Changes in the Physicochemical Characteristics and Antioxidant Activity of Saladette-Type Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Grown in Soil Supplemented with Zeolite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the manuscript has been revised by the authors, it does not, in my opinion, meet the standards required of professional scientific articles. My detailed comments are provided below.

Title: The species's Latin name (Solanum Lycopercum) is incorrect; this taxon does not formally exist. The correct name is Solanum lycopersicum L. (Please remember that Latin taxon names are written in italics).

Keywords: Genus names in Latin are always capitalized; it should be Solanum

Introduction: “saladette tomatoes” is a colloquial term; please use the scientific terminology, e.g., tomato lines in saladette-type hybrids, or “Saladette”-type tomato varieties

Discussion and Results: The discussion chapter contains very general information; in fact, it is rather obvious. There is no professional discussion of the findings from other authors’ research. The chapter needs to be rewritten and expanded.

Clearly, the authors have little understanding of the issue and are not familiar with the relevant literature. Otherwise, they would realise that the issue is neither groundbreaking nor new. Remember that zeolite was first identified as a mineral in 1756 by the Swedish mineralogist Fredrich Cronstedt, who collected well-formed crystals from a copper mine in Sweden. Since then, interest in the mineral and its potential practical uses has grown.

Please read the following excerpt from one of the many publications that the authors fail to cite. “Clinoptilolite in agriculture improves the efficiency of used fertilizers, thus promotes better plant growth and consequently enhances the yield. For instance, Torii (1978) reported that the application of zeolite at the rate of 4-8 tons/acre increased apple yield by 13-38%. This mineral used in the amount of 2 to 8 kg/tree, can contribute to a better new orchard establishment. Zeolites are used successfully in the cultivation of a wide variety of crops including cereals, vegetables, grapes and other fruits (Burriesci et al., 1984; Anonymous, 2004ab). Zeolites added to fertilizers help to retain nutrients and, therefore, improving the long term soil quality by enhancing its absorption ability. It concerns the most important plant nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and potassium (K), and also calcium, magnesium and micro-elements. Zeolite can retain these nutrients in the root zone to be used by plants when required. Consequently this leads to the more efficient use of N and K fertilizers by reducing their rates for the same yield, by prolonging their activity or finally by producing higher yields. Large losses of fertilizers which move out of the root zone (leaching) often happen in sandy soils, which lose their capability to retain high nutrient levels (Flanigen and Mumpton, 1981; Mumpton, 1981). Therefore an application of zeolites will enhance the plant growth and development by reducing the loss of nutrients (Anonymous, 2004a).”

Please see: Polat, E., Karaca, M., Demir, H., & Onus, A. N. (2004). Use of natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) in agriculture. Journal of fruit and ornamental plant research, 12(1), 183-189.)

This brief excerpt makes it clear that the authors' findings were easily predictable.

Other comments: In my opinion, the submitted manuscript contains data of questionable quality. Yield and fruit size are influenced by various factors, such as the type and nutrient content of the growing medium, air temperature and humidity, and genetic factors. However, in this study, there is no information on whether the tomato seedlings used were genetically homogeneous. Studies of this kind should use mericlones — genetically homogeneous individuals — as only then can the results be considered reliable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:  
We appreciate your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript. We have made the 
necessary observations and clarifications, and we hope to have improved and enriched the 
information contained herein, and we welcome your approval. 
Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read and reviewed the paper titled "Changes in the physicochemical characteristics and antioxidant activity of saladette tomato (Solanum Lycopercum) grown in soil supplemented with zeolite". This study evaluated the effect of varying concentrations of an endemic zeolite applied to the soil on the growth, physicochemical properties, and antioxidant activity of saladette tomatoes over a multi-month harvest period. This research has clear implications for sustainable agriculture, soil amendment strategies, and the potential improvement of nutritional quality in crops. To ensure the quality of the manuscript, I recommend the following major revisions:

1. The title contains a typo and formatting error regarding the scientific name of the tomato. The species should be correctly spelled and formatted as Solanum lycopersicum, matching its correct usage later in the text.
2. The abstract is currently divided into two paragraphs, which does not conform to standard manuscript formatting guidelines. Please consolidate it into a single, continuous paragraph.
3. There is a critical contradiction between the Abstract and the Results regarding firmness. The abstract claims Treatment 3 produced firmer fruit , but the Results state there were no statistically significant differences between treatments for firmness. The abstract must be corrected to reflect the actual data.
4. In the Keywords section, the scientific name "solanum lycopersicum" is improperly formatted. It must be capitalized and italicized as Solanum lycopersicum.
5. Lack of basic physicochemical characterization of the core experimental material. The manuscript merely mentions the use of the local 'Bothá' zeolite in the 'Materials and Methods' section, but fails to provide any basic physicochemical parameters for this material. It is recommended that the authors supplement the manuscript with a detailed description of the zeolite's composition.
6. The application units for the zeolite are scientifically imprecise. The methodology states that 1, 3, 5, and 7 kg of zeolite were mixed for each treatment. To ensure reproducibility, it is recommended to convert these amounts into standardized agronomic units.
7. The control row contained 74 plants, while the treatment rows contained 37 plants each. Reporting the yield as "total fruit collected" creates a mathematical bias. All yield data must be normalized and reported as kilograms per plant (kg/plant).
8.  Separation of Results and Discussion sections. The manuscript currently combines the "Results" and "Discussion" into a single section (Section 3). To comply with standard scientific formatting, it is recommended to separate these into two distinct sections.
9.  Removal of references from the Results section. The "Results" section should purely and objectively present the experimental findings of this study. Please remove all literature citations from the Results.
10. 10.The Results section points out a significant decrease in fruit weight 'during storage'. However, the Materials and Methods section completely lacks any details regarding a postharvest storage phase. Please provide the specific conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, duration).
11. Figure 1, which illustrates yield over time, lacks error bars. Standard deviation or standard error must be included so readers can assess the statistical significance of the fluctuations.
12. Multiple tables exhibit errors in data presentation. Essential measurement units are missing from the table headers; the dual-letter statistical significance notation used (e.g., abV, bcVW) is highly non-standard and confusing; and Table 7 retains untranslated Spanish acronyms (such as 'mg EAG'). Please standardize the statistical notation, provide the missing units, correct the formatting, and translate all acronyms into English.
13. Inconsistent significant figures: Standard deviation values across the tables suffer from inconsistent decimal places (e.g., 148.04±13.82 versus 145.83±35.1). Significant figures must be standardized.
14. The authors note that greenhouse temperatures dropped to 4-12 °C, which is well below the optimal threshold for tomatoes. This major confounding variable must be acknowledged explicitly in the Abstract as well.
15. The text states Maturity Index values ranged from "8.93 to 28.33". However, Table 6 clearly shows values reaching as high as 42.06 (September, T2). This discrepancy must be corrected.
16. While DPPH capacity increased in T3, Table 7 shows that ABTS and FRAP values were actually lower in the zeolite treatment compared to the control. The discussion must scientifically reconcile these conflicting assay results rather than making blanket statements about "improved" antioxidant capacity.
17. The conclusion claims "consistently positive results observed across all evaluation metrics." This drastically overstates the findings, as parameters like weight, size, and firmness showed no significant differences. The conclusion must be tempered to remain factual.
18. Inconsistent formatting and layout artifacts in the References section. The bibliography requires a thorough revision to strictly adhere to the journal's standard citation style.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:  
We appreciate your time and dedication in reviewing our manuscript. We have made the 
necessary observations and clarifications, and we hope to have improved and enriched the 
information contained herein, and we welcome your approval. 
Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present version resolves all my questions, and I recommend acceptance.