Comments on abstract, title, references

● Is the aim clear? yes ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? yes ● Is the title informative and relevant? informative but not include names of organs that will be examined for toxicity. ● Are the references: ● Relevant? yes ● Recent? yes except reference number 3 ; it is too old. ● Referenced correctly? yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? yes

Comments on introduction/background

● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? yes ● Is the research question clearly outlined? yes ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic?yes

Comments on methodology

● Is the process of subject selection clear? yes, but the period of experiment should be clear and limited, in this paper the author mentioned the study period over 7 weeks. i prefer the limited period to judge the exposure for toxic substance is acute, subchronic or chronic.

● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? yes

● Are the study methods valid and reliable? yes, but in introduction, the author mentioned the cause of choosing of the Prunus spinosa as a protective agent due to its content of polyphenols with anthocyanins that had a powerful antioxidant activity. so, in my opinion , the author should measure the oxidative stress parameters like GSH,CAT....etc to judge on the antioxidant activity of prunus spinosa.

● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? yes, but there was data ignored such as the sex of Wistar rats not mentioned and the methodology of administration of prunus spinosa not clear, in group 2 received it as a mixture with artrazine in drinking water and in group 3 received it in diet. what is true?

Comments on data and results

● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? no as the result section should not contain references or agreed or disagreed with previous authors but this section may titled Result and Discussion

● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? no, there is no histopathological figures for choosen organs such as kidney, spleen and brain however the author mentioned changes on their structure.

● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? yes

● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? no, author mentioned Histological evaluation but should be Histopathological evaluation. also, there is an objectionable sentence in biochemical section "In addition, concurrent treatment of rats with Nigella sativa oil demonstrated a curative effect on biochemical and histological parameters" for what this sentence relate?

● Categories grouped appropriately? yes

● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? yes but author should remove any result of previous studies and their authors names as it not a discussion section

● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? yes

● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result?yes

Comments on discussion and conclusions

● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted? no, the author only mentioned his histopathological finding and the rest of discussion is presenting the results of similar studies .

● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? yes

● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? no, such as the author said that " fruit powder demonstrated non-significant protective effects for analyzed organs.", on what the author build up this conclusion, there is no figures in result section illustrate this opinion.

● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? there was a fatal errors in the organization and structuring of discussion section as the author not display each section of his result in order with the suitable interpretations, not highlight the role of (protective effect of prunus spinosa) and its mode of action and not began with the main conclusion of the paper.

Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings in your own words: * The present study had a good design and methodology to answer the aim and illustrate the toxicity of Tartrazine by measuring different parameters. But there was some defects should be modified: 1- please mention the gender of Wistar rats in the title and Methodology section.

2- Why author not measure the oxidative stress parameters (GSH, SOD,....) as he mentioned the cause of choosing of the Prunus spinosa as a protective agent due to its content of polyphenols with anthocyanins that had a powerful antioxidant activity.

3- The way of administration of prunius spinosa should be clarified as in in group 2 received it as a mixture with artrazine in drinking water and in group 3 received it in diet. What is true?

4- Author mentioned the period of experiment over 7 weeks, it should be limited period to enable the reader to know if this experiment acute, subchronic or chronic.

5- The result section : author should be rewrite after removing of previous studies authors name as that should be in discussion section and the figures of chosen organs " spleen , kidney and brain" should be added to judge on the effect of Prunus spinosa.

6- Also in result section, there is an objectionable sentence in biochemical section "In addition, concurrent treatment of rats with Nigella sativa oil demonstrated a curative effect on biochemical and histological parameters" for what this sentence relate? and Histological results subtitle should be modified to Histopathological results.

7- In discussion section: there was errors in the organization and structuring of this section as the author not display each section of his result in order with the suitable interpretations, not highlight the role of (protective effect of prunus spinosa) and its mode of action and not began with the main conclusion of the paper. Also, contained the results of previous studies. please modify these errors.

8- conclusion: suitable and informative but the author mentioned " fruit powder demonstrated non-significant protective effects for analyzed organs.", on what the author build up this conclusion, there is no figures in result section illustrate this opinion.

9- References: relevant and recent except reference no. 3, it is too old. please remove it.