Nanoparticulate Fertilizers Increase Nutrient Absorption Efficiency and Agro-Physiological Properties of Lettuce Plant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work concerns the assessment of physiological and biochemical parameters of lettuce fertilized with various doses of conventional and nano fertilizers. I have some comments listed below:

Abstract:

L27-34: indicate some % changes of examined parameters between maximal value and control

Introduction:

L42: lettuce in lowercase

L54-55: it is controversial statement. Currently, new programs and strategies are develop to reduce the amount of pesticides and fertilizers use. Change the meaning of this sentence

L58, 67: add full names of this abbreviation for the first used in the text

Materials and Methods:

L115: indicate the average temperature and humidity in the vegetative season

L117-118: indicate BBCH scale for the stage of lettuce growth

L186: in what BBCH stage applied?

L199: indicate amount of NPK per one pot in Table 2

L205 and 212: ‘(DAT)’ – replace by BBCH stage

L221: in what BBCH stage plants were harvested for these analysis?

L280: indicate these standard methods

L283: CaCl₂*2H₂O

L286: weight of soil samples

L286-300: indicate volumes of used reagents

L305: Pearson’s correlation

Results:

Why the Authors did not use control without any fertilizer?

L310-316: indicate some % changes or values of examined parameters between treatments

L322: ‘60 days after transplanting’ – remove from all figures and tables

L432: the Authors should consider to replace this Table by a figure with heatmap. It would be more interesting

L435: ‘Values in bold are differ from 0’ – what do you mean?

Discussion:

L502: add also an opposite statement: ‘In contrast to fertilizers, which have a positive impact on pigment content in lettuce, photosynthetic dyes can be reduced by pesticides used in lettuce cultivation or phytopathogenic fungi”, the Authors can cite the following paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-022-03838-x

Conclusions:

L564: ‘based on innovative, safe, and cost-effective’ – this statement seems to be not finished, please check

Author Response

please open the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by authors Sara Gamal Abdel-Hakim et al. entitled “Nanoparticulate Fertilizers Increase Nutrient Absorption Efficiency and Agro-physiological Properties of Lettuce Plant” possesses a high level of novelty. The issue of plant nutrition through nanofertilizers will need to be developed in the coming years. The manuscript contains all the important parts, the results are extensive, statistically sufficiently evaluated and reasonably well discussed. Nevertheless, I have a few comments on the manuscript that I think can improve its quality:

1.     It would be appropriate to use the term “nano” in keywords, whether in the context of fertiliser or plant nutrition.

2.     In relation to the information in lines of manuscript 99-100, I would recommend expanding on the idea of specific concentrations used in crop fertilization and comparing them to the rates that were used in this study.

3.     In chapter 2.1 I recommend to give the name and origin of the variety of Lettuce Plant. In the heading of this chapter, I also recommend adding the phrase “biological material”, or “plant material”.

4.     All methods used in Chapters 2.1; 2.2 and 2.3 must be supported by relevant references.

5.      In conclusion, I recommend to briefly outline the relevance of the obtained results in practice, if after a series of field experiments the health safety of food of plant origin treated with nanoparticle-based fertilizers is verified.

Author Response

please the open attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents relevant and interesting results, with high transference to the productive sector. In general, it has been correctly written and ordered. Some minor corrections should be made, which have been marked in the attached file. Finally, I consider that you should indicate if differences of treatments, in "results" section, are significative, enhancing the importance of your results.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please open the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. I have only two additional comments:

L293-323: correct units: g for grams and mL for mimiliters, instead gm and ml

L300: +5 of sorbitol - the unit is needed

 

 

Author Response

L293-323: correct units: g for grams and mL for milliliters, instead of gm and ml

An: Thanks for your comment. It has been corrected in lines 296 and 299

L300: +5 of sorbitol - the unit is needed

An: Thanks for your comment. it has been added in line 300

Author Response File: Author Response.docx