Ferric Oxide Nanoparticles Foliar Application Effectively Enhanced Iron Bioavailability and Rice Quality in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Grains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I believe the manuscript has potential, given the treatments tested and the analyses performed. However, two critical issues must be addressed, as they pose potential obstacles to publication—particularly the one related to the statistical approach, as detailed below:

In the iron analysis, the authors should include a certified reference material to assess Fe recovery, since the described methodology quantifies only the pseudo-total content of the element.

The comparison made between years is incorrect. As presented, it appears to follow a factorial design, but this is not the case because the years were not randomized. Therefore, I strongly recommend performing a separate ANOVA for each year to compare treatments, and based on these results, conducting a joint analysis. The statistical approach used has many flaws, is inappropriate, and does little to address the study’s hypothesis. I suggest the authors seek assistance from someone with expertise in statistics if they are not familiar with the correct methodology. This issue will affect the entire Results section, which will need to be revised accordingly. Without this revision, the manuscript contains significant errors and cannot be considered for publication.

The Discussion section also needs improvement to better address and interpret the main findings of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the important topic of iron content in food. Plants such as rice are a source of this important element. Nanoparticles, in turn, are increasingly used in agriculture as nanofertilizers, providing essential micro and macronutrients to plants. The authors describe research on foliar application of iron oxide nanoparticles and their impact on rice. The paper describes a two-year study, with seeds thoroughly examined in well-planned and detailed experiments. The authors' presentation of the results is somewhat less straightforward. Unfortunately, the tables and Figure 3 are difficult to read. Their quality should be improved to make the analysis easier for the reader. The interpretation of the results also raises some doubts. The differences described by the authors are not as obvious as they claim. I understand that the results were subjected to statistical analysis, which demonstrated that these differences are statistically significant. Given the scale of the experiment, it's questionable that only three plants were selected for analysis. These are real samples, and the uncertanity in results is sometimes less than 1%. Therefore, the results should be interpreted more critically. Nevertheless, the results indicate the influence of iron oxide nanoparticles on iron levels in plants. 

The work can be published after a few corrections: the tables must be improved, the interpretation of the results should be more critical.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Ferric oxide nanoparticles foliar application effectively enhanced iron bioavailability and rice quality in rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains” submitted to agronomy, presents the influence of Fe2O3 NPs on iron content in rice grains. The methodology and results are shown in a consistent, even though monotonic, and clear manner. This research appears to be unique in that it focuses on enhanced iron accumulation in the rice grain.

However, the introduction is very difficult to read. There are many unclear and complicated sentences that use unusual verbs and concepts that do not flow together. The English has to be improved to match the scientific value of this manuscript. This reviewer began to highlight the complicated sentences but gave up, as the entire introduction is filled with them.

Other comments:

The abbreviation ‘CK’ is introduced in the Abstract without an explanation of what it stands for

157-162 repeated text

Tables are very difficult to read – numbers run into each other and are unclear

I strongly suggest changing from using abbreviations ‘CK’ and ‘T1-T3’ to using the actual NPs concentrations, which would bring to mind a better understanding and clarity of the results, especially since the concentrations are mentioned in the methodology only once and are challenging to locate.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The introduction is very difficult to read. There are many unclear and complicated sentences that use unusual verbs and concepts that do not flow together. The English has to be improved to match the scientific value of this manuscript. This reviewer began to highlight the complicated sentences but gave up, as the entire introduction is filled with them.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors, nothing that was requested regarding modifications to the statistical part was carried out, the authors continue with the same error mentioned in previous versions, therefore the article cannot be followed for publication, since all inferences of the generated data are compromised, so I suggest rejecting the article, and after the new adjustments, the article can be submitted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work can be published in its current form

Author Response

Thank you for your patience and effort devoted on this submission.