The Herbicidal Activity of Nano- and MicroEncapsulated Plant Extracts on the Development of the Indicator Plants Sorghum bicolor and Phaseolus vulgaris and Their Potential for Weed Control
, Evelyn Isabel Mendo-González 1, Antonio Ledezma-Pérez 2, Anna Iliná 1, Francisco Daniel Hernández-Castillo 3, Cynthia Lizeth Barrera-Martinez 4, Julia Cecilia Anguiano-Cabello 1, Elan Iñaky Laredo-Alcalá 4,* and Roberto Arredondo-Valdés 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors, I've read your manuscript " Herbicidal Activity of Nano and Micro-Encapsulated Plant Extract on Development of Sorghum bicolor and Phaseolus vulgaris as Indicator Plants and its Potential in Weed Control". The manuscript has very useful information that could be interesting. However, I consider it must be highly improved before it can be accepted for publication.1. Abstract must have rationale, objective, materials and methods and conclusions. First sentence is obvious. 2. The introduction is not entirely clear about the Nano and Micro encapsulated. The aim of study is not clear. 3. The development of materials and methods is very confusing for the reader. The concentrations used should be on a table which is easier for the reader to follow. In this case you can read this reference and use it:
Green synthesis of spermine coated iron nanoparticles and its effect on biochemical properties of Rosmarinus officinalis
M Afrouz, F Ahmadi-Nouraldinvand, SG Elias, MT Alebrahim, TM Tseng, ...
Scientific Reports 13 (1), 775
4. It was better that Figures 1 and 2 deleted and data make on tables. The presentation of figures is not obvious. 5. I did not see any information about the CO2 assimilation, toxic ROS and protein oxidation of all of the treatments. If you would like to discuss these in relation to it, you should present this data, in order to give a more precise information to the reader. There are other comments in the attached pdf that could help. I hope the authors find these comments useful and could help to improve the quality of the work. As I said before, I consider the information on the manuscript to be very useful and worth publishing. Kind regardsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor English editing make the paper much better.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have submitted our response to your comments and observations. We sincerely appreciate the time you took to enhance and improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your feedback and have made the necessary corrections. Additionally, we have included notes and responses to your questions. We hope our response meets your expectations and we remain open to any further comments you may have.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript “Herbicidal Activity of Nano and Micro-Encapsulated Plant Extract on Development of Sorghum bicolor and Phaseolus vulgaris as Indicator Plants and its Potential in Weed Control”, the author identified phytochemical compounds within extracts of Carya illinoinensis, Ruta graveolens, and Solanum rostratum. The pre-emergence herbicidal activity of extracts on indicator plants Sorghum bicolor and Phaseolus vulgaris were determined, and NPs with plant extracts were produced and characterized. The paper fit the aims and scope of agriculture. The paper seems to be acceptable but, it requires some modifications. Additionally, several questions should be answered by the authors in detail.
Introduction:
Introduction should be heavily revised. The research status of nano or micron encapsulation of pesticides should be reviewed. some very recent studies below could be used as examples.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asp/me/2021/00000011/00000005/art00006
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144861712002093?via%3Dihub
It was strongly suggested to indicate at the end of the Introduction section the purpose and the main employed characterization techniques in order to achieve their purpose.
Materials and methods. This section should be described in detail. For example, was the amount of extract contained consistent in different treatments.
Results and discussions
Electron microscopy images should be provided.
It seems that there is no markable differences on the Weight and Dried Height after treated by extras and NPs(Although there is a statistical difference). Preparing nanoparticles inevitably raise the cost. The author should explain the significance of the study.
It might be better to provide the picture of plants.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have submitted our response to your comments and observations. We sincerely appreciate the time you took to enhance and improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your feedback and have made the necessary corrections. Additionally, we have included notes and responses to your questions. We hope our response meets your expectations and we remain open to any further comments you may have.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have submitted our response to your comments and observations. We sincerely appreciate the time you took to enhance and improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your feedback and have made the necessary corrections. Additionally, we have included notes and responses to your questions. We hope our response meets your expectations and we remain open to any further comments you may have.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is now acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is acceptable now.
