Evaluating the Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizers and Biochar on Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis by the Use of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

File is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments suggested in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Concerning the Abstract, we rewrote a part of it based on the comments you suggested. In particular, we have clarified the background, describing the section on biochar. In addition, the conclusions and future prospects have been rewritten, consulting the best publications in the field. Please see Lines 13-18 and 23-29.

About the revisions of the paragraph "Introduction":

a,b) we have revised the entire paragraph, checking the grammatical part carefully through the use of  an English editing Software: Grammarly,  and we provided to re-structure some sentences of the Introduction as you suggested;

c) In addition to the previously written nitrogen section, we have implemented additional bibliographic references as suggested by you (Line 72);

d) in Line 49 (previous line 45), a bibliographical reference has been added, as suggested by you;

e) in the paragraph on nitrogen fertilization (Lines 40, 44), bibliographical references have been added;

f) in Line 55 (previously Line 50), bibliographical references (3) have been added, as you suggested;

g) Bibliographical references have been added for the "agro-food" section (Line 76), and rewrote the entire paragraph to improve the text readability as suggested by you in the previous point.

Regarding the introduction, we believe that all the revisions you suggested have improved this paragraph overall. In the "Materials and Methods" section we have implemented the bibliography. We consider it appropriate to underline that the study was based on suitable bibliographical research on nitrogen fertilization specific to cauliflower, carrying out an experimental plan specific to regional climatic conditions, soil type, and label advice.

Finally, with reference to the "Results and Discussion" section, the research aimed primarily to characterize qualitatively the chemical profile in the four cauliflower tissues enhancing differences among different treatments. As reported in line 136, we performed a PCA as a statistical deep tool for the elaboration of spectral FTIR data to underline the different chemical compositions of vegetable tissues. We considered your suggestion, but the type of dataset we have does not allow us a further statistical analysis as our screening, in this first work, is mainly of a qualitative type.

We think that further statistical analysis could surely be included in our future work, in which chromatographic analyses will be performed to quantify metabolites.

As you suggested, we have revised the abbreviations and units of measurement.

As regards a scientific comparison with works similar to the one proposed by us, in the 198 and 208 lines we have added bibliographical references as you suggested. Unfortunately, there are still few works on this issue, especially for the research conducted on cauliflower crops.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors have employed an innovative FTIR technique to evaluate the chemical profile of Brassica oleracea L. treated with different doses of N  fertilizer and biochar. Various statistical analyses have been conducted that have rendered the study more impactful. Below are a few suggestions that can improve the manuscript: 

1.       Line 87: Scientific name needs to be italicized

2.       Line 117: it should be “in the oven”

3.      Figure 2: a, b, c, d- the unit of absorbance needs to be reported for the y-axis.

4.   Figure 2: a, b, c, d: the scale/values reported for the y-axis are ambiguous in the format of Eg: “0,10; 0,35; 0,20” and so on in all the figures. This needs to be rectified for easier understanding.

5.       Figure 2: a, b, c, d: For these figures, it would be more impactful if the authors can point to/demarcate the major FTIR spectra peaks by vertical dashed lines and indicate what each specific peak corresponds to. For eg: C-H, C-O, C=C, C=O, etc. bonding for different absorbance levels (%).

6.       Line 112: It should be Figure 2

7.       Line 165: should be Figure 3 as per chronology

8.       Line 179: should be Figure 4 as per chronology

9.       Line 227: should be Figure 5.

10.   Figure 4 a, b, c, d: The absorbance unit needs to be reported for the y-axis.

11.   Figure 4 a, b, c, d: same as point no. 4 as detailed above.

12.   Line 255: It should be Figure 6

13.   Please include some numbers and percentages for comparative analysis against the relevant results already known in the literature, especially in the form of a table.

14.   Please include the future scope/future studies of this manuscript.

15.   The entire manuscript would benefit from in-depth proofreading from the authors, especially regarding the numbering of figures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for appreciating our work and for your helpful suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript.

1. Thanks to your comment, all species names were checked in order to write them correctly;
2. In Line 124, we corrected the phrase "in the oven";
3. In Figure 3 (previously Figure 2), we have reported the unit of absorbance;
4. In Figure 3 (previously Figure 2), we have eliminated the y-axis as reported in the bibliography cited;
5. Thank you for the suggestion that greatly improved the graphics of figure 3 (previously Figure 2). We indicated the peaks of our interest through a vertical line;
6. In Line 119 (previously Line 112), we have corrected the number of Figures;
7. In Line 161 (previously Line 165), we have modified the figure number;
8. In Line 183 (previously Line 179), we have changed the number, as you revised;
9. In Line 232 (previously Line 227), we have corrected the number;
10. In Figure, we have reported the unit of absorbance, as you suggested;
11. We have eliminated the y-axis in relation to the bibliography in the FTIR field;
12. We have controlled the chronology of Figures number in all manuscript;
13. Thank you for this suggestion which improved the quality of the results section. In Table 1,2,3,4 the absorbance values with changes in the relative captions have been reported;
14. In Lines 294-298 we have reported the future application of this research, as you suggested.