Nanoparticle Mediated Plant Tolerance to Heavy Metal Stress: What We Know?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author responses to reviewer (1) comments

(Sustainability-2066081 R1)

 

To Reviewer #1

 

Remarks: Abstract: The abstract could be more concise

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: At the end of introduction, objective of this study should clearly describe.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Several mistakes in text including, Line 65. Correct it.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Conclusion should be improved.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Grammar should be improved.

Response: Checked and corrected.

Remarks: English language is not very good, check it.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Spacing problem occurs within the text, correct it.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Line 85-87 not clear, explain again.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Line 100-103 not clear, rewrite.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Within the text some species names written scientifically and some are as common. Follow the same pattern.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

All the suggestions and comments of the reviewer have been accepted by the authors and the manuscript has been corrected accordingly. A thorough internal reviews was also performed in the whole MS for possible improvement, changes highlighted in Track Change Format supplied MS. We hope the response meets the reviewer approval.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript entitled “ Nanoparticle Mediated Plant Tolerance to Heavy Metal Stress: What We Know?    -  has written well and the objective of the work is unique and novel. I appreciate the authors for their  efforts .For better clarity, the authors  should provide the details

1.In  abstract , add the background and clear objective, outcome of the study

2. Provide the methods or techniques  used for this study.

3. Write the  challenges and future prospects of the study

 

Author Response

Author responses to reviewer (2) comments

(Sustainability-2066081 R1)

 

To Reviewer #2

 

Remarks: Manuscript entitled “Nanoparticle Mediated Plant Tolerance to Heavy Metal Stress: What We Know? - has written well and the objective of the work is unique and novel. I appreciate the authors for their  efforts. For better clarity, the authors  should provide the details.

Response: Dear Reviewer: We are grateful for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions provided by you of our manuscript " Nanoparticle Mediated Plant Tolerance to Heavy Metal Stress: What We Know?" Based on the constructive comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript and highlighted words.

Remarks: In abstract, add the background and clear objective, outcome of the study.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks: Provide the methods or techniques used for this study.

Response: It is a review article, no any methods or techniques used in this study.

Remarks: Write the challenges and future prospects of the study.

Response: Mentioned in the conclusion.

All the suggestions and comments of the reviewer have been accepted by the authors and the manuscript has been corrected accordingly. A thorough internal reviews was also performed in the whole MS for possible improvement, changes highlighted in Track Change Format supplied MS. We hope the response meets the reviewer approval.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General Comments: The review topic is interesting and valuable to our society to mitigate our increasing agricultural demand. However, the authors need to be well-structured in the manuscript. For that, the manuscript needs to improve by adding more data about – different nanoparticles utilizing in plants’ stress tolerance, mode of their application, mechanism of action and demerits of their application (if any). The abstract portion should be more accurate, informative and precise regarding the work done. Follow the author’s guidelines for mentioning Table no, and Figure no in the text and check the reference section sincerely.

 

Line No                                             Remarks

61                                            Remove first bracket

62                                            These should be written in subscript

66                                            In Table 1, the common name should be mentioned in bracket and

also mention the scientific name positively. Maintain a common format for all the mentioned plants. Mention the full form below the table for CAT, SOD and POX.

 

73                                            up take, should be written as uptake

 

95                                            Mention the full form

99                                            Mention as "such as or i.e."

102                                          Correct the spelling

103                                          Write as per Author's guideline (Figure 2)

112, 131                                  Mention the symbol in bracket

196                                          Mention the scientific name

223                                          References are not mentioned in Table 1 [100, 101, 102]

213                                          A spacebar needed

242,243, 253                           Use subscript

249                                          Use full form and mention abbreviation in bracket

280                                          Correct the spelling

300                                          In reference section year should be written in bold and mention doi

 as many as possible.

308, 316                                  "a” and “b" should not be mentioned as it provides the serial number

435                                          Check it and written as per author's guideline.

473                                          Check it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Author responses to reviewer (3) comments

(Sustainability-2066081 R1)

 

To Reviewer #3

 

Remarks: The review topic is interesting and valuable to our society to mitigate our increasing agricultural demand. However, the authors need to be well-structured in the manuscript. For that, the manuscript needs to improve by adding more data about – different nanoparticles utilizing in plants’ stress tolerance, mode of their application, mechanism of action and demerits of their application (if any). The abstract portion should be more accurate, informative and precise regarding the work done. Follow the author’s guidelines for mentioning Table no, and Figure no in the text and check the reference section sincerely.

Response: Dear Reviewer: We are grateful for the critical comments and thoughtful suggestions provided by you of our manuscript " Nanoparticle Mediated Plant Tolerance to Heavy Metal Stress: What We Know?" Based on the constructive comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications to the original manuscript and highlighted words.

Remarks: Here the report is not only mentioned by Garcia-Lopez et al. [6] in Table 1, there are so many references mentioned in the table. So, all references should be mentioned. Finally reference [6] not mentioned in Table-1. Therefore, I suggest to rewrite.

Response: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Remarks:   Remove first bracket

Response: Corrected

Remarks:   These should be written in subscript

Response: Corrected

Remarks: In Table 1, the common name should be mentioned in bracket and also mention the scientific name positively. Maintain a common format for all the mentioned plants. Mention the full form below the table for CAT, SOD and POX.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: up take, should be written as uptake

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Mention the full form

Response: Corrected

Remarks:  Mention as "such as or i.e."

Response: Corrected

Remarks:  Correct the spelling.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Write as per Author's guideline (Figure 2).

Response: Corrected

Remarks:  Mention the symbol in bracket.

Response: Added as per your suggestion.

Remarks:  Mention the scientific name.

Response: Added

Remarks: References are not mentioned in Table 1 [100, 101, 102] 

Response: Here only given the table name. References 100, 101, 102 are the different from the table 1.

Remarks: A spacebar needed.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Use subscript.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Use full form and mention abbreviation in bracket.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Correct the spelling.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: In reference section year should be written in bold and mention doi as many as possible.

Response: Corrected

Remarks: "a” and “b" should not be mentioned as it provides the serial number

Response: Corrected

Remarks: Check it and written as per author's guideline.

Response: Corrected

Remarks:  Check it.

Response: Corrected

All the suggestions and comments of the reviewer have been accepted by the authors and the manuscript has been corrected accordingly. A thorough internal reviews was also performed in the whole MS for possible improvement, changes highlighted in Track Change Format supplied MS. We hope the response meets the reviewer approval.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf