Biodegradable Silver Nanoparticles Gel and Its Impact on Tomato Seed Germination Rate in In Vitro Cultures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript aims to demonstrate that some biodegradable materials containing an appropriate concentration of silver nanoparticles can reduce pathogen growth without altering tomato seed germination in in vitro cultures.

Apart from an introduction in which phrases are reported a bit trivial and obvious that perhaps it would be better to eliminate, the results presented in the manuscript are interesting although perhaps a bit preliminary. However they can be of help to who ever is interested in this field.
The results are reported in the histograms of figures 4-7, where the positive effects are quite evident. 
However, to me the meaning of the letters a, ab, bc, c which appear in the histograms is completely incomprehensible. The authors should better explain this point.

Even the conclusions have some of the same defect of the introduction, in which put here and there are obvious phrases that make reading a bit annoying for a scienticic article, being more suitable for a popular article. 

For the rest, I have no other criticism to make and once these flaws have been eliminated and the meaning of the statistical analysis has been clarified, I believe the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have revised and corrected our manuscript according to your suggestions.

 

This manuscript aims to demonstrate that some biodegradable materials containing an appropriate concentration of silver nanoparticles can reduce pathogen growth without altering tomato seed germination in in vitro cultures.

Apart from an introduction in which phrases are reported a bit trivial and obvious that perhaps it would be better to eliminate, the results presented in the manuscript are interesting although perhaps a bit preliminary. However they can be of help to who ever is interested in this field.

In our opinion, a journal is addressed to a wide audience and sometimes it is better to provide information that is trivial for some people, so that the article can be understood by all, even non-experts. In addition, when preparing an interdisciplinary paper, we need to consider the potential readers from different scientific fields

The results are reported in the histograms of figures 4-7, where the positive effects are quite evident.

However, to me the meaning of the letters a, ab, bc, c which appear in the histograms is completely incomprehensible. The authors should better explain this point.

In the subsection statistics and under each graph we explain the statistical methods, letter notation is common in expressing homogeneous (similar) groups. The same letters within a specific time period indicate belonging to the same group, different letters indicate a significantly different group. That is, means described by the same letters are not statistically different from each other - they are similar, while those described by other letters are different from each other.

Even the conclusions have some of the same defect of the introduction, in which put here and there are obvious phrases that make reading a bit annoying for a scienticic article, being more suitable for a popular article.

Not every scientist specialises in the same field and providing even simple information increases understanding among a wider range of scientists

For the rest, I have no other criticism to make and once these flaws have been eliminated and the meaning of the statistical analysis has been clarified, I believe the manuscript can be published.

Thank you for your critical comments and suggestions on how to improve our manuscript

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the idea behind the manuscript is a good one, the microbiological identification is flawed. The morphological features of the colonies and the microscopical examination are not enough (for bacteria). The authors observed Gram-positive bacilli, but the genus had a presumptive identification. Also, the microorganisms were not quantified, which it have been a good way of assessing the antibacterial/antifungal effect. The antimicrobial effect is not proven, from my point of view, which makes the title inappropriate. Otherwise, the writing is good, and with more experiments and data the article might be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have revised and corrected our manuscript according to your suggestions.

 

Although the idea behind the manuscript is a good one, the microbiological identification is flawed. The morphological features of the colonies and the microscopical examination are not enough (for bacteria). The authors observed Gram-positive bacilli, but the genus had a presumptive identification.

Done as suggested by the Reviewer - information about the identified genus of bacteria has been removed from the manuscript.

 

Also, the microorganisms were not quantified, which it have been a good way of assessing the antibacterial/antifungal effect.

The microorganisms were not quantified. The antibacterial / antifungal effect was assessed on the basis of the presence of microorganisms in the control samples and samples with AgNPs. In both cases the presence of microbes was found, but their growth was delayed in the samples with AgNPs.

 

The antimicrobial effect is not proven, from my point of view, which makes the title inappropriate. Otherwise, the writing is good, and with more experiments and data the article might be published.

Done as suggested by the Reviewer - the title of the article was changed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf