Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Detailed notes on the manuscript:

1) The method of citation is inconsistent with the MDPI standard (there should be square brackets + reference number),
2) List of References inconsistent with the MDPI standard,
3) Gaussian / tesla meter - enter the accuracy of the measurement,
4) pH meter - enter the accuracy of the measurement (line No. 195),
5) measurement units; in some, no symbols (mathematical operations), use superscripts (see line 194, multiplication sign),
6) 2.7. Statistical analysis - Use a parametric ANOVA; how the normal distribution of the population was tested, how the homogeneity of variance in the samples was tested.
7) Size of the population (samples) - add (in 2.7) that 64 plants / m2 resulted from the experimental design (the minimum sample size was not calculated),
8) Fig. 3 - data on the chart should not be connected by a line (after all, you do not forecast data ...), I suggest using the trend line, Fig. 3D - description of the vertical axis (superscript -1),
9) Figure 4. - drawing not compliant with the MDPI standard, no error bars (do these values ​​differ significantly?),
10) Figure 5 and 6 - add under the figure that a-e are homogeneous groups (I suggest using lowercase letters, it will be according to table 5)
11) Summary: would the cultivation efficiency increase with the use of additional variants, including those proposed by the Authors? (see JRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology ISSN: 2319-1163, and DOI10.15199 / 48.2020.07.28).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We reread the manuscript and found your comments are effective and important for improving our manuscript, so we modified it as per your comments as following mentioned in the attached word file 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work describes the application of various magnetic water densities as irrigation for strawberries grown. The Authors evaluated the effectiveness of different magnetic levels and three soiless culture systems on the yield and quality of the fruits. The optimum conditions for strawberries grown have been selected. The results of experiments have been clearly presented accompanied by several graphs.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and your appreciation of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present paper deals with the use of magnetized water in different soilless cultivation systems with evaluation of water consumption. Plants were grown under controlled conditions in a closed greenhouse. The results presented show that the use of magnetized water has an effect on increasing yield and reducing water consumption. From the point of view of the substantive content of the paper, I evaluate it positively. It is a topical issue.  However, the article contains a large number of technical errors, typos and other shortcomings. Individual problematic points are commented on below:

1. I see the most fundamental problem with the article as being the misuse of units. The whole article is very problematic in this respect. For example, line 106 - as 65% -> correct (65 %).

Line 129 - Nutrient solution (1 cm L^-1) - isn't it more like (mg ⋅ L^-1)?

Line 135 - 15 min h^-1? This unit does not exist. Meant as 15 min?

The article is full of these errors. Both typos and instances of using non-existing units. Please review the following recommendations for SI units: 

https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure

I also recommend focusing on the correct use of the Dot Operator Symbol (⋅). There is a fundamental difference between e.g. The speed of sound is about 344 m⋅s^-1 (meters per second - correct usage) and The speed of sound is about 344 ms^-1 (reciprocal milliseconds - incorrect usage).

So please go through the whole article, check the units and use them correctly!

 

2. Line 118 - technical description of the instruments used. It would be useful to add the manufacturer to the description for unambiguous identification of the instrument. Possibly share the datasheet / manual of the instrument in question to assess its suitability.

 

3. Chapter 2.6 - Assessment criteria. You are describing the use of an Arduino microcontroller. You also describe the battery power supply. For what reason? Was the mains power not accessible? In the case of battery power, what is the lifetime of this device? What is the power consumption of the proposed system? What battery was used? For example, is there a photo of a real deployment in the described greenhouse? In case you want to describe the technical design of the proposed system, it is advisable to expand it adequately to give the reader a better idea.

 

4. Line 131. The description for magnesium is missing in the table description.

 

5. Line 140. Is the reference to Figure 1 misplaced here? It doesn't fit the concept of this paragraph/sentence at all.

 

6. Line 171. Is it not appropriate to move the heading to the next page? 

 

7. Line 184. Placing dimensions and units (mm) on the same line

 

8. Line 194. Please use the correct character for multiplication -> m⋅sec NOT m.sec

 

9. Line 204. Errors in table description. Incorrect verbose translation (is is ).

 

10. Figure 3. Please do not use l plant^-1. There is no such unit! It occurs frequently in the text. Please correct to the correct format.

 

11. Figure 3 - In the left corner, the letter A crosses the table. It is hard to read. Please correct.

 

12. Figure 4 - again l plant^-1.

 

13. Figure 5 - again the legend crosses the table border.

 

 

Despite the large number of comments, the article is interesting and useful. However, the technical aspects of the article and the correct use of units need to be addressed before publication. I would also have a few additional questions:

 

1. How often was the water in the aeroponic fertilizer tank changed? What was used as fertilizer?

 

2. For what reason were only aeroponic systems used? Hydroponics was not suitable?

 

3. As I mentioned in a previous comment. In section 2.3 (Systems installation and experimental treatments) you mention irrigation at 15 min h^-1. Is this a time figure for total irrigation per hour? I.e. out of a whole hour, is irrigation only started for 15 minutes, or is irrigation started every 15 minutes for a certain period of time? It would be useful to describe these facts better and more clearly.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We reread the manuscript and found your comments are effective and important for improving our manuscript, so we modified as per your comments as the following in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for improving the manuscript.