Toxicity and Uptake of CuO Nanoparticles: Evaluation of an Emerging Nanofertilizer on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Plant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript represents the result of a valuable and complex research that brings new data on the synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) and their effect on wheat germination and growth parameters compared to bulk Cu. This study has the potential to move forward the knowledge in the field of CuO NPs synthesis and characterization using different analytical techniques as well as in the evaluation of the dissolution behavior of manufactured CuO NPs. The information provided is also useful for assessing the wheat seed germination and early root growth rate as affected by different concentrations of CuO NPs and for determining the toxicity of CuO NPs on the wheat root elongation rate.

Overall, the study is well-structured and richly illustrated. The Introduction provides a clear overview of research in the field. The methods of analysis are adequate presented, the reported results are well discussed and relevant in relation to the state of the art in this topic. The conclusions are clearly formulated and supported by the obtained results.

As a shortcoming, the references were not written in accordance with the requirements of the journal. Please, revise the citation of references in the text. They has to be cited as [1–3] not [1][2][3], respectively [3,4] not [3][4] and so on. Please, see the instructions at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions - “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]”.

References are relevant to the research topic, but they has not been appropriate written. Please, revise the References section according to the journal requirements (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions)

Although this manuscript is well written in standard English, I suggest that the authors carefully check the entire manuscript to correct any grammatical or syntax errors.

The content of this manuscript fits well with the journal topic and therefore, I recommend its publication after a minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Toxicity and uptake of bulk and nano CuO particles: Evaluation of an emerging nanofertilizer on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plant” has been reviewed and, in this work, the author revealed the synthesis of Cu nanoparticles using wet chemistry and done their characterization and applications. However, the manuscript required a revision to be published in your esteemed journals. The author should answer the following comments.

I suggest authors review the whole manuscript carefully and correct all the mistakes. Authors should improve the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and overall English of the manuscript. In this manuscript, the authors need to cite some recent references to enhance their study for readers, i.e., 10.1002/jemt.23553, 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113311, 10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101729, and 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104188.

1. Abstract is very general. Key results should be included in the abstract. Moreover, a conclusive line of abstract should be effectively written in contrast to the key findings.
2. The mechanism of the synthesis of nanoparticles is missing in the introduction. It should be included. Some applications with mechanisms should be explained in the introduction to better understand the Cu nanoparticles.
3. Sample preparation steps are missing in the methodology, and they should be included with proper conditions.
4. Discussion part should be improved specifically for cytotoxicity. Moreover, the conclusion should be written in a very concise way with holistic and future perspective components.
5. The negative aspects of fertilizers should be mentioned and explained in order to determine why this method of preparation would be more useful and effective.
6. In figures, improve image quality. The figures are blurry.
7. What is the role of NPs size as a “nonfertilizer.”
8. May the prepared Cu nanoparticles cause toxicity to humans by their special size?
9. Can you prove the safety of Cu NPs with some references? 
10. Authors should stress why it is important to improve plant growth with nanoparticles instead of using other methods. Are other methods not effective, not environment friendly, more expensive etc.?
11. What advantages does the incorporation of nanoparticles have?
12. There was no mention of the environmental problems with using nanoparticles, especially small ones (around 30 nm in diameter). Current regulations do not necessarily support that.

Line No. 99: What percentage of glacial acetic acid was used?

Line No. 100: How much time the solution was heated?

Line No. 131: How much time were wheat seeds soaked in Cu forms for bulk and NPs?

TRANSLATE with x English

Arabic	Hebrew	Polish
Bulgarian	Hindi	Portuguese
Catalan	Hmong Daw	Romanian
Chinese Simplified	Hungarian	Russian
Chinese Traditional	Indonesian	Slovak
Czech	Italian	Slovenian
Danish	Japanese	Spanish
Dutch	Klingon	Swedish
English	Korean	Thai
Estonian	Latvian	Turkish
Finnish	Lithuanian	Ukrainian
French	Malay	Urdu
German	Maltese	Vietnamese
Greek	Norwegian	Welsh
Haitian Creole	Persian

TRANSLATE with COPY THE URL BELOW Back EMBED THE SNIPPET BELOW IN YOUR SITE Enable collaborative features and customize widget: Bing Webmaster Portal Back

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Ibrahim et al. evaluates in this work the effectiveness and toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO Nps) on Triticum aestivum compared to bulk Cu.

The title is representative and the abstract concise and clear enough

Introduction

Line 42-54 should be re-formulated intro a more fluent form

Line 67-68: state citation for the statement, for Triticum aestivum.

Line 69-73: “…iron mobilization at the cellular level “ state citation

In the Introduction little is said about CuSO4 as treatment for crops and ionic Cu  from CuSO4 [1], as well as CuO dissolution and toxicity to Triticum aestivum [2].

Materials and methods

Line 108: “after appropriate dilution” what was the dilution?. What was the spectrophotometric method used?

Line 112: “was measured by the acidification process using ICP-AES” state the method.

Line 122-123: “Cu concentration was determined by ICP-MS..” state the method used.

State the methods used in a step by step, clear manner.

Chapter 3. Separate Results from Discussions in two different chapters.

Figure 1 is messy, put a to e in order, why are they spread like that? Figure 1 e is not readable, replace with better resolution.

Line 199: “Once it dissociates or dissolves, it will behave exactly as its bulk forms” state citation

Line 465: “These results correspond with previous findings where lower..” state citation

 

 

References

1. Zhenyan Zhang, Mingjing Ke, Qian Qu, W.J.G.M. Peijnenburg, Tao Lu, Qi Zhang, Yizhi Ye, Pengfei Xu, Benben Du, Liwei Sun, Haifeng Qian, (2018)
   Impact of copper nanoparticles and ionic copper exposure on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) root morphology and antioxidant response,
   Environmental Pollution, 239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.066.
2. Gao, X., Avellan, A., Laughton, S., Vaidya, R., Rodrigues, S. M., Casman, E. A., & Lowry, G. V. (2018). CuO Nanoparticle Dissolution and Toxicity to Wheat ( Triticum aestivum) in Rhizosphere Soil. Environmental science & technology, 52(5), 2888–2897. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05816

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you so much to the authors for addressing all the comments. I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently, but the authors should read it carefully once more to improve this manuscript. Some formatting mistakes have been found. On pages 3 to 6, citations 35 and 52 to 64 are bold. Please set the formatting.

TRANSLATE with x English

Arabic	Hebrew	Polish
Bulgarian	Hindi	Portuguese
Catalan	Hmong Daw	Romanian
Chinese Simplified	Hungarian	Russian
Chinese Traditional	Indonesian	Slovak
Czech	Italian	Slovenian
Danish	Japanese	Spanish
Dutch	Klingon	Swedish
English	Korean	Thai
Estonian	Latvian	Turkish
Finnish	Lithuanian	Ukrainian
French	Malay	Urdu
German	Maltese	Vietnamese
Greek	Norwegian	Welsh
Haitian Creole	Persian

TRANSLATE with COPY THE URL BELOW Back EMBED THE SNIPPET BELOW IN YOUR SITE Enable collaborative features and customize widget: Bing Webmaster Portal Back

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised their work which I know find suitable for publication.