Mitigating the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Crop Farming: A Nanotechnological Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review focused on the current Covid-19 pandemic’s considerable impact on crop farming, as well as a nanotechnological mitigation approach that seems fascinating and instructive. Minor comments are attached.

1.       The author might provide examples of structures for each dimensional classification in Figure 1.

2.       In line 313, ‘various delivery techniques of nanomaterials include foliar spraying, seed priming and coating, irrigation and the use of hydroponics’. The author can go into further description about these delivery techniques and how they are applied in crop farming. 

3.       Concerns have been raised about the potential toxicological effects of nanomaterials on the environment and human health as they are consumed. As a result, the author should include additional examples of any toxicological testing (in-vivo and in-vitro) that has been performed.

Comments:

Overall, this is an interesting study, and the manuscript is generally well-written and structured.  The introduction is relevant and highlights gaps in the current understanding based. This paper gives a clear idea on why this topic (nanotechnological approach on mitigating the Impacts of Covid-19 pandemic on crop farming) was carried out by stating the research aim. However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings and I have some questions that should be addressed in modifications to the text, which I include here below.

1.         In line 161, Section 3, the author does not clearly explain or elaborate on how nanotechnology mitigating COVID-19 impacts on food security and the potential of nanotechnology on addressing the three major challenges caused by COVID-19 outbreak. More examples or detailed discussions should be provided to resolve the issues.

2.         Sufficient information about the nanomaterials, its classification, and the application of nanotechnology for crop improvement is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale. Relevant and recent literature on nanomaterials for crop farming was provided. In several instances I suggested to cite more relevant literature on precision farming as I believe this technique is very useful for coping the food security and manpower issues.

3.         A lack of discussion of delivery techniques of nanomaterials as mentioned In line 313, ‘various delivery techniques of nanomaterials include foliar spraying, seed priming and coating, irrigation and the use of hydroponics’. The author can go into further describe about these delivery techniques (pros and cons) and how they are actually applied in agriculture.

4.         Concerns have been raised about the potential toxicological effects of nanomaterials on the environment and human health as they are consumed. As a result, the author should include additional examples of any toxicological testing (in-vivo and in-vitro) that have been performed.

5.         More illustration examples of structures for each dimensional classification in Figure 1 should preferably be provided.

6.         The conclusion is not very conclusive as there is evidence that nanotechnology improving food security, but no evidence confirming that nanotechnology mitigate the impacts of Covid-10 on crop farming.

7. The cited references are relevant.

Author Response

Response to comments in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has focused on a very important topic however it is suggested to add newer technologies which have been adapted by society after COVID 19. The manuscript is still focusing on the already existing nanodevices.

Also there are many grammatical mistakes therefore validated software for grammar checking is highly recommended. Kindly ensure the appropriate usage of syntax and punctuations.  

Line 164 -add comma after ‘food availability’ and same as line 168, 182..Avoid this mistake throughout the manuscript

Author is requested to add more recent research trend in each sections. Add recent citations

Line 306, 319 remove ‘.’ From heading

Improve the quality of fig 2, 4

Line 345- Add recent citation

Line 346- remove comma

It is suggested to merge the table in all for crop production and protection rather than using small tables for each section separately, including newer citations

Always use italics for representation for scientific names of plants, bacteria, fungus (411, 385, 407, 568, 575, 580, )..ensure it throughout the manuscript

It is suggested to authors to add one paragraph of direct and indirect role of nanotechnologies for speeding up production after COVID-19, since these technologies were already practised before pandemic in many countries. What are the basic adaptations, strategies and regulation s have been formed after COVID by EU. Add those points in short. What kind of consumer acceptance has emerged after COVID19 for nanomaterials.

Author Response

Response to comments in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Mitigating the Impacts of Covid-19 Pandemic on Crop Farming: A nanotechnological approach

This article is focused on the concepts of using nanotechnology in agricultural applications. There are several concerns that need to be addressed before I can support the article for publication in this journal.

1.     I cannot recognize the relationship between the title and the content of the article. Regarding the topic, I was looking forward to finding solutions to reduce the negative effects of the covid-19 pandemic on agricultural applications using nanotechnology. However, this paper mostly focuses on the applications of nanotechnology in agriculture and does not specify how nanotechnology is going to affect the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on crop farming.

2.     It is neglected to explain how the authors determined the impacts of the use of nanotechnology on agricultural applications affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, in both qualitative and quantitative approaches. It is necessary to compare some of the study cases before and after the epidemic in detail.

3.     The review papers should draw an updated figure of the status of its subject in 

4.     This article contains many unnecessary explanations and explanations that can easily be found in general references. I suggest authors remove those parts or at least put them in a supplementary information file.

Author Response

Response in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewers' comments have not been satisfactorily addressed in the revised version.

My previous concerns still remain with this article.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

I have attended to your comments to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you.