Polystyrene Nanoparticle Uptake and Deposition in Silkworm and Influence on Growth
and Jian-Ping Zhang *Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript describe a biological model that can give a hand to investigations of effects of NPs to biological tissues which raised a better comprehending of intake, distribution and excretion of exogenous NPs as well. For all these reasons, which can be summarized as: presentation of novelty / interest in the topic, sufficient description of analytical methods, in-depth discussion of the results, appropriate structure I recommend the manuscript in present form.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: I recommend the manuscript in present form.
Comments:
The manuscript describe a biological model that can give a hand to investigations of effects of NPs to biological tissues which raised a better comprehending of intake, distribution and excretion of exogenous NPs as well. For all these reasons, which can be summarized as: presentation of novelty / interest in the topic, sufficient description of analytical methods, in-depth discussion of the results, appropriate structure I recommend the manuscript in present form.
Author response: We thank the reviewer for his or her patient reading and recognition for our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The present study is interesting, and the methods used are clearly and well described. However, the author feels that the whole manuscript lacks statistical analysis to strengthen and support the authors' main findings.
I recommend performing statistical analysis to compare the main results.
Please see the following minor recommendations:
Introduction:
The authors reviewed the literature according to the NPs extensively. But the information focused mainly on the direct effects of NPs. I suggest mentioning, that issues of plastic particles are related to their ability to absorb inorganic (i.e., heavy metals, recommending the following article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X19300019) and organic (e.g., pesticides: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045622001818) pollutants. These pollutants can seriously affect aquatic organisms, even if they can interact with each other.
Scheme 1: I recommend changing it for Figure 1., and also introduce in the material & methods
Material & methods:
L106: Please summarize briefly the methods in the presently reported MS, mentioning authors’ previous work is inappropriate.
Results & Discussion
Fig.1. In this form, the figure is too small. I recommend revising the whole figures and making the parts much bigger. Also, add the units of measurement of the Y axes in the C and D diagrams. Also, I feel that Fig 1.A. should be presented in material and methods. Also please define everything in the description of Figures, all Figures must be self-explanatory.
Fig.2.: Please revise the whole figure, the parts are not visible in this form. For using bar diagrams, I recommend checking the second above-mentioned MS. Also, I recommend using different letters for bar diagrams to represent the statistical differences. Also, the authors now mention statistical differences, but there are no statistical analysis parts in the material and methods. Please add every statistical test in the M&M part.
L238: Please also give which statistical test was used and their results. Also define it in the M&M part.
Figure.3.: Define every abbreviation.
3.3. chapter: I recommend performing statistical tests to support the main findings.
Table 1: Also I recommend performing statistical tests to compare the results. Also define everything.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of the current manuscript is surely worthy of investigation. However, there are some points in the manuscript that I would like you to reconsider. I evaluate this manuscript as a major revision, as some points need to be carefully revised before the next resubmission as follows:
- The objective of the study should be clearly stated in the abstract and the end of the Introduction section.
- Throughout the manuscript, the writing style should be formal from the third-person perspective. Do not use “we” (e.g. lines 15, 34, 49… etc ) or “our” (e.g. lines 60, 106, 250… etc ).
- 42 out of a total of 50 references were cited in the introductory section, which is a relatively large number. The method of citing has a repetition of the topic. For example, the first sentence in the introduction (L29-32) cited 8 references. Please remove any redundant references.
- Abstract: The results are concise and not representative of the study. Please add more information about the results obtained.
- The source of the tested chemicals (product, concentration, company, city, country) should be clearly stated.
- In the M&Ms section, the statistical method is missing. please add.
- Table 1: I cannot find any evidence of statistical analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments
The manuscript entitles "Polystyrene Nanoparticle Uptake and Deposition in Silkworm and Influence on Growth" by Ze-Jun Wang et al., explained the biological toxicity of nano plastic particles (NPs) to silkworms fed on the bait dopped with polystyrene encapsulated luminescent nanoparticles minor revisions needed to consider this manuscript for publication.
1: Improve introduction with previous plastic deposition in living organisms and its effect on them.
2: Add a table of silkworm growth comparison in three culture conditions with all groups.
3: Improve the conclusion and give statistical values related to results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a thorough revision of the manuscript, and they took into account all of the reviewers' comments. I feel now that the MS is appropriate for publication in Sustainability.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have satisfactorily revised the manuscript.
