Design and Implementation of a Measuring Device to Determine the Content of Pigments in Plant Leaves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study "Design and implementation of a measuring device to determine the content of pigments in plant leaves" describes the results of newly developed device for measurement of pigments. Previously there are number of devices and methods for measuring the pigments, however, present device would be a new addition with recent updations.  Although it is good try, but it must be more accurate.

Paper is written well, abstract, introduction and materials and methods described in details.  Pictures and tables have data of previous devices and methods, and also from present devices performance.

English quality is good, easy to understand.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

The answers are attached as PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Major comments:

If the CCI is used to calculate the content of various pigments and nitrogen content, the conventional device (CCM-200 plus) can also measure CCI, so there is no major difference between the new device and the CCI. Possible advantages of the new instrument include: low cost, light weight, and the ability to measure over time or for long periods of time. It is a minimum requirement that the measurements of the new device and the conventional device be not too different, and it would be preferable if the new device could measure more accurately. In light of these considerations, I suggest that you describe more clearly what is new and different between the new device and the conventional device.　

 

Minor comments:

line131 m2, superscript please.

Line 135 the CCI chlorophyll content index [1] => the chlorophyll content index (CCI) [1] ?

line 137 Chlorophyll CC content  => The Chlorophyll content (CC) 

Line 138 The CrC carotenoid content => The carotenoid content (CrC)

Line 140 Anthocyanin AC content => Anthocyanin content.(AC)

Line 142 The NC nitrogen content => The nitrogen content (NC)

 

What is “T931 and T653” within the equation of (3)? Please describe more in detail about the CCI, and You cite ref1 for CCI, but ref1 cites the Parry et al. paper in ref13. It would be good to sort out these relationships as well.

 

Figure9, X and Y axis, which is standard method, and proposed method (new method). a), X axis is CCI from CCM-200 plus (standard method) and Y axis is measured CC. The measured CC means new device measurement or laboratory measurement? I feel that Figure 9 is a bit confusingly worded. In caption, CM-200 => CCM-200? (Also line 296, 305, 306 and there after including table 6).

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents research work to develop and test a measuring device sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in determining the pigment content and nitrogen in plant leaves.

This study contributes to improving the quality of data collected on the pigment content of plant leaves, which could have important implications for plant biology, agricultural and environmental research.

 

The main objective is clearly formulated along with the associated tasks planned to achieve it. The hypotheses put forward were also exposed. Also, the results of the contribution have been properly summarized.

 

The added value of this device lies in the fact that it can measure a wider range of pigments than previously known methods.

 

The findings of this work are of great interest, especially for applied research, as the information provided has significant potential for advancing knowledge in the field of plant pigment physiology, including their function, distribution and regulation.

English language is fine. No issues were detected.

 

Recommendations:

 

1. The introduction must benefit from providing more context, including more references in the field.

 

2. In addition to the limitations mentioned, it would be interesting to extend the discussion to interferences that may affect pigment and nitrogen measurements.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Design and implementation of a measuring device to determine the content of pigments in plant leaves

 

Plant pigment content is very important parameter in all plant study fields including normal and stressful conditions

 

Concerning this topic, one can find many recent publications on the design and measuring chlorophyll or plant leaf pigments such as

1- Kamarianakis, Z.; Panagiotakis, S. Design and Implementation of a Low-Cost Chlorophyll Content Meter. Sensors 2023, 23, 2699. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/s23052699

2- Urbanovich EA, Afonnikov DA, Nikolaev SV. Determination of the quantitative content of chlorophylls in leaves by reflection spectra using the random forest algorithm. Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genet Selektsii. 2021 Feb;25(1):64-70. doi: 10.18699/VJ21.008.

3- Utpal Barman a, Ridip Dev Choudhury (2022). Smartphone image based digital chlorophyll meter to estimate the value of citrus leaves chlorophyll using Linear Regression, LMBP-ANN and SCGBP-ANN…..

4- Ibrahim, N.; Abd Aziz, S.; Jamaludin, D.; Harith, H. Development of smartphone-based imaging techniques for the 417 estimation of chlorophyll content in lettuce leaves. Food Res. 2021, 5, 1, 33–38.

 

What is missing in this MS:

A flowchart including all steps of measuring the plant leaf pigments

The wiring diagram of the experimental chlorophyll meter device’s prototype

In any question, the authors must explain any included symbol

What about the cost of this device, it is cheaper or expensive comparing with the other device?

Why the authors added several tables in not corrected position in the MS? For example: introduction should include the very update information about the topic

Table 4 instead of explaining what is the meaning chlorophyll and nitrogen (as very well-known), why the authors did not explain their device all steps in measuring and how does work in details and the suggested mechanisms in this work???

You can create a section in the Materials or even results to compare between your device and the other well known devices? NOT in the introduction, which is very badly written??

Where is the uncertainty of this device and quality assurance???

 

This MS should be rejected

 

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

The answers are attached as PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors did not answer many questions in the first round, which made me again reject this MS, and these questions were:

1- Introduction must not contain any tables based on publication instructions!

2- Again, where is the uncertainty of this device and quality assurance???

The answer is not enough?

3- Again not clear, why the authors did not explain the  device all steps in measuring and how does it work in details and the suggested mechanisms in this work???

Figure 4, without any information or details?

4- Again, A flowchart including all steps of measuring the plant leaf pigments??

This figure no.7 is not a flowchart including all measures and details?

 

Sorry to say again, this MS should be rejected!

 

 

 

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the esteemed members of the editorial and review committees for their invaluable contributions to our article. Their unwavering commitment to objectivity and accuracy throughout the review process was truly commendable.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

many thanks for improving the MS, now I can accept it for publication

thanks

 Minor editing of English language required