Next Article in Journal
Do Erratic Rainfalls Hamper Grain Production? Analysis of Supply Response of Rice to Price and Non-Price Factors
Next Article in Special Issue
Antioxidant Enzyme Activities Correlated with Growth Parameters of Wheat Sprayed with Silver and Gold Nanoparticle Suspensions
Previous Article in Journal
Cultivation of Desert Truffles—A Crop Suitable for Arid and Semi-Arid Zones
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rebalance the Nutritional Status and the Productivity of High CaCO3-Stressed Sweet Potato Plants by Foliar Nourishment with Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Ascorbic Acid
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Insecticidal Effect of Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles against Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. (Hemiptera: Triozidae) on Tomato Solanum lycopersicum

Agronomy 2021, 11(8), 1460; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081460
by José A. Gutiérrez-Ramírez 1,†, Rebeca Betancourt-Galindo 2, Luis A. Aguirre-Uribe 1, Ernesto Cerna-Chávez 1, Alberto Sandoval-Rangel 3, Epifanio Castro-del Ángel 1, Julio C. Chacón-Hernández 4, Josué I. García-López 5 and Agustín Hernández-Juárez 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2021, 11(8), 1460; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081460
Submission received: 19 June 2021 / Revised: 18 July 2021 / Accepted: 19 July 2021 / Published: 22 July 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted in the current form

Author Response

Thanks for the contributions.

Moderate English changes were made. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been drastically improved, I appreciate the effort of the authors regarding the discussion section. I respect the decision of the authors to keep the representations of the data in form of table once in the discussion section has been this aspect discused. However, I have few comments that should be taken in consideration: 
1. Please add to the text how many NPs have been analysied for the particles size distribution by TEM technique;
2. please add to the Fig 2, on the size distribution diagram, the averege diametre and wide of the investigated TiNPs;
Therefore,  please corelate the both figures 1 and 2, to be presented in the same style; means information regarding the average size in case of ZnNPs, diametre and wide in case of Ti NPs and how many NPs have been investigated in this context. 

Author Response

Thanks for contributions.

Moderate English changes were made, marked up using the “Track Changes” .

Regarding comments


1. The number of nanoparticles analyzed for both Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide with the TEM technique was added to the text at the beginning of the results  ("To obtain the size distribution of the particles by TEM technique, were analyzed 300 and 250 ZnO and TiO2 NPs respectively")

2. Added to Fig. 2 the averege diametre and wide of the investigated TiO2 NPs. 

Both figures are presented with the requested information. Figure 1, with the average size ZnO NP and figure 2 with the diameter and wide of TiO2 NPs. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. Firstly, authors should give the reason why they prepared only ZnO NPs, instead of both ZnO and TiO NPs, they obtain TiO NPs from Universal Selector, they can synthesize titanium isopropoxide by hydrothermal reaction
  2. They should also explain how they prepared ZnO/TiO bimetallic NPs
  3. TEM image shows some NPs are hexagonal shape and no DLS based on particle size distribution, authors should clarify about size and shape of ZnO NPs
  4. No XRD patterns for ZnO NPs
  5. The authors should explain the consumption rate and feeding behavior of Bactericera cockerelli using tomato leaflets, and a no-leaflet control.
  6. Authors should explain the foliar application of ZnO/TiO2 nanoparticles accumulation and translocation
  7. Tomato plant growth and greenhouse conditions should include in the Experiment section
  8. To determine the penetration and determination of NPs, anatomical studies of plant leaves should be carried out
  9. Include Statistical analyses

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Insecticidal effect of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles against Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. (Hemiptera: Triozidae)  on tomato Solanum lycopersicum

The manuscript entitled “Insecticidal effect of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles against Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. (Hemiptera: Triozidae)  on tomato Solanum lycopersicum” describe the potential using of ZnO NPs, TiO NPs and their combination as a insecticidal agents.  The research presents the study in laboratory and greenhouse conditions. However, the research need to be improved. Please follow the following remarks and comments:

  1. The discussion section should be improved regarding the explanation of the dissimilarity between results obtained in laboratory and greenhouse conditions. In this context the author should underline also what is the similarity/differences between methods, which parameters (light/night, temperature, oxygen concentration or something else) should influence the effect of insecticides. The author should explain why in the greenhouse conditions the effect was less, discussing the enumerated parameters. I am not sure that higher concentration than 3000 ppm will solve this problem; 3000 ppm is too high concentration, used for such area. Moreover, the impact of the nanoparticles on the environment should also be taken in consideration.
  2. The author should also more discuss the insecticidal mechanism of investigated nanoparticles. Why their combination give higher effect; moreover, increasing of the effect is not generated may be by the TiO NPs? How the investigated species can produce the resistance effect? Why the concentration of ZnO NPs was too much higher compare to the TiO NPs? This phenomenon could be connected with the fact that generally the Zinc is used as a nutrient for the insects, plants and for living organisms? Is this aspect correlated with the concentration, nanoparticles  and conditions of the experiment?  Please provide the discussion in this context. Also, the introduction section should be improved regarding the using of zinc as a nutrient for living organisms.
  3. The used Bacteriacera cockerelli species has a deposit number? From where was processed? This information is messing. Moreover, the name of the species in whole manuscript should be in italic.
  4. For the determination of nanoparticles size is missed also how many nanoparticles were investigated. The TEM analysis should be performed also for the titan. I understand that has been respected the information from the manufacture but the TEM image representing the nanoparticles, size should also be presented.
  5. I appreciate of the using of the statistical approach, however, in this context I suggest some corrections that will improve the representation of the obtained data. In my opinion, keeping the already data, please represent not in form of table but in form of the 2D bar graph with the SD bar; this aspect will allow the reader to follow better the represented idea. Moreover, I suggest also to take in consideration the aspect of using two methods and compare them.  
  6. Please also check the English gramma (e. g. see line244).

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

In manuscript entitled “Insecticidal effect of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles against Bactericera cockerelli Sulc. (Hemiptera: Triozidae) 3

on tomato Solanum lycopersicum” Authors have described the application study of two system of nanoparticles agents.

 

This paper should be revised according to the following comments.

 

  1. In introduction part Authors should additional more information regarding utilization of nanomaterial in agronomy, a specially in context of their cytotoxixity and ecotoxicity
  2. Why Author did not provide the TEM analysis of TiO2 and their hybrids with ZnO NPs. In my opinion this information should be added
  3. Author should discussed the action mechanism of NPs a specially the ZnO NPs (please see Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 2017, vol. 249, 37-52

In my opinion manuscript required the major revision before final acceptance. 

Back to TopTop