Functional and Quality Assessment of a Spore Harvester for Entomopathogenic Fungi for Biopesticide Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work the authors designed and fabricated a low-carbon footprint spore harvester for M. anisopliae and B. bassiana entomopathogenic fungi. This is an interesting work, but it does not have the required amount of work. In my opinion, it is necessary to add an experimental part and a trial run of the machine. the obtained experimental data should be compared with other already available results in order to see how the process itself has been improved. therefore, a major revision is required before the publication of this work.
Besides, the abstract is not adequately written. The abstract should follow the style of structured abstracts: Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
Also, it is important to emphasize the novelty of the paper in Introduction part.
The conclusion should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the main findings of the work and its significance.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the time you took to review our document and for providing us with your valuable suggestions. All of your suggestions have been carefully considered and are both useful and necessary for our future work. Your feedback will not only strengthen this document but also help us improve future ones.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript entitled “Functional and Quality Assessment of a Spore Harvester for Entomopathogenic Fungi for Biopesticide Production” is an exciting study dealing with spore harvester development. The study is carried out systematically and representation is also good. However, authors can pay attention on the following points to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

1.     What was the variety of rice and corn used for the cultivation of fungi? Pl mention it. What was the nutritional value of the used rice and corn?

2.     After what time of growth (in days/ hours) the spores from the petri dish were dislodged? Add the same information in the manuscript.

3.     The authors have represented the cost of entomopathogenic fungi harvester only. It would be better to analyze the product development process and its economic feasibility (techno-economic analysis).

4.     What is UFC (provide full form when it appears first in the manuscript)?

5.     The authors have analyzed the viability of spore powder through CFU count. Pl include the microscopic image. It would be better to use other advanced methods (dual staining with confocal microscopy) to estimate the viability of spore powder.

6.     A comparative study ( in tabular form) of the developed spore harvester with the earlier such attempts should be included in the manuscript to emphasize the novelty of the developed harvester.

 

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the time you took to review our document and for providing us with your valuable suggestions. All of your suggestions have been carefully considered and are both useful and necessary for our future work. Your feedback will not only strengthen this document but also help us improve future ones.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript entitled “Functional and Quality Assessment of a Spore Harvester for Entomopathogenic Fungi for Biopesticide Production” authors evaluated the performance of a harvester machine for efficiently collecting entomopathogenic spores of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana on rice and corn substrates. Overall, the manuscript does add a significant study however, I have few comments that need to be addressed before formally acceptance.

 

1-    Language needs to be improved; it is not comfortable for the readers to understand the intent of the meaning.

2-    Data presentation is very poor, it is very hard to reach the conclusion of the study.

3-    In the abstract authors stated that” harvester's performance was satisfactory for both

4-    fungi, with no significant differences in spore yield and CFU count. Rice was found to be a more suitable substrate for fungal growth than corn” if no significant difference in spore yield then why rice found more suitable than corn.

5-    Discussion section is also poor which does not justify results, and it should be improved before acceptance of this manuscript.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the time you took to review our document and for providing us with your valuable suggestions. All of your suggestions have been carefully considered and are both useful and necessary for our future work. Your feedback will not only strengthen this document but also help us improve future ones.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

General  comments

I have completed the review of the article - Functional and Quality Assessment of a Spore Harvester for Entomopathogenic Fungi for Biopesticide Production by Diego-Nava et al.

The study presented the design and applicability of a spore harvester machine for harvesting fungal spores. The authors evaluated the overall performance of the machine through the estimation of the total amount of spore powder harvested from different fungal species; Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana, and two substrates, including rice and corn. The viability of harvested spores was assessed via colony-forming unit count.

Overall, I affirm that the manuscript in its current state presents very interesting knowledge for science. The research is relevant, and the study was well-conducted. In addition, the manuscript was well written – less a few issues with spacing and other minor errors that require correction, the procedures used and machine designs were also well outlined in the M&M, and the quality of the work is up to standard.

Congratulations to the authors for a good job.

 

Specific comments and suggestions for Authors

L158 – 4 °C

L160 – 121 °C

L163 – 28 °C

L171 – 4 °C

L170 – Revise “1 x 10^8” as “1 x 10⁸”

L182 – “0.1% Tween-20?” – Really? Is this concentration not too high?

L182 – Authors might also consider including the vortexing condition used here. At what rpm and duration?

L190 – B. bassiana should appear in italic

L191 – 30 °C

L194-196 – Revise the statement as “Before conducting the performance evaluation, the equipment was disinfected by washing with soap, water, and 99% ethyl alcohol.”

L196-197 – Revise the statement as “The spore yield of each processed substrate per kilogram was then estimated.”

L200 – Revise the statement as “operated for 15 minutes and 20 minutes per load for rice broken corn, respectively.

Additionally, the authors might consider revising “minutes” as “mins” all over the manuscript.

L202 – 1 g sample

L203 – 0.5% Tween? Here again, I assume the concentration of Tween used in the study is rather too high.

L253 – “hours” could also be revised as “hrs” in the entire manuscript.

L285 – Revise the statement as “In the production of entomopathogenic fungal-based biopesticides”

L346 – entomopathogenic fungi mass production

L372 – M. anisopliae and B. bassiana should both appear in italic

L373 – Delete “entomopathogenic fungi” after “B. bassiana”

 

L376 – M. anisopliae here should appear in italic.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the time you took to review our document and for providing us with your valuable suggestions. All of your suggestions have been carefully considered and are both useful and necessary for our future work. Your feedback will not only strengthen this document but also help us improve future ones.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected the Manuscript according to reviewers suggestions and should be accepted in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should complete the suggested experiments and resubmit the complete manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current form of the manuscript should be acceptable for publication.