Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research work ‘entitled as ‘Nano iron and Nano zinc induced growth and metabolic changes in vigna radiate’ represents a valuable extensive study about the effects of Nano iron and Nano zinc particles on the morphological and metabolic changes in the vagna radiate. The tools and techniques used to validate the formation of Nano particles and the various methods employed to study the effect of iron and zinc Nano particles on the various metabolic processes looks satisfactory. But the NMR/IR study of Nano particles formed needs to be incorporated and also the writing in some sections is very general rather than specific. The language used at certain places also needs some improvisations.

Some of corrections that authors should consider are below:

Line 9-11: There is a lack of clarity in the idea. Be specific about the information and make sure about the consistency of the flow of idea.

Line 29-30: Please mention some negative and positive effects of Nano particles to make it more specific.

Line 37-39: The author has mentioned the crop vigna radiate as nutritionally and economically important pulse crop meaning that your work has evaluated the negative interaction between the prepared iron and zinc nano particles and the given crop which seems lacking and also why it became imperative to use toxic nano particles (iron and Zinc) on this crop. The idea presented  by author makes it ambiguous. Present your idea in a specific manner to justify your work.

Line 63-64: Correct the sentence ‘since both are two’ to add sense to it.

Line 67:Use’at higher doses’ instead of ‘in’ higher doses.

Line 69: Write ‘nano particle’ instead of nano particles

Line 82: Either use ‘so far’ or ‘overall’ not both to make the sentence more appealing.

Line 88:Use’needed’ instead of desirable

Line 110: Write‘Thus, the precipitate formed was separated’ and mention the name of the precipitate formed.

Line 144-145: There is a lack of sense in the sentence.

Line 152: Use‘were collected separately’.

Line 163: Use ‘nano particle treated’ instead of ‘nano particles treated’.

Line 181: Write ‘protein content of the shoot was measured’ instead of ‘proteins content were measured’

Line 193:Usecomma after word ‘work’.

Line 240: Modify the sentence to ‘The uptake of Nano particles by the plants was confirmed by ICP-Ms ‘.

Line 256: Use ‘but are within’ instead of but within.

Line 298: Remove comma after nFe₃O₄ .

Line 328-329: Improve the language of the sentence.

Line 340:Which section?

Line 357-358: Give reference.

Line 362: Write ‘which has resulted in inhibition’.

Line 384-385.The author has mentioned the release of Zn ions from zinc oxide Nano particles which means the Nano particles are disintegrated into the ionic forms. So, are Nano particles working as ionic forms and does the ionic form fall into the Nanorange. Is there any mechanism? If not then be mindful about the usage of proper term.

Line 391: Write ‘which causes’ to make it grammatically more correct’.

Line 402 :Pen down ‘were not statistically significant’ to make the sentence appealing

Line 404: Write ‘in 14 days old’ instead of ‘of 14 days old’.

Line 421: write ‘chlorophyll content’ and also write ‘is directly correlated’

Line 422:Write’carbohydrate content’.

Line 423:write’carbohydrate’ instead of carbohydrates.

Line 424: Write ‘content’ in place of contents.

Line 484:The author may please cross check whether it is iron or Nano iron.

Line 511: Modify the sentence so that it gives a proper sense.

Author Response

Please find the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please download the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Since the last decade, nanotechnology has evolved as the most innovative and prom-ising technology that has found applications in almost every industry including pharma-ceutical, food and packaging, agriculture, ceramics, cosmetics, water and air purification. Please strengthen your statement with potential references like https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113678., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111347, DOI: 1007/s11356-021-12649-8
2. Line 95: Please give more clarity about objective of your study.
3. Figure 1: Please re-edit the whole figure, keep the same size and align the sub-captions e.g (A), (B) etc
4. 7: The paragraph is too long. Please revise.
5. Figure 3: Please also mention about column at 0, there is no understanding about this although you mentioned about nFe3O4 and nZnO. Please mention in the figure as well. In addition, there is no need to mention about Microsoft office, please delete this line.
6. Please split the conclusion.
7. Please mention the limitations of the study.
8. Please provide complete acronyms.
9. Revise all grammar issues and revise the references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is interesting, well planned and written.

I have some comments:

L106, 113, 115 - hydrats should be written FeCl3^.6H2O, FeCl2^.4H2O, etc. instead FeCl3.6H2O, etc

L145 - after -non italic

Please select one type of hour indication - once is hr, once h?

In the section Material and Methods - statistical analysis , the authors wrote that the results are the mean value +/- standard error, while in Table 1,2 is in a description - standard deviation. What is correct?

L301 - please change rape on oilseed rape

L309-334 The percentages should be rounded to the full value - decimal places are not important here

Section 3.4. Which chlorophyll? a or b? Or sum? Please specify. Round the percentages.

L425-427, 440 The percentages should be rounded to the full value

L509, 513 - please subscript in chemical formulas

Conclusions are more like an abstract. Please shorten them and specify in more detail.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted.