs to be polished. Overall, the manuscript can be accepted for publication only after major revision and carefully revise.
General comment:
1. The diagram should be improved. Too many tables but only one figure. And the format of the tables in this manuscript are not unify.
2. Please provide the high resolution artwork for the figure.
3. The section of the “Materials and Methods” are too long. The most important in the manuscript should be the section of “Results and Discussion”.
4. The unit and annotation in this manuscript is not uniform. There are so many errors, please check across the manuscript. Such as L137, should be H2O instead of H2O; Line 137, it should be mS·cm-1 instead of mS·cm-1, and so on......
6. In the section of “Results and Discussion”, the author just described the results of the experiment, but lack of full discussion and proof of results and mechanisms.
7. Many articles in the references are too old. Please replace the references in recent five years.
Some specific concerns:
1. Please add specific results (specific value) in the section of Abstract.
2. Many formats of the units are wrong. For example, Line 134, line 137, line 139, Table 1, and so on.
3. Line 133, did the seed have been sterilized?
4. Line 133, why choose heavy mineral soil?
5. Line 149, please add why only select the concentration of 0.55 g/kg.
6. Line 150-152, it makes me confuse. Four treatment, 12 replicates?
7. Table 1, please unify the significant digits
8. Table 3-7, please unify the lowercase note as table 2.
9. Line 368, please rewrite it.
10. There are too many tables in your manuscript. Figure are more readability than tables. I recommend Table 4-7 can be change to figures.
11. Conclusions are too long. Please combine into one paragraph and highlight the experimental results and conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) Introduction: Supplement the latest advances in iodine fertilizer application
(2) Add more Information about “Polifoska 10-5-15-5-14 (N, P, K, Mg, S) fertilizers”
(3) The quality of English language needs to be improved. E.g., Treace in Line218 should be trace.
(4) Too many details about determination. Use references instead, or simplify the details.
(5) Two chemical formulas in the title may be changed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript describes that adding 8-OH-7-I-5QSA and 5-Cl-7-I-8-Q into the soil can effectively increase the content of iodine in potato tuber, which provides a good source of I in the diet while reducing the risk of developing deficiencies. However, the readability of the paper is poor, and extensive editing of English language and style are required. I am concerned about several important issues of this study and thus I consider that a major revision of this manuscript needs to be done.
1、Table2 needs to be exchanged with the content of 3.1.
2、What are the specific functions of figures 1B and C? please briefly describe the results in the figure legend.
3、Where is the content of free amino acids in the 3.5.
4、There is an error in the numbering order of the result and the discussion section
5、The content of 3.7 (Determination of the Total Carotenoids Content) should be placed before 3.5 (Determination of Antioxidant Activity the ABTS Method).
6、The readability of the paper is poor, and extensive editing of English language and style are required.
-Line 28: od?
- Line 31: significant) should delete “)”
- Line 266: “Determination of Antioxidant Activity the ABTS Method” change to “Determination of Antioxidant Activity using the ABTS Method”
……
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no additional concern.
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
