Effect of Up-Converting Luminescent Nanoparticles with Increased Quantum Yield Incorporated into the Fluoropolymer Matrix on Solanum lycopersicum Growth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study on photoconversion film coatings for greenhouses by Yanykin et al. fits the scope of the journal, given that the influence of such coatings on a crop (viz., tomato) development is investigated. As far as I am concerned, the research results are novel (previous works by the same groups did not use lanthanide-based NPs) and interesting, and they may appeal Agronomy's readership.

Nonetheless, before the manuscript can be considered, several issues need to be addressed:

1. There are serious problems with the use English language, which at times make it difficult to follow. Please thoroughly revise the manuscript, and -at least- double-check the new version with Grammarly (or, if possible, ask an educated native speaker to correct it).

2. Break the first paragraph of the introduction into shorter paragraphs. In its current form it is hard to read.

3. Third paragraph of the introduction. The sentence about 19th century works on PAR may be safely deleted.

4. L125. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Preparation of Photoluminophore Nanoparticles and Investigation of Its Properties" and create a subsection.

5. L154. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Plant Material and Growth Conditions" and create a subsection.

6. L166. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) measurement" and create a subsection.

7. L187. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Statistical analysis" and create a subsection.

8. L187. Were the normality and homocedasticity requirements checked? In this type of experiments, they are frequently not met. If necessary, use Kruskal-Wallis+Conover-Iman instead of ANOVA+Tukey's HSD test.

9. Figure 1. Please improve the resolution. It is very low and the axes labels are barely legible, while Figures 3 and 4 are ok.

10. L227-228. Please explain why that PAR intensity under control glasses was decreased by 18%. It is not clear.

11. L240 (and onwards). What does sm² stand for? May it simply be m²?

12. L308-309. Please replace "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited." with the actual table caption.

13. Break the third paragraph of the discussion into several shorter paragraphs. It is hard to read.

14. L405-406. Please consider creating a separate conclusion section. Move this sentence to the conclusion and add a brief explanation of the main findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for your comments. We clarified all points in our reply to the reviewer’s comments, and made some additions and corrections in the new version of the manuscript. We hope that the reviewer will find the revised version of our manuscript publishable.

The study on photoconversion film coatings for greenhouses by Yanykin et al. fits the scope of the journal, given that the influence of such coatings on a crop (viz., tomato) development is investigated. As far as I am concerned, the research results are novel (previous works by the same groups did not use lanthanide-based NPs) and interesting, and they may appeal Agronomy's readership.

Nonetheless, before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance, several issues need to be addressed:

1. There are serious problems with the use English language, which at times make it difficult to follow. Please thoroughly revise the manuscript, and -at least- double-check the new version with Grammarly (or, if possible, ask an educated native speaker to correct it).
2. Break the first paragraph of the introduction into shorter paragraphs. In its current form it is hard to read.
3. Third paragraph of the introduction. The sentence about 19th century works on PAR may be safely deleted.
4. L125. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Preparation of Photoluminophore Nanoparticles and Investigation of Its Properties" and create a subsection.
5. L154. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Plant Material and Growth Conditions" and create a subsection.
6. L166. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) measurement" and create a subsection.
7. L187. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Statistical analysis" and create a subsection.
8. L187. Were the normality and homocedasticity requirements checked? In this type of experiments, they are frequently not met. If necessary, use Kruskal-Wallis+Conover-Iman instead of ANOVA+Tukey's HSD test.
9. Figure 1. Please improve the resolution. It is very low and the axes labels are barely legible, while Figures 3 and 4 are ok.
10. L227-228. Please explain why that PAR intensity under control glasses was decreased by 18%. It is not clear.
11. L240 (and onwards). What does sm²stand for? May it simply be m²?
12. L308-309. Please replace "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited." with the actual table caption.
13. Break the third paragraph of the discussion into several shorter paragraphs. It is hard to read.
14. L405-406. Please consider creating a separate conclusion section. Move this sentence to the conclusion and add a brief explanation of the main findings of the study.

Below are the answers to your comments.

1. There are serious problems with the use English language, which at times make it difficult to follow. Please thoroughly revise the manuscript, and -at least- double-check the new version with Grammarly (or, if possible, ask an educated native speaker to correct it).

The text was corrected by a professional editor.

2. Break the first paragraph of the introduction into shorter paragraphs. In its current form it is hard to read.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

3. Third paragraph of the introduction. The sentence about 19th century works on PAR may be safely deleted.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

4. L125. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Preparation of Photoluminophore Nanoparticles and Investigation of Its Properties" and create a subsection.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

5. L154. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Plant Material and Growth Conditions" and create a subsection.
6. L166. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) measurement" and create a subsection.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

7. L187. Apply 'MDPI 2.2 heading 2' style to "Statistical analysis" and create a subsection.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

8. L187. Were the normality and homocedasticity requirements checked? In this type of experiments, they are frequently not met. If necessary, use Kruskal-Wallis+Conover-Iman instead of ANOVA+Tukey's HSD test.

The normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homocedasticity (Goldfeld-Quandt test) requirements were checked. Shapiro–Wilk test can't reject normality, and Goldfeld-Quandt test accepts the hypothesis of the absence of heteroscedasticity. Thus, the statistical analysis was applied correctly.

9. Figure 1. Please improve the resolution. It is very low and the axes labels are barely legible, while Figures 3 and 4 are ok.

We have made changes to the Figure in accordance with your comments.

10. L227-228. Please explain why that PAR intensity under control glasses was decreased by 18%. It is not clear.

Glasses coated with fluoroplate polymer (in absence of nanoparticles) decreased light intensity by 16% - 20% from blue to red spectral regions. The overall decrease in light intensity in PAR region after installing glasses over the plants was about 18%. We have made changes to the manuscript.

11. L240 (and onwards). What does sm²stand for? May it simply be m²?

The typo was corrected.

12. L308-309. Please replace "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited." with the actual table caption.

We have made an explanatory caption to Table 1 in accordance with your comments.

13. Break the third paragraph of the discussion into several shorter paragraphs. It is hard to read.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

14. L405-406. Please consider creating a separate conclusion section. Move this sentence to the conclusion and add a brief explanation of the main findings of the study.

We have made changes to the manuscript in accordance with your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully analyzed the  manuscript and from my point of view the article is very interesting,  as it provides an excellent example of how glass-coated films can activate plant growth and can be used in greenhouses.
The manuscript can be considered with minor revisions detailed below:
(1) Figure 1 is blurred and should be replaced with a higher quality figure.
(2) Figure 2, we believe that there is an error and that the figure on the right is the one that shows the plants with the most growth, that is, it should say with nanoparticles and the one on the left without nanoparticles.
(3) Table 1, lacks a title and mistakenly says: "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very thankful for your comments. We clarified all points in our reply to the reviewer’s comments, and made some additions and corrections in the new version of the manuscript. We hope that the reviewer will find the revised version of our manuscript publishable.

I have carefully analyzed the manuscript and from my point of view the article is very interesting,  as it provides an excellent example of how glass-coated films can activate plant growth and can be used in greenhouses.
The manuscript can be considered with minor revisions detailed below:
(1) Figure 1 is blurred and should be replaced with a higher quality figure.
(2) Figure 2, we believe that there is an error and that the figure on the right is the one that shows the plants with the most growth, that is, it should say with nanoparticles and the one on the left without nanoparticles.
(3) Table 1, lacks a title and mistakenly says: "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited".

Below are the answers to your comments.

(1) Figure 1 is blurred and should be replaced with a higher quality figure.

We have made changes to the Figure in accordance with your comments.

(2) Figure 2, we believe that there is an error and that the figure on the right is the one that shows the plants with the most growth, that is, it should say with nanoparticles and the one on the left without nanoparticles.

We have made changes to the Figure caption in accordance with your comments.

(3) Table 1, lacks a title and mistakenly says: "Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited".

We have made an explanatory title and caption to Table 1 in accordance with your comments.