New Advances in Nano-Enabled Weed Management Using Poly(Epsilon-Caprolactone)-Based Nanoherbicides: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author should change the title of the manuscript, abbreviation should not be included in the title. All manuscripts lack of line numbers which is too difficult for the reviewer to mention the line number for corrections. In the abstract section, the Author should explain briefly why this study is required to be conducted. Results presentations are not in scientific terms, it should be revised profoundly. Future directions are also not presented well overloaded text should be removed. it is in the introduction that needs more detail. I suggest that the author should provide more justification for your study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap in the abstract, introduction, and all other sections being filled) which should be improved upon before Acceptance. The manuscript has some typographical and grammatical s which must be corrected. Therefore, the authors have better get English language assistance to modify this manuscript. The abstract should contain some quantitative results/findings. The keywords provided by the authors are mainly derived from the main title. The authors should try to provide some different keywords. This would increase the visibility of the paper by search engines if accepted for publication by the journal. Don’t use the same word of dry again anad again. Authors should carefully review and revise the paragraph, considering the comments provided for clarity, accuracy, and grammatical correctness.

"reducing crop yields by more than 15%" should be "reducing crop yields by more than 15%." Comment: Add a period for proper punctuation.

 "due to in- creasing" should be "due to increasing." Comment: Remove the space and hyphen between "in-" and "creasing."

 "they reproduce rapidly, with litter moisture" is unclear. Comment: Clarify or rephrase this sentence to explain what is meant by "they" and "litter moisture."

 "synthesis and application of modified herbicides such as nanoherbicides for application in weed manage- ment" is fragmented. Comment: Correct the spacing and fragmentation for clarity. It should read, "synthesis and application of modified herbicides such as nanoherbicides for application in weed management."

 "new achievements in environment and agriculture" should be "new achievements in the environment and agriculture." Comment: Add the article "the" for proper grammar.

 "amount of harmful chemicals" should be "amounts of harmful chemicals." Comment: Use the plural form "amounts" to match the plural noun "chemicals."

 "ap- to encounter" is unclear. Comment: Correct this sentence fragment for clarity.

 "such as low yield amounts" should be "such as low crop yields." Comment: Clarify what is meant by "low yield amounts" by specifying "crop yields."

 "resulting decrease of dose and applications number" should be "resulting in a decrease in dose and the number of applications." Comment: Restructure the sentence for clarity.

 "which is resulted by environmental factors such a sunlight" should be "which result from environmental factors such as sunlight." Comment: Correct the verb tense and preposition for clarity.

 "some of the polymeric nanocarriers" should be "Some polymeric nanocarriers." Comment: Remove the unnecessary article "of" for clarity.

 "can go through the biological barriers including membranes and plant cell wall" should be "can penetrate biological barriers, including membranes and the plant cell wall." Comment: Clarify the sentence for better understanding.

 "resulted in a more efficiently delivery" should be "resulted in a more efficient delivery." Comment: Correct the adjective form for proper grammar.

 "Poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) is not water soluble" should be "Poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) is not water-soluble." Comment: Hyphenate "water-soluble" for accuracy.

 "synthesis from cheap materials" should be "synthesis using cheap materials." Comment: Clarify the relationship between synthesis and materials.

 "helping to minimize the chemical decomposition of herbicides" should be "helping minimize the chemical decomposition of herbicides." Comment: Remove the unnecessary "to" for proper grammar.

 

Table 1 presented not according to scientific standered must follow the rule and regulation?

The formate of text is also not uniform in the whole manuscript

It is strongly suggested to present Challenges in Weed management In graphical formate

Lot of data and text inserted into table 2, must repharse into standerd formate

The discussion need to revised and need to make it more focused based on results. Remove the overlapping information/statements. Interpretation was not justifiable, and should need to change. References are too old in the introduction and discussion section

 

The whole conclusion section should also need to rephrase 

quality of English should need to address 

Author Response

 

The comments were really helpful for improving the quality of the article. Many comments were received from five reviewers. Some of them were similar, some were different but there were also contradictory comments, for example about adding or removing information from sections. The overall modifications are listed below:

• English editing
• Modification of presentations;
• Modification and improvement of tables to meet standards and comments;
• Presenting references in the format of MDPI, both in the text and list of the references;
• Reducing the abstract’s length up to about 240 words;
• Reducing the volume of the sections 2 and 3, as the topic was PCL-based nanoherbicide, not weed management;
• Adding some information about commercialization of nanoherbicides;

The answers to comments of reviewer 1:

Comment-The author should change the title of the manuscript, abbreviation should not be included in the title.

answer: There is no abbreviation in the title.

Comment-All manuscripts lack of line numbers which is too difficult for the reviewer to mention the line number for corrections.

Answer: There were line numbers in the manuscript but it was missed in yours, may be due to some problems.

Comment-In the abstract section, the Author should explain briefly why this study is required to be conducted.

answer: (introduction) The current review aims to encourage agricultural or environmental researchers to conduct new researches on synthesis and application of modified herbicides such as nanoherbicides for application in weed management and provide a comprehensive foundation on the topic.

Comment-Results presentations are not in scientific terms, it should be revised profoundly.

answer: Right. Revised.

Comment-Future directions are also not presented well overloaded text should be removed. it is in the introduction that needs more detail. I suggest that the author should provide more justification for your study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap in the abstract, introduction, and all other sections being filled) which should be improved upon before Acceptance. 

Answer: added to the text (the ending of section 5).

Introduction: For the first time we have reviewed the new advances of nano-enabled weed management in agricultural systems using poly(epsilon-caprolactone)-based nanoherbicides to explain the current state of knowledge and highlight the main methodologies and research techniques.

Comment-The manuscript has some typographical and grammatical s which must be corrected. Therefore, the authors have better get English language assistance to modify this manuscript.

answer: Edited.

Comment-The abstract should contain some quantitative results/findings. The keywords provided by the authors are mainly derived from the main title. The authors should try to provide some different keywords. This would increase the visibility of the paper by search engines if accepted for publication by the journal. Don’t use the same word of dry again and again.

answer: Two other keywords added: environmental contamination; controlled release; Two keywords removed (which were included in title). 

Comment-Authors should carefully review and revise the paragraph, considering the comments provided for clarity, accuracy, and grammatical correctness.

answer: The following comments applied to the text.

1. "reducing crop yields by more than 15%" should be "reducing crop yields by more than 15%." Comment: Add a period for proper punctuation.
2. "due to in- creasing" should be "due to increasing." Comment: Remove the space and hyphen between "in-" and "creasing."
3. "they reproduce rapidly, with litter moisture" is unclear. Comment: Clarify or rephrase this sentence to explain what is meant by "they" and "litter moisture."
4. "synthesis and application of modified herbicides such as nanoherbicides for application in weed manage- ment" is fragmented. Comment: Correct the spacing and fragmentation for clarity. It should read, "synthesis and application of modified herbicides such as nanoherbicides for application in weed management."
5. "new achievements in environment and agriculture" should be "new achievements in the environment and agriculture." Comment: Add the article "the" for proper grammar.
6. "amount of harmful chemicals" should be "amounts of harmful chemicals." Comment: Use the plural form "amounts" to match the plural noun "chemicals."
7. "ap- to encounter" is unclear. Comment: Correct this sentence fragment for clarity.
8. "such as low yield amounts" should be "such as low crop yields." Comment: Clarify what is meant by "low yield amounts" by specifying "crop yields."
9. "resulting decrease of dose and applications number" should be "resulting in a decrease in dose and the number of applications." Comment: Restructure the sentence for clarity.
10. "which is resulted by environmental factors such a sunlight" should be "which result from environmental factors such as sunlight." Comment: Correct the verb tense and preposition for clarity.
11. "some of the polymeric nanocarriers" should be "Some polymeric nanocarriers." Comment: Remove the unnecessary article "of" for clarity.
12. "can go through the biological barriers including membranes and plant cell wall" should be "can penetrate biological barriers, including membranes and the plant cell wall." Comment: Clarify the sentence for better understanding.
13. "resulted in a more efficiently delivery" should be "resulted in a more efficient delivery." Comment: Correct the adjective form for proper grammar.
14. "Poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) is not water soluble" should be "Poly(epsilon-caprolactone) (PCL) is not water-soluble." Comment: Hyphenate "water-soluble" for accuracy.
15. "synthesis from cheap materials" should be "synthesis using cheap materials." Comment: Clarify the relationship between synthesis and materials.
16. "helping to minimize the chemical decomposition of herbicides" should be "helping minimize the chemical decomposition of herbicides." Comment: Remove the unnecessary "to" for proper grammar.

Comment-Table 1 presented not according to scientific standered must follow the rule and regulation?

answer: Modified

Comment-The formate of text is also not uniform in the whole manuscript

answer: Modified

Comment-It is strongly suggested to present Challenges in Weed management In graphical formate

answer: The other reviewers commented to reduce the length of this section as it is not the main focus of the topic. If you insist in presenting such a graphic, we could add it in next revision.

Comment-Lot of data and text inserted into table 2, must repharse into standerd formate

answer: Table modified

Comment-The discussion need to revised and need to make it more focused based on results. Remove the overlapping information/statements. Interpretation was not justifiable, and should need to change.

answer: Text modified. 

Comment-References are too old in the introduction and discussion section

answer: Some of the references updated and some of them removed.

Comment-The whole conclusion section should also need to rephrase 

answer: Text modified. 

Comment-quality of English should need to address

answer: English editing was done.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This review article, entitled "New advances of nano-enabled weed management: using poly(epsilon-caprolactone)-based nanoherbicides," requires major revision.

The topic is interesting; however, the manuscript should be improved.

1-     Table 1: I would suggest adding more information such as crops/weeds, and references. Furthermore, provides more information about herbicide doses.

 

2-     Part 6: I would suggest adding a table to summarize part 6. The table should include the types of nanomaterials, mode of action, crop/ weed, results, references, and structure. 

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comment 1-     Table 1: I would suggest adding more information such as crops/weeds, and references. Furthermore, provides more information about herbicide doses.

Answer: References and some information added to the table. The aim of the table is giving some general information about the diversity of nanoparticles which are using in agriculture sector and it is not the topic of this review, also more information could be found following the references. In Table 2 more information could be found. If it is necessary, we could add more information.

Comment 2-     Part 6: I would suggest adding a table to summarize part 6. The table should include the types of nanomaterials, mode of action, crop/ weed, results, references, and structure.

Answer: The information of part 6 are summarized in table 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review is very extensive in some points, but it is comprehensive. The authors talk about the advantages of nanoherbicides and compare them to conventional herbicides. But by having a very specific site, wouldn't the same thing happen with the wide range of ALS inhibitor herbicides to generate resistance quickly? With the information out there I would like to see something in the conclusions on this topic.

I also consider that the authors have omitted a very important section on the challenges in agricultural production, the toxicological risks to human health and the environment. The authors only talk about the benefits in these fields but numerous studies also talk about the other effects. I understand that this is not the aim of the review but it should be mentioned without taking sides on the issue.

I leave some additional remarks to the above comments that should also be addressed in the manuscript:

The abstract is very long, authors should reduce the number of words considerably and follow the guidelines for authors.

Lines 43-44: Weeds are not the only ones that endanger the whole crop, although it is true that they play an important role, it is one of the factors.

Lines 45-47: Give some examples of weeds to put readers in context as they are most problematic or point out the region where they are found.

table 1. authors should include the product or citation where the nanomaterials are supposed to be used.

Lineas78-81: it is indispensable that the authors indicate where this is mentioned, since it is intuited but it would be convenient to indicate where it is described in detail, not in a short form as indicated in the paragraph.

Lines 247-249: Support this statement as it is a very important point in the review.

The figures on page 11 are not referenced in the text, where these figures fit, in general the figures should have a legend capable of explaining what is happening in each one. This is a serious lack throughout the document, the descriptions and explanations are too short.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: The review is very extensive in some points, but it is comprehensive. The authors talk about the advantages of nanoherbicides and compare them to conventional herbicides. But by having a very specific site, wouldn't the same thing happen with the wide range of ALS inhibitor herbicides to generate resistance quickly? With the information out there I would like to see something in the conclusions on this topic.

Answer: In the text, we mentioned: “Nano-encapsulations decrease pesticide buildup in soil and prevent the emergence of weeds that are resistant to them. This is because employing herbicides that are encap-sulated in nanoparticles or using nanoparticles as herbicide carriers allows the active ingredient of an herbicide to be delivered directly to the target location of weeds. This lessens the likelihood of soil herbicide buildup.”

Comment: I also consider that the authors have omitted a very important section on the challenges in agricultural production, the toxicological risks to human health and the environment. The authors only talk about the benefits in these fields but numerous studies also talk about the other effects. I understand that this is not the aim of the review but it should be mentioned without taking sides on the issue.

Answer: In part 3, (3.2. herbicide residue) we talked about the toxicological problems in weed management.

In part 7, we talked about that the PCL polymer is biocompatible and harmless for human and environment and widely used in medicine for drug delivery. The title of section 7 changed to: “PCL polymer as an ecofriendly nanocarrier for herbicides”, also some information added to this section.

Comment: I leave some additional remarks to the above comments that should also be addressed in the manuscript: The abstract is very long, authors should reduce the number of words considerably and follow the guidelines for authors.

Answer: The number of words in abstract reduced from about 370 to 240.

Comment: Lines 43-44: Weeds are not the only ones that endanger the whole crop, although it is true that they play an important role, it is one of the factors.

Answer: It changed to: “. Weeds are one of the main factors threatening agriculture ….”

Comment: Lines 45-47: Give some examples of weeds to put readers in context as they are most problematic or point out the region where they are found.

Answer: Examples added.

Comment: table 1. authors should include the product or citation where the nanomaterials are supposed to be used.

Answer: The references added to the table.

Comment: Lineas78-81: it is indispensable that the authors indicate where this is mentioned, since it is intuited but it would be convenient to indicate where it is described in detail, not in a short form as indicated in the paragraph.

Comment: Lines 247-249: Support this statement as it is a very important point in the review.

Answer: An example added to the introduction to support the statement.

 

Comment: The figures on page 11 are not referenced in the text, where these figures fit, in general the figures should have a legend capable of explaining what is happening in each one. This is a serious lack throughout the document, the descriptions and explanations are too short.

Answer: Editted.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The review article is of utmost importance in the present precision agriculture and is well documented but the article can be improved like

1. The authors have not provided any scientific data graphically  or in tabulated form to support the review, so the research aspect of previous work should be added graphically or in tabulated form

2. The references cited inside the text and at the end are not as per the MDPI guidelines, so correct them 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The authors have not provided any scientific data graphically or in tabulated form to support the review, so the research aspect of previous work should be added graphically or in tabulated form

Answer: The previous works on the topic, PCL-based nanoherbicides are presented in table 2. There are not many researches on this topic. If another information about previous works are needed please explain it for us to be added if possible.

2. The references cited inside the text and at the end are not as per the MDPI guidelines, so correct them 

Answer: References in the text and in the list edited based on MDPI’s format.

-About the comments on the abstract: according to the comments of another reviewer, the abstract was too long and reduced to 240 words.

-keywords arranged in alphabetical order.

-about the comments on lines 532 and 693, the information is available in Table2 and referred to this table.

Other comments applied in the text.

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors brought up the topic of nano herbicides in a timely manner.  This will bring visibility about the nano herbicides and safety around them. There are two critical things that need to be addressed in this review paper: 

a) You should consider condensing the first four sections to one page and removing the extra information in those sections. The review should focus primarily on the nano herbicides. 

b) Add a paragraph explaining why there is a gap in the commercialization of nano herbicides and how we as scientists can address them and push to bring nano herbicides into the market

Please find the specific comments in the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Some of the sentences need rephrasing  

Author Response

The comments mentioned in the text of the manuscript applied. The two main comments are answered here:

1. a) You should consider condensing the first four sections to one page and removing the extra information in those sections. The review should focus primarily on the nano herbicides. 

About 570 words removed from the mentioned sections.

1. b) Add a paragraph explaining why there is a gap in the commercialization of nano herbicides and how we as scientists can address them and push to bring nano herbicides into the market

added to the end of section 5: Nowadays, there is lack of specific regulations and legislation about risk assessment. Nevertheless, there are a few organizations actively generating new bodies for regulating and monitoring safe application of nanoformulations. Many nano-formulated agrochemical products are introduced to the market that could be beneficial for meeting the increasing demands of food. Therefore, regulated use of nanotechnology following all safety and precautionary measures could revolutionize agriculture in near future (Ghosh 2022).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the revision completed by authors 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.