Comments on abstract, title,references

1- Abstract: is well structured , the aim is clear But the methods lack the period of the experiment How the authors did this study is not mentioned in abstract by using which methods? Results is clear but the first sentence in the conclusion beyond the result 2-Title: is relevant but not completely informative as it lack the type or aspect of study “subject area” i.e. study the toxicity of tartrazine from which side is biochemical, histopathology ... or what , in addition the organs not determined 3-References: is relevant, correctly cited and recent except some should be updated like 3,4,7,8,15,16,17&18

Comments on introduction/background

4-The back ground was clearly illustrated give full ideas about the topic. The importance of the study wasn’t well defined What is the research problem or the gap of this study?? The aim of the work was obviously stated

Comments on methodology

5-The methods used are reliable. Why the authors didn’t add group to observe the beneficial effect of the blackthorn fruit alone as mentioned in the aim of the study to increase the validity. The authors mentioned in the introduction that the dye is able to increase levels of hyperactivity and aggression in the behavior of hyperactive children. Why they didn’t perform behavioral evaluation tests??

Comments on data and results

6-The data were presented in semi-appropriate manner but some parts concerning the discussion were placed in the result it must be moved to the former section. The tables were relevant with the text but the statistical symbols (a,b and c) not all were placed correctly please check them and the authors mentioned in the table ' 2' title ".....measurements of rats treated with tartrazine for 7 weeks" but its content include all groups with the control one. Concerning the histological evaluation title should be changed to histopathological evaluation. Moreover, the lesions which stated in the liver not all cleared in the figures as kupffer cell proliferation,bile duct hyperplasia and fibrosis especially in group I. The magnification of the figure not mentioned. Why the figures of the kidney not included in the study and what is meant by "personal communications Balta et al." this is not clear.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

7-The discussion section need strong revision.The authors discussed several organs not related to their study such as testis, colon, and stomach. They compared well their findings with other studies however, they didn't interpreted their results in appropriate way "Not all groups' findings well discussed". The used toxic dye tartrazine not fully explained how it induce the toxicity "mechanism" and how the black thorn act as protective against this toxicity. Additionally, authors stated that no lesions appeared in spleen however, they also stated that this dye induce immune toxicity this is not clear. Authors cited some studies mentioned neurotoxic effect of tartrazine however, they stated no lesions in brain this is not obvious. Lipid peroxidation was mentioned but there are no measurements were applied "oxidative stress biomarkers". 8-Concerning the conclusion, it meet the aim of the study but the spleen was mentioned in the results has no lesions despite in the conclusion the opposite was stated