Properties of Recycled Nanomaterials and Their Effect on Biological Activity and Yield of Canola in Degraded Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript. this study is conducted very well. It is a need for time to investigate this topic for the improvement in the production of the canola crop. Faltu many scientists are working on this topic but I have found some merits in this study. However, I have raised some important points which are important to incorporate. All my comments are provided below:

1-Problem Statement is missing.

2-Technology adaption reasoning is missing. Please provide that in 1-2 lines.

The 3-Novelty statement is not provided. Please write that in 1 line.

4-No quantitative data is given. How can a reader assess the manuscript without that? Please provide that in the results section.

5-No conclusive statement is provided to justify the results. Give a definite conclusion.

6-Where are recommendations? Please give that.

7-Also provide future perspective. Without that abstract is incomplete. 

8-Authors have not provided the knowledge gap covered in the study. Please provide a statement.

9- Please provide the hypothesis statement. it is very difficult to assess the experiment without a hypothesis.

10- It is requested to provide the novelty statement. how this work is different from the previous studies which were conducted and provided in the literature. what is the value addition in the knowledge beach this study will contribute please explain?

11- No reference is provided for the manufacturing of Nano biochar. if others have devices with their own methodology then provide the training data in the Supplementary file.

12- It is mentioned in the table that the organic matter in the soil was g/kg 13.6. This value is almost equal to 1.36 %. If the soil has an organic matter of more than 1% then there is no need to incorporate any organic matter in the soil. My question is why the authors have incorporated nano biochar in the soil when organic matter was in sufficient quantity.

13-Please provide the details regarding t Annova in the statistical analysis subsection.

14- It is difficult to assess the results and discussion part without a definite hypothesis. Please provide that in revision so that results can be checked accordingly with discussion and conclusion.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript. This study is conducted very well. It is a need for time to investigate this topic for the improvement in the production of the canola crop. Faltu many scientists are working on this topic but I have found some merits in this study. However, I have raised some important points which are important to incorporate. All my comments are provided below:

 

1-Problem Statement is missing.

 We added in the abstract Recycling wastes such as rice straw and water treatment residuals is important to reduce their harmful effects on the environment and to improve canola yield and soil quality in degraded soils

2-Technology adaption reasoning is missing. Please provide that in 1-2 lines.

Nanotechnology for the production of nanomaterials from biochar and water treatment residues is a future revolution for improving soil quality and increasing canola yield in degraded soils.

The 3-Novelty statement is not provided. Please write that in 1 line.

A novelty of this study is the use of recycled nanomaterials to improve canola yield in degraded soils.

4-No quantitative data is given. How can a reader assess the manuscript without that? Please provide that in the results section.

We added in the results

The increase in seed weight of canola plant is correlated with MBC (R2=0.82, p< 0.05, (Fig. 6) and soil organic matter (R2=0.91, p< 0.05, (Fig. 7).

A meta-analysis of recycled nanomaterials amendments on increasing canola yield and its relationship to improving biochemical and physical traits in degraded soils can only be pursued after several relevant reports emerge in the future.

5-No conclusive statement is provided to justify the results. Give a definite conclusion.

We improved and rewritten 

6-Where are recommendations? Please give that.

We added in the conclusion Therefore, it is necessary to determine appropriate application rates of nWTR to avoid negative effects on the soil environment. The results recommended that the application of 50 mg kg^-1 of nWTR and 250 mg kg^-1 of nB was optimized to achieve high productivity and improve soil biology in the degraded soils

7-Also provide future perspective. Without that abstract is incomplete. 

In the future, research on recycled nanomaterials is interested in examining the residual effect they have on yield, soil quality, and soil fauna in the long term.

8-Authors have not provided the knowledge gap covered in the study. Please provide a statement.

We added   Recycled nanomaterials are currently undergoing many studies. However, to date there are still significant knowledge gaps that it is desirable to address. Research into recycled nanomaterials and techniques for their effective implementation is under sustainable development. However, interest in recycled nanomaterials as a multifaceted solution that addresses agricultural, environmental and health problems is growing at an accelerating pace both nationally and internationally.

9- Please provide the hypothesis statement. it is very difficult to assess the experiment without a hypothesis.

We added The study is based on the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1:Knowing the spectral and chemical properties of recycled nanomaterials

Hypothesis 2:Recycled nanomaterials at different rates have the potential to contribute to increased enzymatic and microbial activity and increased canola yield in degraded soils through water and nutrient retention and reduced toxicity from heavy elements, thereby reducing required amounts of agricultural inputs.

10- It is requested to provide the novelty statement. how this work is different from the previous studies which were conducted and provided in the literature. what is the value addition in the knowledge beach this study will contribute please explain?

The novelty of this study is the use of recycled nanomaterials to improve canola yield and biological activity in degraded soils.

Recycling waste such as rice straw, which farmer’s burn, this causes black clouds and leads to air pollution and affects public health. And also the wastes of drinking water plants, which are discharged to water sources and contain high amounts of aluminum, which causes Alzheimer’s disease and kidney failure, so they are recycled in nano form and have properties that enable them to clean the soil contaminated with heavy metals and improve the biological properties of the soil and increase yields such as canola

 

11- No reference is provided for the manufacturing of Nano biochar. if others have devices with their own methodology then provide the training data in the Supplementary file.

We manufactured biochar (Rice straw from neighboring fields is used as feedstock using a batch pyrolysis facility under conditions of limited oxygen and the temperature reaches more than 400°C, and for a retention period of 2 hours), but it was converted to nanobiochar at the Nano Institute for Science and Technology, Kafr El-Sheikh University, Egypt

 

12- It is mentioned in the table that the organic matter in the soil was g/kg 13.6. This value is almost equal to 1.36 %. If the soil has an organic matter of more than 1% then there is no need to incorporate any organic matter in the soil. My question is why the authors have incorporated nano biochar in the soil when organic matter was in sufficient quantity.

Indeed, in normal lands, there is no need to add organic matter, especially when it is greater than 1%, but in degraded lands and contaminated with heavy elements, it is necessary to increase the organic matter, especially such as biochar, as it works to reduce toxicity and treat the land contaminated with the elements, and this was studied in another research. It also works to improve the physical and biochemical properties and increase the yield, and this is clear compared to the control

13-Please provide the details regarding t Annova in the statistical analysis subsection.

We found under tables

*Note: values of each now followed by the same letter indicate no significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan test.

14- It is difficult to assess the results and discussion part without a definite hypothesis. Please provide that in revision so that results can be checked accordingly with discussion and conclusion.

We checked

Sincerely yours,

Esawy Mahmoud

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reported the utilization of recycled nanomaterial for improving the yield of canola in degraded soil. Although idea is good but I have following concerns regarding current manuscript that authors should consider while revising their manuscript.

1.       Please correct all the typos and grammatical mistakes in the main text, legends, formula and references.

2.       Revise the keywords and avoid using the keywords from the title. Moreover, five keywords are enough.

3.       Write full form of every abbreviation, whenever use first time.

4.       Mention the latitude and longitude location of experimental and collection site and other place described in MS.

5.       Provide the year of experiment.

6.       Provide the models and manufacturing company (with country origin) name of every instruments used for analysis.

7.       In order to repeating the work by other workers, the methods use in this study need to be elaborate well.

8.       Why the authors not use the same doses of biochar and WTR. For exact observation of  nWTR and nB it is much need.

9.      The authors should add the photographs of the pot experiment. Results are written and discussed well, however, I recommend described more detailed mechanisms involved.

10.    Kindly represent the standard error in data present in table. Also mention the software for its calculation.

11.    Re-write the conclusion more precisely and comprehensively. 

12.    References should be according to journal given format.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors reported the utilization of recycled nanomaterial for improving the yield of canola in degraded soil. Although idea is good but I have following concerns regarding current manuscript that authors should consider while revising their manuscript.

1. Please correct all the typos and grammatical mistakes in the main text, legends, formula and references.

All manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and improved by Dr. Nermin Ibrahim; Email: nermeen.ibrahim@art.menofia.edu.eg; Ph.D in Applied Linguistics. Lecturer in Linguistics; Department of English language and literature, Faculty of Arts, and Menofia University,Egypt

2. Revise the keywords and avoid using the keywords from the title. Moreover, five keywords are enough.

We corrected  Soil amendments; Nanobiochar; Functional groups; Surface area; Zeta potential

3. Write full form of every abbreviation, whenever use first time.

We improved

4. Mention the latitude and longitude location of experimental and collection site and other place described in MS.

We added Kafr El-Zayat area (30°40°N Latitude, 30°43°E Longitude) and Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate located at (31° 07° N Latitude, 30° 05° E Longitude).

5. Provide the year of experiment.

We provided

6. Provide the models and manufacturing company (with country origin) name of every instruments used for analysis.

We added

7. In order to repeating the work by other workers, the methods use in this study need to be elaborate well.
8. Why the authors not use the same doses of biochar and WTR. For exact observation of nWTR and nB it is much need.

 In the study we used the best recommendations from previous research, but in nano it was the same dose

Biochar treatment at a rate of 4200 mg kg^-1 is the recommended treatment according to a study conducted by Mahmoud et al. [26]. WTR treatment at a rate of 4200 mg kg^-1 is the recommended treatment according to a study conducted by Mahmoud et al. [27].

9. The authors should add the photographs of the pot experiment. Results are written and discussed well, however, I recommend described more detailed mechanisms involved.

We improved, but there is no picture of the experiment showing the treatments.

10. Kindly represent the standard error in data present in table. Also mention the software for its calculation.

We added

11. Re-write the conclusion more precisely and comprehensively.

We improved and rewritten 

12. References should be according to journal given format.

We are formatted as journal

Sincerely yours,

Esawy Mahmoud

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study “Properties of recycled nanomaterials and their effect on biological activity and yield of canola in degraded soils” conducted by Elsawy et al., demonstrated the properties of some recycled nanomaterials such as rice straw biochar and nano-water treatment residues, and demonstrated that how canola productivity and biological activity was affected by these nanomaterials in degraded soils. The findings revealed the existence of functional groups and minerals, and high negative zeta potential of these nanomaterials. Increase production of canola was achieved through soil amendments with these nanomaterials. The findings of this study are interesting in the context of useful utilization of residues in agricultural production and are supported by the similar reports previously published but with some new results. However, the presentation of the study could be further improved by revising the writing of the manuscript in the light of below suggestions. Some important information related to the methodology of this study is missing.

Keywords must not be the same as already used in the main title of the study

Abstract should be supplemented with some numerical values of some key findings

Line 40: change amounts to amount

Line 40: “The amounts of heavy metals in this area were very high and exceeded the permissible limit”. Mention the permissible limit with reference

Line 60: “Oleszczuk et al. ]8[“…… ???

Information about the targeted crop/plant (canola) is not sufficient. It is suggested to write some more about the importance and recent status of this crop in the studied area specifically and in world generally

Line 100: Ten surface samples from 0-20 cm depth were collected from Kafr El-Zayat area (latitude 30°40°N, 30°43°E) Gharbia Governorate, Egypt…. “ten surface sample of what?, also mention the time (month and year) of the sample collection. Instead of using the general term “area” more specific location (province/city etc.) should be mentioned

Line 122: mention the year

Line 122: mention the variety/cultivar of canola

Line 132: Do you mean 10 Kg soil per pot was filled? if yes, rephrase this sentence to make the meaning clear

Statistical analysis: was the data normally distributed? How the data was analyzed? Did you use analysis of variance? All this information should be brought in

Each mean value in the table should be accompanied with standard error

Line 274, 301 “values of each now”

Some references are not correct such as “R#32”

The manuscript need significant improvement regarding English language, both in sentence structures and grammar

Author Response

the study “Properties of recycled nanomaterials and their effect on biological activity and yield of canola in degraded soils” conducted by Elsawy et al., demonstrated the properties of some recycled nanomaterials such as rice straw biochar and nano-water treatment residues, and demonstrated that how canola productivity and biological activity was affected by these nanomaterials in degraded soils. The findings revealed the existence of functional groups and minerals, and high negative zeta potential of these nanomaterials. Increase production of canola was achieved through soil amendments with these nanomaterials. The findings of this study are interesting in the context of useful utilization of residues in agricultural production and are supported by the similar reports previously published but with some new results. However, the presentation of the study could be further improved by revising the writing of the manuscript in the light of below suggestions. Some important information related to the methodology of this study is missing.

Keywords must not be the same as already used in the main title of the study

We corrected Soil amendments; Nanobiochar; Functional groups; Surface area; Zeta potential

 Abstract should be supplemented with some numerical values of some key findings

We improved

Line 40: change amounts to amount

Changed

Line 40: “The amounts of heavy metals in this area were very high and exceeded the permissible limit”. Mention the permissible limit with reference

We found in materials and methods acceptable limits, set by USEPA [25]  for agricultural soil.

Line 60: “Oleszczuk et al. ]8[“…… ???

We corrected

Information about the targeted crop/plant (canola) is not sufficient. It is suggested to write some more about the importance and recent status of this crop in the studied area specifically and in world generally

Canola cultivation in Egypt may provide an opportunity to overcome some of the local deficit in the production of vegetable edible oils. And for most of recent decades, the canola plant has become a highly productive crop of agro-economic importance throughout the world, where it is used as fodder and food and for fuel purposes [23].

Line 100: Ten surface samples from 0-20 cm depth were collected from Kafr El-Zayat area (latitude 30°40°N, 30°43°E) Gharbia Governorate, Egypt…. “ten surface sample of what?, also mention the time (month and year) of the sample collection. Instead of using the general term “area” more specific location (province/city etc.) should be mentioned

We improved

Line 122: mention the year

We added

Line 122: mention the variety/cultivar of canola

we added canola variety was Serw6

Line 132: Do you mean 10 Kg soil per pot was filled? if yes, rephrase this sentence to make the meaning clear

We correct to Canola seeds (Brassica napus) were sown in plastic pots containing 10 kg of soil each

Statistical analysis: was the data normally distributed? How the data was analyzed? Did you use analysis of variance? All this information should be brought in

We showed in the

Nine treatments were performed in a completely randomized experimental design with five replicates

All obtained data were analyzed statistically using SAS software. Duncan's Multiple Domain Test (DMRT) was used to compare treatments with a statistical significance level of P < 0.05.

Each mean value in the table should be accompanied with standard error

We added

Some references are not correct such as “R#32”

We corrected

32. Johnson, J. I.; Temple, K. L.Some variables affecting the measurement of catalase activity in soil. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proce. 1964, 28: 207–216.

The manuscript need significant improvement regarding English language, both in sentence structures and grammar

All manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and improved by Dr. Nermin Ibrahim; Email: nermeen.ibrahim@art.menofia.edu.eg; Ph.D in Applied Linguistics. Lecturer in Linguistics; Department of English language and literature, Faculty of Arts, and Menofia University,Egypt

Sincerely yours,

Esawy Mahmoud

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The revised manuscript is now significantly improved. I am happy to see the incorporation made by the authors. However, I still request the authors to cross-check once all the references and English editing.

Regards

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The revised manuscript is now significantly improved. I am happy to see the incorporation made by the authors. However, I still request the authors to cross-check once all the references and English editing.

We checked all references

and also the  manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Nermin Ibrahim;

Email: nermeen.ibrahim@art.menofia.edu.eg;

Ph.D in Applied Linguistics.

Lecturer in Linguistics; Department of English language and literature, Faculty of Arts, and Menofia University, Egypt

Sincerely yours,

Esawy Mahmoud

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS can be accepted after some correction

Although MS is greatly improved but there is some word mistake like December is written as Decimeter and so on. Therefore is still need for revision to remove the typos mistake.

The author may not answered the point no 7 of previous queries.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS can be accepted after some correction

Thank you

 

Although MS is greatly improved but there is some word mistake like December is written as Decimeter and so on. Therefore is still need for revision to remove the typos mistake.

We corrected

The author may not answer the point no 7 of previous queries.

7. In order to repeating the work by other workers, the methods use in this study need to be elaborate well.

We improved and added

Organic carbon of nWTR and soil was determined by Walkley and Black method after wet digestion process by 1N potassium dichromate (K₂Cr₂O₇) solution and concentrated sulphuric (H2SO4) according to Nelson and Sommers [28], from where organic matter was calculated. Organic matter (OM) = Organic carbon (%) ×1.724

Organic matter of nB was determined by combustion method as reported by Page et al. [29]

The surface morphology of the nB and nWTR samples was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) system JEOL (JSM-7610F FEG-SEM). Samples were first coated with a sputter coater with a conductive layer to minimize the charging. The functional groups of nB and nWTR samples were characterized using  Fourier transform infrared (FTIR- pectroscopy) [MATTSON 5000] using KBr as a sample medium to confirm FTIR spectra of these samples with wavelength between 400 cm^-1 to 4000 cm^-1. The mineralogical and chemical composition of nB and nWTR was identified by GNR X-ray  Diffractometer (APD 2000 PRO) using X-ray radiation with wavelength ℷ=1.54 Å, step size 0.05^◦ , and the diffraction peaks were reported between 2θ= 15^◦  and 2θ= 75^◦. The formed minerals were identified by matching with 2003-2004 CRYSTAL IMPACT, Bonn, Germany.

Sincerely yours,

Esawy Mahmoud

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend publication in this revised form. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript has been significantly improved. I recommend publication in this revised form.

thank you