Nanofarming: Promising Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry
, Neama Abdalla 3, Daniella Sári 2, Aya Ferroudj 2, Arjun Muthu 2, József Prokisch 2, Zakaria F. Fawzy 4, Eric C. Brevik 5 and Svein Ø. Solberg 6,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper told many basic facts about farming, and the forms of nanomaterials in agriculture and applying effects are summarized broadly. The effect of nanomaterials is analyzed from positive and negative aspects. However, why Nano-Farming is Crucial Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry was still unknown. You would better tell readers that nanomaterials had unique roles to achieve unique functions, which can not or not easy to be achieved by any other materials or methods. For example，I am exerting in fertilizers and fertilization. However, I do not learn more from Part 5. Nano-agrochemicals for fertilization, and many sentences describes irrigations and basic definitions. Moreover, the orders of title and subtitle were disordered. The paper had many good information, but the authors need to conclusion, and add more thinking.
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts to improve our MS.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper told many basic facts about farming, and the forms of nanomaterials in agriculture and applying effects are summarized broadly.
The effect of nanomaterials is analyzed from positive and negative aspects.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
However, why Nano-Farming is Crucial Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry was still unknown.
You would better tell readers that nanomaterials had unique roles to achieve unique functions, which can not or not easy to be achieved by any other materials or methods.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Yes, you are right, So, the title was modified into:
Nano-Farming: Crucial Promising Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry
For example, I am exerting in fertilizers and fertilization. However, I do not learn more from Part 5. Nano-agrochemicals for fertilization, and many sentences describes irrigations and basic definitions.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Our MS is a comprehensive review on different farming activities, and all these activities in one text covers a lot of ground. This is unique to our MS, the reader can find several nano applications of different farming practices in one manuscript. We added a comprehensive figure (Figure 8) on fertilizers and methods of fertilization in the revised MS.
Moreover, the orders of title and subtitle were disordered.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
The ordering of TOC has been corrected, thanks again!
Table of contents
- Introduction
- Methodology of the review
- Nano-farming: an overview
- Nanomaterials for stressful conditions
4.1 Nano-improvement of soil quality
4.2 Crop nano-protection under biotic stress
4.3 Nanoremediation of polluted soil and water
4.4 Nano-management of agro-wastes
- Nano-agrochemicals for fertilization
- Nano-precision farming
- Nanobiotechnology for modern farming
- General discussion
- Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
The paper had many good information, but the authors need to conclusion, and add more thinking.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Yes, you are right, there is a lot of information because as I said in your previous comment, this MS is a comprehensive review on different farming activities.
As far as we know, this would be the first report including all these farming activities in one MS and the applications of nanotechnology to advance these activities.
We added some conclusions at the end of the Introduction section with more focus on the new thinking on these topics, thanks!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language
Many thanks again for your comments. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed by our native English-speaking coauthor. We hope our revised MS is acceptable now, thanks again!
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript Agronomy-2388147” Nano-Farming: Crucial Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry” is a review article with an extensive description of the related and current literature of nano-farming field. The review article synthetizes relevant information of different application of nanotechnology in the agricultural industry and main practices associated to production where nanotechnology is used for. In general, the manuscript is a proper revision of literature, however, it needs some significant format edition for figures and need to be also reorganized, and probably shortened to be of the interest for the readers. The schematic figures should be improved and the criteria for the selection and order of different topics in the scale of “sustainable agriculture or practices” need to be clarify for an objective selection.
Moreover, and despite the long list of reference in the manuscript, a barely description of main mechanistic pathways was observed. In this sense, authors need to include at least more details related to functioning of main pathways for the different application of the nano particles in agriculture. Under this context, the extensive of the article and the limited discussion transform this review in long synthetize of literature with a poor analysis of the main application of this technology on agricultural industry which scarcely identify potential gaps and research areas to explore next,
Therefore, because the little critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies, I suggest handling back the manuscript to the authors with major revisions.
English needs minor editing details.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts for improving our MS to be better for publication.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript Agronomy-2388147” Nano-Farming: Crucial Solutions for the Future of the Global Agricultural Industry” is a review article with an extensive description of the related and current literature of nano-farming field. The review article synthetizes relevant information of different application of nanotechnology in the agricultural industry and main practices associated to production where nanotechnology is used for. In general, the manuscript is a proper revision of literature, however, it needs some significant format edition for figures and need to be also reorganized, and probably shortened to be of the interest for the readers. The schematic figures should be improved and the criteria for the selection and order of different topics in the scale of “sustainable agriculture or practices” need to be clarify for an objective selection.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
We changed all figures to be readable by the reader in the revised MS.
Moreover, and despite the long list of reference in the manuscript, a barely description of main mechanistic pathways was observed. In this sense, authors need to include at least more details related to functioning of main pathways for the different application of the nano particles in agriculture. Under this context, the extensive of the article and the limited discussion transform this review in long synthetize of literature with a poor analysis of the main application of this technology on agricultural industry which scarcely identify potential gaps and research areas to explore next,
Therefore, because the little critical evaluation of the data available from existing studies, I suggest handling back the manuscript to the authors with major revisions.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
Please, let me explain that we collected and summarized the suggested mechanism in one figure (12) in both cases under the enhancement and nanotoxicity.
Furthermore, many mechanisms already mentioned in some figures as well.
We added more a full mechanism for the nano-priming with a clear figure (13) in the discussion.
which scarcely identify potential gaps and research areas to explore next,
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
We already mentioned in the end of our discussion many questions:
“Many questions still need to be answered concerning the toxicity and nanopollution from farm practices. These include: what practices are the main sources of nano-pollution? To what extent can nanopollution be controlled at the farm level? Which parameters control nanopollution under greenhouse cultivation? What are the differences between greenhouses and open fields? What are the expected potentials of nanobiotechnology for micropropagation of rare plants? And to what extend can nanofarming be a solution for sustainable energy production and storage? Questions such as these will need to be answered for nanofarming to reach its full potential.”
Hoping our corrections will be accepted and many thanks for your valuable comments!
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English quality is good; only minor corrections are needed
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts to improve our MS.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please see the attached file
peer-review-29070842.v2.pdf
Response: Many thanks for your comments!
The current literature review provides updated information about the applications of nanotechnology in the agriculture sector, with particular emphasis on the application of nano-farming technologies to different farming systems.
The manuscript is well constructed and the quality of the English language is sufficient, with
some minor errors. However, there are some questions to answer and corrections to make, as
follows:
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
General comments:
- There has been a lot of published work in high-ranking journals tackling almost the same subject, and thus I wonder what the added value for the current manuscript compared with previously published work.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Yes, you are right, there are several articles already published in high-ranking journals but these published articles did not include all these topics in only one MS. Our MS is a comprehensive review on different farming activities using nanomaterials. As far as we know, this is a first report, and this is the uniqueness of our MS, that the reader can find several nano applications for different farming practices in only one manuscript based on very up-to-date information!
Therefore, I suggest adding a paragraph at the end of the introduction just before the objectives to clarify this point and mention a general idea about previous efforts published by others and the new points added by the current work.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
OK, done, thanks! A new paragraph was added to the revised MS:
Some may wonder why this review is important. Many recent studies have discussed nano-farming with focus on only one or two issues, such as nano-farming for food production [14], nano-farming and nanotoxicity [15], nano-priming [16], nano-fertilizers [17], or utilization of agro-wastes for nano-enabled energy applications [20]. There is a need to provide a comprehensive review of different farming activities using nanomaterials and synthesize the current state of knowledge. As far as we know, this is a unique assessment of nano-farming including several nano-applications as utilized in different farming practices. This review also focuses on very up-to-date information, with the majority of the references reviewed and synthesized coming from 2020 through 2023.
- If allowed by the journal, adding a list of contents before the introduction section will be
constructive. Please check with the journal Editor.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Yes, you are right, we totally agree with your comment, and will ask the editor about such issue!
Table of contents
- Introduction
- Methodology of the review
- Nano-farming: an overview
- Nanomaterials for stressful conditions
4.1 Nano-improvement of soil quality
4.2 Crop nano-protection under biotic stress
4.3 Nanoremediation of polluted soil and water
4.4 Nano-management of agro-wastes
- Nano-agrochemicals for fertilization
- Nano-precision farming
- Nanobiotechnology for modern farming
- General discussion
- Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- All figures don’t have a scientific construction, aren’t clear, with low resolution; they all need improvement and be represented in a better way.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Yes, Done, thanks! The formats of all figures were changed, all captures were modified for more explanation and to be easier for the readers to read and understand
Comments
Line 33: “to human life” instead of “for human life”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 39: food instead of “foods”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 41: add a comma before “resources”
Response: Many thanks for your comment! However, commas are used to separate phrases or ideas, and the words “To sustainably utilize agricultural” is not a complete phrase or idea (“agricultural” is the last word before “resources”). Therefore, a comma before "resources" does not make grammatical sense, therefore, this has not been done.
Line 61” please move the sentence “The application of …..” before the previous one.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 63: “using” instead of “use”, delete “of” after use.
Try to add another paragraph to the introduction according to my advice herein before.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, we added your suggested paragraph, thanks!
Line 82: delete the “M” from the subtitle
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line: 102: food instead of foods
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Fig 2. The resolution is not good, as well as the diagram's general construction, which is unclear and well-linked. Please try to make it more straightforward with better structure and higher quality. Please put it in a box border to separate it from Fig 1.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks! All figures have been put in a border and changed by adding more explanations to be easier to read!!!
Line 152: “which have low cost” Please justify this idea and support it with examples from referenced work
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks! We mean the nanomaterials and we changed the paragraph with more referencs as follows:
Nanotechnology has shown promise for managing these stresses as well, and may include nano-pesticides [46], nanofertilizers [17], nano-based biostimulants [50], nano-encapsulated plant growth regulators [19], and nano-sensors [18]. These nanomaterials (MNs) have low cost, high surface area to volume ratios, are eco-friendly, and possess unique physicochemical properties [28].
Fig 3. The same as Fig 2. Besides, the title is not descriptive of the figure; please rephrase
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Corrected and modified, thanks!
Fig 4: the same as previous figures
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Corrected and modified, thanks!
Line 175: “…..soils they may be applied to with” change to “soils, which may be applied with”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Table 1: “10, 50, and 150 mg P per kg soil”: what is P? Do you mean phosphorus? The unit mg per kg should be changed to mg.kg-1 to be consistent with the whole manuscript.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Table 1: there are many cases where the applied dose is not mentioned “NA”, nevertheless, when I checked the published papers, I found them stated. For example, the Nano-gypsum; was applied at 3 doses “15, 30 and 45% GR-Gypsum Requirement compared with 100% conventional gypsum. Please refer to the original full text of the cited references and state the missed values. The same is applied to soil characteristics.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Table 2: The author mentioned Powdery mildew, Chicory weeds, Brown planthopper as phytopathogens. As far as I know, only infectious microorganisms are called phytopathogens. It is better be “phytopathogen/pest”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Figure 8 title: ….. can be used as…
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Lines 433: to diagnose
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 434: delete “for”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 437: “production” instead of “productivity”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 461: “a potential”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 464: add “?” after “nanotechnology?”
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Line 465: applications
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Lines 582 to 591: the authors added the journal instructions for Appendices A and B; please remove this part.
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Done, thanks!
Many thanks again for your comments, hoping our revised MS is improved, thanks again!
Reviewer 4 Report
The objective of this review was to report the application of nano-farming technologies to different farming systems, including number of aspects like nano-improvement of soil quality, crop nano-protection under biotic stress, nanoremediation of polluted soil and water environments, nanomanagement of agro-wastes, nano-agrochemicals, nano-precision farming, and nanobiotechnology for modern farming. This is a comprehensive compendium of 184 literature items, the largest share of which are recent works from recent years 2022-2023. Authors presented all the possibilities of using the new technology in agriculture, which can be a solution to move towards sustainable agriculture as nano-farming, which is a novelty and may be an inspiration for further research. I highly appreciate undertaking to write a review with so many new literature items collected. My greatest concern is connected with language, the article contains phrases written in too ‘colloquial’ or literary language (‘some may wonder’), which should be adapted to give a scientific overtone.
Here are some minor suggestions:
Line 23-24: in whole manuscript please unify, ‘nano-‘ once it is use with dash, other times not, ‘nano-pesticide’ but ‘nanofertilizer’
Line 70: ‘nano-farming umbrella’- explain, maybe do not use umbrella
Line 92: paragraph not indented, similarly in several places
Figure 2: figure should more precisely show pyramid form or do not use this characteristic
Figure 3: shorten the description of figure 3
Line 187: ‘soil health’ maybe would be better to use soil physical properties or use it in quote…
Line 202: ‘(32)’ should be [32]
Tables : please customize all fonts to be the same as text
Figure 8: not very scientific maybe just omit…
Quality of English language is good, but manuscript should be edited by specialist to remove too colloquial words or literary language such as for example 'some may wonder'. Manuscript should be adapted to give a scientific overtone.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts for improving our MS to be better for publication.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The objective of this review was to report the application of nano-farming technologies to different farming systems, including number of aspects like nano-improvement of soil quality, crop nano-protection under biotic stress, nanoremediation of polluted soil and water environments, nanomanagement of agro-wastes, nano-agrochemicals, nano-precision farming, and nanobiotechnology for modern farming. This is a comprehensive compendium of 184 literature items, the largest share of which are recent works from recent years 2022-2023. Authors presented all the possibilities of using the new technology in agriculture, which can be a solution to move towards sustainable agriculture as nano-farming, which is a novelty and may be an inspiration for further research. I highly appreciate undertaking to write a review with so many new literature items collected.
Response: Many thanks for your kind words and encouragement.
My greatest concern is connected with language, the article contains phrases written in too ‘colloquial’ or literary language (‘some may wonder’), which should be adapted to give a scientific overtone.
Response: Thanks for your comment!
This is a concern with the original writing. This can be at least partially attributed to many of our authors not being native English speakers. Our native English-speaking co-author has worked hard to eliminate colloquial phrasing from the manuscript. We can confirm, after a term search, there are no more instances of “some may wonder”, “some may ask”, or similar in the manuscript. It has been read through and modified another time with the goal of eliminating colloquial phrasing.
Here are some minor suggestions:
Line 23-24: in whole manuscript please unify, ‘nano-‘ once it is use with dash, other times not, ‘nano-pesticide’ but ‘nanofertilizer’
Response: Many thanks for your comment!
Ok, the unification was done, thanks!
Line 70: ‘nano-farming umbrella’- explain, maybe do not use umbrella
Response: Many thanks for your comment
Ok, umbrella was changed, thanks!
Line 92: paragraph not indented, similarly in several places
Response: Many thanks for your comment
Ok, Done in all revised MS, thanks!
Figure 2: figure should more precisely show pyramid form or do not use this characteristic
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
Ok, Done in the revised MS, thanks!
Figure 3: shorten the description of figure 3
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
yes, it was short, but the second reviewer asked for more details in the revised MS, thanks!
Line 187: ‘soil health’ maybe would be better to use soil physical properties or use it in quote…
Response: Many thanks for your comment. However, and realizing there is a lot of discussion around the ideas of soil health, soil quality, their meaning (or lack thereof), etc., the term “soil health” does have a level of acceptance in modern soil science. And it extends to much more than just soil physical properties. So, we do not see a need for quotes around the term here. People can read the paper and reach their own conclusions regarding the term, its appropriateness, etc., but it is not an unrecognized term or concept within the field.
Line 202: ‘(32)’ should be [32]
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
Done, thanks!
Tables: please customize all fonts to be the same as text
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
Done, thanks!
Figure 8: not very scientific maybe just omit…
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
Please, accept my apology, we cannot omit it because this a request from reviewer no. 2
Thanks for your understanding!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I do not think the revised version was improved qualitatively.
Not improved very much. For example, "To sustainably utilize agricultural resources integrated farming systems should be established." I think the another reviewer mean you need add a comma after “resources”. Or, To achieve sustainable utilization of agricultural resources, integrated farming systems should be established. Or, Establishing integrated farming systems is essential for the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources. For another example, Line 461: “a potential” mentioned by another reviewer. However, no change was made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts for improving our MS to be better for publication.
I do not think the revised version was improved qualitatively.
Response: Many thanks for your comment, can we ask you please:
Did you send any comment on any section or any part in your report and we did not respond to it?
Why do you feel our revised version was not improved? It is very difficult to address your concerns if you do not provide detailed information regarding them. The blanket statement “I do not think the revised version was improved qualitatively” is not very helpful.
The other reviewer already accepted our revised version, and the third reviewer also acknowledge our revised MS as he/she said:
“The objective of this review was to report the application of nano-farming technologies to different farming systems, including number of aspects like nano-improvement of soil quality, crop nano-protection under biotic stress, nanoremediation of polluted soil and water environments, nanomanagement of agro-wastes, nano-agrochemicals, nano-precision farming, and nanobiotechnology for modern farming. This is a comprehensive compendium of 184 literature items, the largest share of which are recent works from recent years 2022-2023. Authors presented all the possibilities of using the new technology in agriculture, which can be a solution to move towards sustainable agriculture as nano-farming, which is a novelty and may be an inspiration for further research. I highly appreciate undertaking to write a review with so many new literature items collected.”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Not improved very much. For example, "To sustainably utilize agricultural resources integrated farming systems should be established." I think the another reviewer mean you need add a comma after “resources”. Or, To achieve sustainable utilization of agricultural resources, integrated farming systems should be established. Or, Establishing integrated farming systems is essential for the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources. For another example, Line 461: “a potential” mentioned by another reviewer. However, no change was made.
Response: many thanks for your comment!
our co-author, Prof. Eric Brevik, as a native English speaker, has checked the revised MS again.
A comment directly from EC Brevik – to address the reviewer’s examples of problems with the English in the manuscript, there is nothing wrong with the statement "To sustainably utilize agricultural resources integrated farming systems should be established." The reviewer’s first suggestion, to add a comma after “resources”, would not provide a grammatically correct statement because commas are used to separate ideas within a given sentence. There are not two ideas here, therefore, a comma is inappropriate. The reviewer’s suggestion “Establishing integrated farming systems is essential for the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources.” is fine, in fact, it might read better than the original sentence. However, this is now becoming an issue of personal preference in how to write, not an issue of whether one sentence is correct and the other is wrong.
Regarding the second example, thank you for pointing that out. However, in going back and reviewing that section, “potential” is better than “a potential”. The overall statement is “Nanotechnology has shown (a) potential to improve the agricultural sector by enhancing crop productivity and its quality.” If we write this as “a potential”, we are basically saying there is only 1 way (a potential, a way) that nanotechnology has been shown to improve crop productivity. If we write it as “potential”, that is, do not use the “a”, we are saying there are multiple ways that nanotechnology might improve farming. Multiple is the correct idea here, not singular, so “a potential” is not what we want to write.
All this said, it is difficult to write an entire paper and catch every single small mistake, so we thank the reviewer for pointing these areas out for our consideration. A good example of it being difficult to write without any mistakes is also given by the reviewer, who’s own statement “I think the another reviewer mean…” is itself quite poor English writing. I’m sure the reviewer can write perfectly well in English, but mistakes happen. I have read the entire manuscript again and made some additional (minor) corrections. We strive for perfection; we never quite achieve it. (end of comment directly from EC Brevik).
Many thanks again for your comments, hoping our revised MS is better now and improved, thanks again!
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the responses and modifications in manuscript. Under my criteria, authors barely modified the figures but include a new one with an extensive explanation of some relevant mechanistic pathways which is the most significant change of manuscript. However, the criteria for the hierarchical division at every figure is still unclear. The questions at the end of manuscript can be paraphrased in order to clarify and develop a little in deep the observed gaps of research. Tables are still little confuse and need format editions.
No comments
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2#
Response: Many thanks for your time and efforts for improving our MS to be better for publication.
Thanks for the responses and modifications in manuscript. Under my criteria, authors barely modified the figures but include a new one with an extensive explanation of some relevant mechanistic pathways which is the most significant change of manuscript.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
However, the criteria for the hierarchical division at every figure is still unclear.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
More changes in nearly all figures were done to be readable by the reader in the revised MS. Please these changes as we can, hoping that is acceptable and meet your acceptance!
The questions at the end of manuscript can be paraphrased in order to clarify and develop a little in deep the observed gaps of research.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
This part was improved as you asked and more questions were added as follows:
Many questions still need to be answered concerning the toxicity and nanopollution from farm practices. Due to this review included several farming practices, each practice itself has many open questions including the germination, growing, flowering, and harvesting, as well as post-harvest of crop farming. The same for different kinds of farming such as animal and forestry farming, which could include many applications of nanotechnology. These field are not only the suggested areas to be included open questions, but also different anthropogenic activities on the farm, environment, and global level. Related questions to the agroecosystem are also needed including climate change or greenhouse-gas emissions, pollution, loss of biodiversity, water crisis, soil degradation, and disruption of aquatic ecosystems. Last but not least, these questions are will need to be answered for nanofarming to reach its full potential. The suggested questions on farming research may include the following:
To what extent can nanopollution be controlled at the farm level?
What practices are the main sources of nano-pollution on the farm level?
Which parameters control nanopollution under greenhouse cultivation?
What are the differences between greenhouses and open fields?
Which nanomaterials are the most efficient, innovative, economic, and reliable to remediate environmental pollutants?
What are the expected potentials of nanobiotechnology for micropropagation of rare plants?
What are the promising nanomaterials for mitigating stress on farming crops?
What are the global regulations on applying nanomaterials should be issued for protecting the food security?
What are the global regulations on nanofertilizers/nanopesticides should be implemented?
To what extend can nanofarming be a solution for sustainable energy production and storage?
Tables are still little confuse and need format editions.
Response: Many thanks for your comment.
We checked tables, again. The formatting will be changed for sure during the processing of publication after accepting the MS!
Hoping our corrections will be accepted and many thanks for your valuable comments!
