Textile Physical Barriers: An Assessment of the Prison Effect as a Design Criterion to Increase the Porosity without Loss of Efficacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting study, presented in a clear and well-organized manner. Below are some small observations and recommendations.
2.3. Three-Dimensional Characterization of Protective Screens
Please check equations (3) and (4). It looks like there are small mistakes. (Pag. 6)
...the value of n would have to be greater than 24 individuals (Pag. 6, L 212-213)
3.2. Geometric Characterization of the Selected Textiles
In Table 2 use yarns instead of “hilos” (pag.7)
3.3. Efficacy of Textile Physical Barriers
Not all textile variants tested show the same trend of reducing efficacy with the increase in the length of the holes. Variants 2 and 6 show an efficacy of over 60%, although the length of the holes has values close to variant 3, the one with the lowest efficacy. Their performances are superior to variants 4 and 7. (Page 8)
4.1. Hole Dimensions versus Insect Size
Replace “Tabla 1” with Table 1 (Pag.8, L 275)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 1 comments:
Point 1: Please check equations (3) and (4). It looks like there are small mistakes. (Pag. 6)
Response 1: Yes, thank you. We have corrected a mistake in equation (4).
Point 2: ...the value of n would have to be greater than 24 individuals (Pag. 6, L 212-213)
Response 2: Thank you. We have corrected this mistake.
Point 3: In Table 2 use yarns instead of “hilos” (pag.7)
Response 3: We have written "threads" instead of "hilos".
Point 4: Not all textile variants tested show the same trend of reducing efficacy with the increase in the length of the holes. Variants 2 and 6 show an efficacy of over 60%, although the length of the holes has values close to variant 3, the one with the lowest efficacy. Their performances are superior to variants 4 and 7. (Page 8)
Response 4: We have added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Section 3.3 Efficacy of Textile Physical Barriers:
"Textiles number 2 and 6 show an efficacy of over 60%, with higher performance than textiles number 4, 7 and 8 with smaller hole lengths."
Point 5: Replace “Tabla 1” with Table 1 (Pag.8, L 275)
Response 5: Done.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting work that studied the prison effect of insect-proof woven substrates against B. tabaci. From this research it was possible to verify that with a limited hole width, the increase of the textile hole length does influence the efficacy of the prison effect.
The article is well structured and presented. The research outcomes are relevant and it deserves publication.
Comments:
Lines 36 – 43, page 1 – Suggestion to improve plain weave description. In this weaving structure, there is a regularity of the interlacing with each weft thread passing over and under each warp thread, successively.
Table 2 – In the 3rd column says (hilos cm-2). Perhaps the authors mean threads?
In the textile characterization, textile material(s) of the substrates handled were not specify. Are they made of the same fiber type? And which? Textile fibers and fabrics can present diverse elongation and elasticity properties. The article would benefit of further characterization of the textile substrates, namely their mechanical/ tensile properties. Or, at least, the possibility of these parameters influence in the results should be discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 2 comments:
Point 1: Lines 36 – 43, page 1 – Suggestion to improve plain weave description. In this weaving structure, there is a regularity of the interlacing with each weft thread passing over and under each warp thread, successively.
Response 1: Thank you for this contribution. The weave description has become clearer now:
"Protective textiles are woven with monofilament threads and are technically defined as plain weave. Their structure consists of two sets of threads (warp and weft) interlaced perpendicularly. There is a regularity of the interlacing with each weft thread passing over and under each warp thread, successively (Figure 1). The warp threads are arranged parallel in the longitudinal direction of the textile. The weft threads are arranged perpendicular to the warp threads, and the distance between them is normally greater than the distance between warp threads. The distance between the threads of both groups is equal when square hole geometries are intended. The spacing between the warp threads defines the width of the holes. The interlacing between the two sets of threads gives stability to the textile".
Point 2: Table 2 – In the 3rd column says (hilos cm-2). Perhaps the authors mean threads?
Response 2: Yes, corrected.
Point 3: In the textile characterization, textile material(s) of the substrates handled were not specify. Are they made of the same fiber type? And which? Textile fibers and fabrics can present diverse elongation and elasticity properties. The article would benefit of further characterization of the textile substrates, namely their mechanical/ tensile properties. Or, at least, the possibility of these parameters influence in the results should be discussed.
Response 3: All textiles are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). It is true that the threads can experience shrinkage when these fabrics are installed in the field under certain conditions of solar radiation and temperature. However, this is an aspect that is not well characterized and this variable is beyond the scope of our research.
On the other hand, thanks to the additives used by manufacturers, this phenomenon is not too important and we have verified this in the tests we have carried out in our laboratory in which we have compared the geometry of new protective screens with others of the same characteristics after a period of use in the field.
The textiles we have used in our tests are completely new.
We have added the following text at the end of the first paragraph of the Section 2.2 "Selection and Geometric Characterization of the Protective Screens".
"The threads used to make the fabrics are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The textiles have not been used in the field and their geometric characteristics have been summarized in Table 2."
Reviewer 3 Report
Since the article claims to be a special issue, the article should highlight the relevant specifics of the special issue, comment more on the practical applicability of the research.
I would recommend minimizing self-citation.
The citation of the literature in the text needs to be fixed:
· line 34 source 8-10,11, why not 8-11;
· line 67 - 13, 14, 15, why not 13-15;
· line 163 - 22 literary source in incorrect spreads.
A reasonable aim of the article is missing. The presented argument for research selection is not sufficient for a journal of this level.
Line 79-80 lack of explanation of what Lpy and Lpx are, no links to pictures provided. Explanations only come later.
Is the Morphometric characterization of the B. tabaci (Table 1) the result of the authors' research?
The initial characteristics of the investigated textile materials are not presented.
Figure 5 does not explain what the numerical values at the points in the graph are.
Textile materials in Table 2 are presented out of order, it is not clear why this coding of test materials is done.
Figures in Figure 6 should be divided into a and b. The units in which Frequency is measured must be provided. I would recommend equalizing the y-axes in the graphs.
The authors analyze the longitudinal and transverse directions of the hole. What about the diagonal direction? Don't the insects turn and can't get through diagonally.
The conclusions should not be a discussion, but rather the precise and specific conclusions that the authors have reached after conducting the research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 3 comments:
Point 1: Since the article claims to be a special issue, the article should highlight the relevant specifics of the special issue, comment more on the practical applicability of the research.
Response 1: We have added the following text at the end of the Introduction section:
"The practical applicability of the results obtained in this work is of great importance because they will allow determining the suitability of the prison effect or the limitations of its application. Today, most of the screens used to protect against B. tabaci follow this design strategy and their validity has not yet been tested."
Point 2: The citation of the literature in the text needs to be fixed:
- line 34 source 8-10,11, why not 8-11;
- line 67 - 13, 14, 15, why not 13-15;
- line 163 - 22 literary source in incorrect spreads.
Response 2: Done.
Point 3: A reasonable aim of the article is missing. The presented argument for research selection is not sufficient for a journal of this level.
Response 3: We have corrected the last paragraph at the end of the Introduction section:
"In recent decades, the global importance of using this type of Agrotextiles as a preventive measure against the pressure of pests as harmful as B. tabaci has grown considerably. However, there has been no previous work evaluating the prison effect as a design criterion and field observations have not provided the expected results since the efficacy of protective screens has not been as high as theoretically expected [20]. For these reasons, we propose this work to examination the prison effect approach and assess any overlooked variables. The hypothesis we are trying to test is that the hole length Lpy has no influence on the efficacy of the textiles, since the only variable that must be taken into account is the hole width Lpx defined by the separation between the warp threads that act as bars that prevent or hinder the passage of insects."
Point 4: Line 79-80 lack of explanation of what Lpy and Lpx are, no links to pictures provided. Explanations only come later.
Response 4: We have now added a link to Figure 1 and we have modified this Figure:
"The hypothesis we are trying to test is that the hole length Lpy (Figure 1) has no influence on the efficacy of the textiles, since the only variable that must be taken into account is the hole width Lpx defined by the separation between the warp threads that act as bars that prevent or hinder the passage of insects."
Point 5: Is the Morphometric characterization of the B. tabaci (Table 1) the result of the authors' research?
Response 5: Of course, the morphometric characterization is the result of our research. Otherwise, we would have indicated the source.
Point 6: The initial characteristics of the investigated textile materials are not presented.
Response 6: We have added the following text at the end of the first paragraph of the Section 2.2 "Selection and Geometric Characterization of the Protective Screens".
"The threads used to make the fabrics are made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The textiles have not been used in the field and their geometric characteristics have been summarized in Table 2."
Point 7: Figure 5 does not explain what the numerical values at the points in the graph are.
Response 7: We have added the following in the figure caption:
"…(the number next to the points identifies each textile).
Point 8: Textile materials in Table 2 are presented out of order, it is not clear why this coding of test materials is done.
Response 8: We have added the following text at the beginning of the Section 3.2. "Geometric Characterization of the Selected Textiles":
"Table 2 summarizes the values of the geometrical variables that define the textiles used in the tests (the textiles are arranged according to the hole length Lpy)."
Point 9: Figures in Figure 6 should be divided into a and b. The units in which Frequency is measured must be provided. I would recommend equalizing the y-axes in the graphs.
Response 9: Done.
Point 10: The authors analyze the longitudinal and transverse directions of the hole. What about the diagonal direction? Don't the insects turn and can't get through diagonally.
Response 10: Thank you. We think it is a good idea to include this parameter in the manuscript. Therefore, we have included the values of the diagonals of each of the textiles (Table 3) and we have added the following text.
"Table 3 also shows the distance DPQ between points P and Q (Figure 7). Considering half of the hole, this is the largest distance left by the threads. In this case, it does not offer any additional information because the hole width is not a variable but it can be a very interesting parameter when comparing protective screens with different hole widths and lengths."
Point 11: The conclusions should not be a discussion, but rather the precise and specific conclusions that the authors have reached after conducting the research.
Response 11: We completely agree with this suggestion. We have rewritten the conclusions and moved part of the old conclusions to the Discussion Section.
Reviewer 4 Report
Textile physical barriers: an assessment of the prison effect as a design criterion to increase the porosity without loss of efficacy(applsci-2370674)
I have received this paper presents an interesting study on a relevant topic which introduced methods which have a reasonable level of novelty. Therefore, the potential for the paper to provide a useful level of contribution is good, the presentation in the manuscript as currently constituted is also good. Additionally, conclusion is need re-write and it is too long , a research paper should end with a well-constructed conclusion.
The general standard of English requires attention with careful proof checking to correct grammatical issues
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 4 comments:
Point 1: Additionally, conclusion is need re-write and it is too long, a research paper should end with a well-constructed conclusion.
Response 1: We completely agree with this suggestion. We have rewritten the conclusions.
Point 2: The general standard of English requires attention with careful proof checking to correct grammatical issues.
Response 2: We have corrected the text with the help of a native speaker.
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript titled "Textile physical barriers: an assessment of the prison effect as a design criterion to increase the porosity without loss of efficacy" contains an analysis of the spatial arrangement of the threads of insect screens.
There is a wide range of insect control textiles on the market, the insect biodiversity is large, and there are many other textile design options that can increase the effectiveness of the mechanical barrier, such as the cross-section of the fibers. In light of the above, I believe that the proposed paper does not represent even the minimum scientific merit for publication in the journal Applied Science.
I propose to reject the paper for publication in the journal Applied Science.
The investigation can be presented for discussion at an expert meeting and prepare as a much broader experiment in the future.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 5 comments:
Please, reconsider your position in rejecting the manuscript because this research is of great importance to both manufacturers and farmers who rely on physical barriers as part of their pest control management. In addition, this work opens the door to future related research.
Point 1: The manuscript titled "Textile physical barriers: an assessment of the prison effect as a design criterion to increase the porosity without loss of efficacy" contains an analysis of the spatial arrangement of the threads of insect screens.
Response 1: The manuscript is not only an analysis of the spatial arrangement of the threads of protective screens. Additionally, the work confronts insects (Bemisia tabaci, a pest that is difficult to control and causes serious damage all over the world) and protective screens under laboratory conditions because theoretical predictions do not give good results. The research evaluates a design criterion that is used by all manufacturing companies and which, as we already suspect and as we have shown, does not give the expected results.
Thousands of farmers around the world are relying on fabrics that do not meet the expected requirements and this work has found the reason. Some manufacturers call these textiles "anti-thrips". There are protective screens on the market that have not been tested in the laboratory. At best, there are field tests that are not very reliable due to the large number of variables involved and test conditions that are difficult to extrapolate. It is as if an insecticide were released to the market without the appropriate controls.
Point 2: There is a wide range of insect control textiles on the market, the insect biodiversity is large, and there are many other textile design options that can increase the effectiveness of the mechanical barrier, such as the cross-section of the fibers. In light of the above, I believe that the proposed paper does not represent even the minimum scientific merit for publication in the journal Applied Science.
Response 2: Manufacturers have some limitations to reduce the thread thickness (e.g.: increased cost of fabrics; mechanical strength of threads; type of material), and for this reason the issue is more complex than one might think at first. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance between insect exclusion and textile porosity. If the porosity decreases, the resistance of the textile to airflow increases, which can worsen crop conditions. When the pest species is "larger" the problem is not as severe, but with tiny species such as B. tabaci the above is highly relevant.
But it is true, cross-section is other design criterion that we are not assessing in this work because we are focusing on the prison effect.
Reviewer 6 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript needs major revision because the literature data doesn't sufficiently support the results. Also, I suggest adding references to all methods and a moderate English revision.
In the description of the figures, the program used to draw/ design them must be added.
In this form, the manuscript looks as if the authors did not put enough effort into their study. The introduction must also be improved, and all data must not only be correlated with the literature but also interpreted from a statistical point of view (ANOVA and a post hoc test, for example). 28 references for the entire manuscript are too few to be published in this journal...
I recommend a moderate English revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has improved by taken them into account.
Response to Reviewer 6 comments:
Point 1: The manuscript needs major revision because the literature data doesn't sufficiently support the results. Also, I suggest adding references to all methods and a moderate English revision
Response 1: This is the first work that addresses this issue (prison effect). We have revised and improved the manuscript.
We have corrected the text with the help of a native speaker.
Point 2: In the description of the figures, the program used to draw/ design them must be added.
Response 2: Done.
Point 3: The introduction must also be improved, and all data must not only be correlated with the literature but also interpreted from a statistical point of view (ANOVA and a post hoc test, for example).
Response 3: We have improved the Introduction.
In the last paragraph of the Section 3.3 "Efficacy of Textile Physical Barriers" we describe the statistical tests performed (ANOVA test and a Student-Newman-Keuls test).
Point 4: 28 references for the entire manuscript are too few to be published in this journal…
Response 4: This manuscript does not have as many references as others because it is the first work that focuses on the "prison effect" and for this reason we have not been able to discuss our results with the results of other studies.
We can increase the number of references, but they would not add anything to the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
