The Application of Micro- and Nano-Sized Zinc Oxide Particles Differently Triggers Seed Germination in Ocimum basilicum L., Lactuca sativa L., and Lepidium sativum L. under Controlled Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work deals with a very interesting topic. The approach is probably very ambitious, since different types of Zn particles, different doses and different plant species are used. The description of materials and methods is convenient. The presentation of results is also appropriate. The bibliography indicated in the work is very extensive for a research work. However, the discussion is very general and not very specific. In the discussion, there are no references to the data (Figures or Tables), so it is difficult to establish strong conclusions. In my opinion, it is advisable to review the discussion of results and the conclusions of the work to get the most out of the results obtained.
Author Response
May 1st, 2024
To:
Editorial Office
Horticulturae
Dear Editorial Office,
We submit a revised version of the article “The application of micro and nano-sized zinc oxide particles differently triggers seed germination in Ocimum basilicum L., Lactuca sativa L. and Lepidium sativum L. under controlled conditions” by Matteo Caser, Nicolò Percivalle and Valentina Cauda for publication in Horticulturae into the Section of Protected Culture.
We thank for the comments and suggestions that were very helpful to further improve clarity of the manuscript.
For the preparation of the revised manuscript, we followed all the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers as stated below. We highlighted the main changes to the text by red.
Reviewer 1
Point 1: The work deals with a very interesting topic. The approach is probably very ambitious, since different types of Zn particles, different doses and different plant species are used. The description of materials and methods is convenient. The presentation of results is also appropriate. The bibliography indicated in the work is very extensive for a research work. However, the discussion is very general and not very specific. In the discussion, there are no references to the data (Figures or Tables), so it is difficult to establish strong conclusions. In my opinion, it is advisable to review the discussion of results and the conclusions of the work to get the most out of the results obtained.
Point 1: We thank very much the Reviewer for positive and constructive evaluation on our work.
According to the comment, we have strengthened the discussion, referring more in details to the specific results obtained.
We remain available to clarify any issue or answer that Reviewers or Editors may raise.
Best regards.
The corresponding author,
Matteo Caser on the behalf of all authors
Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences
University of Turin
Largo Paolo Braccini, 2
10095, Grugliasco (TO)
Italy
mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript characterized the form and structure of four sources of ZnO and investigated their performance on seed germination of three plants. There are some problems in the full text writing, but these problems are not fatal. However, some major flaws in the design methods and descriptions must be addressed before they can be published. If the following questions cannot be satisfactorily answered or corrected, the article may be difficult to find by the target readers after publication.
1, Why the three kinds of plants were selected? Tell the reason in the Introduction section. I think you should express plant names in this way: use Latin for the first mention in the text, and no longer use Latin afterwards. In this state, the Latin is sometimes correct, and sometimes the uses of italics are incorrect, such as in Line 334.
2, What is the control treatment? Water or other? Tell what is control in Abstract and M&M sections. Did you not set up a control of common zinc oxide? I think the common zinc oxide check is very important. In Figure 1, the FESEM image of ordinary zinc oxide should also be showed.
3, Line 5: delete “.”
4, Line 12: sector should be sectors. Check the language expression of the whole manuscript.
5, Line 273-275: why is Table 1,3,4,5? Why do you arrange them like this? Please pay attention to the logical order. Maybe, the first should be Table 2.
6, Table 2, why O. basilicum is in bold state, the other two plants are not in bold state. Please Make all table in a standard way.
7, Please update the references. The references are a bit too many, generally within 60.
8, Figure 4（c）: Whether to add significance analysis to each treatment.
9. Line 278: Ige%; Line 186: IGe%. Choose only one.
10. Line 13: limited negative effects on the environment?
11, Line 80, Line 14: negative effects on plants. You're just listing a concentration effect. Too high a concentration of any substance is harmful to plants. Please list more other negative effects.
12, Also, make sure that the research topic fits into the Section of Protected Culture.
Comments on the Quality of English Language83 in 100
Author Response
May 1st, 2024
To:
Editorial Office
Horticulturae
Dear Editorial Office,
We submit a revised version of the article “The application of micro and nano-sized zinc oxide particles differently triggers seed germination in Ocimum basilicum L., Lactuca sativa L. and Lepidium sativum L. under controlled conditions” by Matteo Caser, Nicolò Percivalle and Valentina Cauda for publication in Horticulturae into the Section of Protected Culture.
We thank for the comments and suggestions that were very helpful to further improve clarity of the manuscript.
For the preparation of the revised manuscript, we followed all the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers as stated below. We highlighted the main changes to the text by red.
Reviewer 2
Point 1: The manuscript characterized the form and structure of four sources of ZnO and investigated their performance on seed germination of three plants. There are some problems in the full text writing, but these problems are not fatal. However, some major flaws in the design methods and descriptions must be addressed before they can be published. If the following questions cannot be satisfactorily answered or corrected, the article may be difficult to find by the target readers after publication.
Why the three kinds of plants were selected? Tell the reason in the Introduction section. I think you should express plant names in this way: use Latin for the first mention in the text, and no longer use Latin afterwards. In this state, the Latin is sometimes correct, and sometimes the uses of italics are incorrect, such as in Line 334.
Point 1: We thank the Reviewer for the suggestions. In the Introduction section we added new sentences about the reason why we used the selected species. We checked and corrected latin names on the entire document.
Point 2: What is the control treatment? Water or other? Tell what is control in Abstract and M&M sections. Did you not set up a control of common zinc oxide? I think the common zinc oxide check is very important. In Figure 1, the FESEM image of ordinary zinc oxide should also be showed.
Point 2: As indicate at line 185 deionized water was used as control treatment. Actually, Zinc Oxide is a very versatile material which can be synthesized in many different sizes and shape. Therefore, it does not exist a “common” zinc oxide form, as also commercially-purchased Zinc oxide can have different sizes, varying from micro to nano and shapes, varying from hexagonal particles, to more round-shaped ones.
Point 3: Line 5: delete “.”; Line 12: sector should be sectors. Check the language expression of the whole manuscript.
Point 3: We modified the text accordingly.
Point 4: Line 273-275: why is Table 1,3,4,5? Why do you arrange them like this? Please pay attention to the logical order. Maybe, the first should be Table 2.
Point 4: We modified the text accordingly.
Point 5: Table 2, why O. basilicum is in bold state, the other two plants are not in bold state. Please Make all table in a standard way.
Point 5: We modified the text accordingly.
Point 6: Please update the references. The references are a bit too many, generally within 60.
Point 6: We have reduced the number of references.
Point 7: Figure 4（c: Whether to add significance analysis to each treatment.
Point 7: We have added the statistical significance to the values shown in the new Figure 4 and better described in the text the statistically relevant treatments.
Point 8: Line 278: Ige%; Line 186: IGe%. Choose only one.
Point 8: We modified the text accordingly.
Point 9: Line 13: limited negative effects on the environment?
Point 9: We have better stated the whole sentence: “Zinc oxide (ZnO) particles have recently received attention in different agriculture sectors as new technologies and practices are entering in force with limited negative effects on the environment”.
Point 10: Line 80, Line 14: negative effects on plants. You're just listing a concentration effect. Too high a concentration of any substance is harmful to plants. Please list more other negative effects.
Point 10: We thank the reviewer for the remark. We added new sentences in the Introduction section.
Point 11: Also, make sure that the research topic fits into the Section of Protected Culture.
Point 11: The topics covered in this work are among those characterizing the Protected Culture section such as: propagation and nursery management and sustainability.
We remain available to clarify any issue or answer that Reviewers or Editors may raise.
Best regards.
The corresponding author,
Matteo Caser on the behalf of all authors
Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences
University of Turin
Largo Paolo Braccini, 2
10095, Grugliasco (TO)
Italy
mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Correction suggestions are in the attached file.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Dear Authors,
Correction suggestions are in the attached file.
Best regards,
Author Response
May 1st, 2024
To:
Editorial Office
Horticulturae
Dear Editorial Office,
We submit a revised version of the article “The application of micro and nano-sized zinc oxide particles differently triggers seed germination in Ocimum basilicum L., Lactuca sativa L. and Lepidium sativum L. under controlled conditions” by Matteo Caser, Nicolò Percivalle and Valentina Cauda for publication in Horticulturae into the Section of Protected Culture.
We thank for the comments and suggestions that were very helpful to further improve clarity of the manuscript.
For the preparation of the revised manuscript, we followed all the comments and suggestions of the editor and the reviewers as stated below. We highlighted the main changes to the text by red.
Reviewer 3
Point 1: Expansion of Historical and Scientific Context: Expand the discussion on the historical use and evolution of nanoparticles in agriculture, providing a broader context that will help justify the study's relevance. Clarification of Objectives: More clearly specify the research objectives and how they relate to existing gaps in current scientific knowledge. Inclusion of Hypotheses: Formulate hypotheses based on previous evidence that can be explicitly tested through the described methods.
Updated References: Include more recent studies to strengthen the literature review and demonstrate a complete understanding of the field of study.
Point 1: We thank the reviewer for useful comments. We have expanded the information on the state of the art regarding the use of ZnO NPs and better described the objectives of the article in the Introduction. We have verified and included the most significant references in the article and eliminated some citations as requested by the Editor.
Point 2: Detailing of Experimental Procedures: Describe more precisely the methods used in the synthesis of nanoparticles to allow study replicability. Quality Control: Add information about the quality controls and standards used during the analyses to reinforce the validity of the experimental results. Robust Statistics: Include additional details about the statistical analyses, such as the exact tests used and justifications for their selection, to increase confidence in the statistical conclusions.
Study Replication: Increase the number of experimental repetitions to enhance the robustness and reliability of the experimental data.
Point 2: We thank Reviewer for the comments. As far as we know, no further details are needed to add to the synthesis methodologies. The molarity weights are already inserted in the text.
Point 3: Visual Presentation of Data: Improve figures and tables for a clearer and more understandable visualization of data, including detailed captions and appropriate scales. Detailed Discussion of Results: Expand the discussion on the implications of the found results, comparing them with previous studies to highlight similarities and differences. Subgroup Analysis: Conduct and present subgroup analyses, if applicable, to explore differences between different types and concentrations of nanoparticles. Data Consistency: Check the consistency of the presented data and correct any discrepancies or typographical err.
Point 3: We thank Reviewer for the comments. We modified the text accordingly.
Point 4: Deep Interpretation: Delve deeper into the interpretation of results, exploring all theoretical and practical implications of the findings. Study Limitations: Openly discuss the limitations of the study and how they may affect the interpretation of the results. Suggestions for Future Research: Propose directions for future research based on the results obtained, encouraging continuous advancement in the field. Practical Implications: Highlight the practical implications of the findings for the use of nanoparticles in agriculture, helping readers understand the applied value of the study.
Point 4: We thank Reviewer for the comments. We modified the text accordingly.
We remain available to clarify any issue or answer that Reviewers or Editors may raise.
Best regards.
The corresponding author,
Matteo Caser on the behalf of all authors
Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences
University of Turin
Largo Paolo Braccini, 2
10095, Grugliasco (TO)
Italy
mail: [email protected]
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved significantly and can be published by the journal in its current state.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript was improved a lot.
