Synthesis of Highly Intercalated Urea–Clay Nanocomposite via Pomegranate Peel Waste as Eco-Friendly Material

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       In the abstract section the U:Mt:PPP ratios measurement units should be clearly mentioned (mass ratios, molar ratios, etc.)

2.       Abbreviations should be explained prior to their use (see page 2, line 49, NUE).

3.       Typos mistakes: page 2, line 47 “kang and Wang”; line 54 “above literatures”; page 2, line 73 “In order to synthesis a novel”; page 4, line 153 ”XRD Low Angel analysis”. Please check the manuscript and correct it.

4.       Double references are introduced in some phrases (see page 2, lines 59-60).

5.       The last paragraph of Introduction section seems to be mostly a literature review than a paragraph emphasizing the novelty of this study. Please rephrase this section.

6.       No references for the chemical composition of the Mt is provided.

7.       Page 3, line 104:  it is not clear what “humidity 8 %” is meaning. Please be more specific.

8.       Page 3, line 107: the measurements units in “1.4-2 T/24 hs” are not clear.

9.       Details about the instruments used and most important data should be provided, without emphasizing step by step the procedures (see page 3, lines 118 – 122).

10.   Reference [28] is wrongly written (page 4, line 141)

11.   The SRU abbreviation is probably used in some statement to indicate the fertilizers (page 4, line 176), as it means something else.

12.   Are the XRD patterns in Figure 2 normalized. If so, how? Same question for the FTIR spectra in Figure 3.

13.   The N-H name in Figure 3 appears several times. If this belongs to different types of bonds, please indicate them differently.

14.   The authors are mentioning that “Release pattern data were shown as means ± standard deviation. Each treatment had 3 replicates. Statistical data analyses were performed using the student t-test.” but no numerical values and student t-test results are given in the manuscript.

Author Response

 Dear Editor and Reviewers 1,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing our article entitled " Synthesis the Slow Release Urea fertilizer by Eco-friendly Ma-2 terials and Screw press method ". Your comments have been valuable in improving the quality of our work. After considering your feedback we have made several revisions to address your comments.

1. In the abstract section the U:Mt:PPP ratios measurement units should be clearly mentioned (mass ratios, molar ratios, etc.)

Regarding your comment, the measurement units of the U:Mt:PPP ratio have been corrected in the abstract section.

2. Abbreviations should be explained prior to their use (see page 2, line 49, NUE).

Regarding your comment, the abbreviation NUE (page 2, line 49) has been corrected. 

3. Typos mistakes: page 2, line 47 “kang and Wang”; line 54 “above literatures”; page 2, line 73 “In order to synthesis a novel”; page 4, line 153 ”XRD Low Angel analysis”. Please check the manuscript and correct it.

Regarding your comment, the following corrections have been made: page 2, line 47; line 54; page 2, line 73; and page 4, line 153.

4. Double references are introduced in some phrases (see page 2, lines 59-60).

Regarding your comment, the double references introduced on page 2, lines 59-60, have been fully corrected.

5. The last paragraph of Introduction section seems to be mostly a literature review than a paragraph emphasizing the novelty of this study. Please rephrase this section.

Regarding your valuable comment, the last paragraph of the introduction section now presents an innovative aspect of this research.

6. No references for the chemical composition of the Mt is provided.

Regarding your comment, a reference has been provided for the chemical composition of the Mt.

7. Page 3, line 104: it is not clear what “humidity 8 %” is meaning. Please be more specific.

Regarding your comment, 8% humidity (page 3, line 104) refers to adding 8 ml of water to the material, which is equivalent to 8% of the total sample weight. This has been fully corrected in the article.

8. Page 3, line 107: the measurements units in “1.4-2 T/24 hs” are not clear.

Regarding your comment, the units of measurement (page 3, line 107) refer to the machine's production capacity of 2 tons per 24 hours. This has been fully corrected in the text.

9. Details about the instruments used and most important data should be provided, without emphasizing step by step the procedures (see page 3, lines 118 – 122).

Regarding your comment, the explanation related to this section (page 3, lines 118-122) has been completely removed from the article.

10. Reference [28] is wrongly written (page 4, line 141)

Regarding your comment, the reference (page 4, line 141) was a typo and has been corrected.

11. The SRU abbreviation is probably used in some statement to indicate the fertilizers (page 4, line 176), as it means something else.

Regarding your comment, the abbreviation SRU (page 4, line 176) stands for slow-release urea fertilizer. This has been corrected in the article.

12. Are the XRD patterns in Figure 2 normalized. If so, how? Same question for the FTIR spectra in Figure 3.

Regarding your valuable comment, XRD normal means the angle range in which the XRD analysis was taken, so this correction was made in the text.

13. The N-H name in Figure 3 appears several times. If this belongs to different types of bonds, please indicate them differently.

Regarding your comment, the N-H bond appears multiple times in Figure 3, indicating that the bond is the same but appears at different wavelengths due to different interactions. The author's goal is to highlight these bonds and their interactions.

14. The authors are mentioning that “Release pattern data were shown as means ± standard deviation. Each treatment had 3 replicates. Statistical data analyses were performed using the student t-test.” but no numerical values and student t-test results are given in the manuscript.

Regarding your valuable comment, Tukey's test was performed instead of t-test so that the significance can be shown as letters on the curves of Figure 6 . 

We hope that these changes are satisfactory, however, if there is a need for further editing, we would be happy to make any additional changes that you suggest.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the opportunity to review this paper, which addresses an intriguing topic with potentially valuable observations. However, I believe it lacks sufficient novelty, making it essential for the authors to clearly articulate the problem statement and significance of their research. Overall, I see potential for publication after substantial revisions. Below are my specific comments:
- Novelty and Contribution: The authors should explicitly define the novelty of their study and discuss how it contributes to the existing literature in the introduction.
- Statistical Analysis: The section on statistical analysis needs to be clearer and more detailed. Please provide additional context and methodology.
- Unit Conversion: Please convert the units from PSi to MPa for consistency with international standards.
- XRD Graphs: Include the indexing of the peaks in the XRD graphs to enhance clarity. 
- Standard Deviation: Provide the standard deviation for all data points in Figure 6 to give a better understanding of the variability in your results.
- Conclusion: The conclusion should be closely aligned with the results presented. Please ensure it includes specific values.
Thank you for your efforts, and I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several typographical and grammatical errors in the text, the manuscript should be revised in terms of grammatical rules by a native English speaker. There is not sufficient cohesion and unity in the text, especially the abstract.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers 2,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing our article entitled " Synthesis the Slow Release Urea fertilizer by Eco-friendly Ma-2 terials and Screw press method ". Your comments have been valuable in improving the quality of our work.     

After considering your feedback we have made several revisions to address your comments.

I appreciated the opportunity to review this paper, which addresses an intriguing topic with potentially valuable observations. However, I believe it lacks sufficient novelty, making it essential for the authors to clearly articulate the problem statement and significance of their research. Overall, I see potential for publication after substantial revisions. Below are my specific comments:
1- Novelty and Contribution: The authors should explicitly define the novelty of their study and discuss how it contributes to the existing literature in the introduction.

Regarding your comment, the last paragraph of the introduction section now presents an innovative aspect of this research.

2- Statistical Analysis: The section on statistical analysis needs to be clearer and more detailed. Please provide additional context and methodology.

Regarding your comment, the statistic analysis section has been completed.

3- Unit Conversion: Please convert the units from PSi to MPa for consistency with international standards.

Regarding your comment, the PSi unit is used only once in the article (page 3, lines 127-131). The author has decided to remove it as it was deemed unnecessary.

4- XRD Graphs: Include the indexing of the peaks in the XRD graphs to enhance clarity. 

 Regarding your comment, the XRD diagrams have been updated to include peak indexing for increased clarity.

5- Standard Deviation: Provide the standard deviation for all data points in Figure 6 to give a better understanding of the variability in your results.

Regarding your comment, standard deviation has been included for all data points in Figure 6.

6- Conclusion: The conclusion should be closely aligned with the results presented. Please ensure it includes specific values.

Regarding your valuable comment, we have endeavored to provide a comprehensive conclusion by presenting consistent results and specific values.

We hope that these changes are satisfactory, however, if there is a need for further editing, we would be happy to make any additional changes that you suggest.

Best Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Synthesis the Slow Release Urea fertilizer by Eco-friendly Ma-2 terials and Screw press method

Authors: Abolfazl Teimouri Yanehsari, Hossein Sabahi, Yousef Jahani, Mohammad Hossein Mahmoodi and Farzaneh Shalileh 

 

Manuscript Number: agriculture-3267904-peer-review-v1

 

General comments:

I have carefully read the submitted manuscript entitled "Synthesis the Slow Release Urea fertilizer by Eco-friendly Ma-2 terials and Screw press method" and I must admit that the research presented in it has high application potential and is at a very good scientific level. The authors of the manuscript presented research on the slow release of U to the soil. The author is suggested to provide specific discussion to enhance the readability of the paper. The statistical analysis must be provide in the main body of the paper. The manuscript mainly requires some corrections to facilitate the interpretation of research results. The most important comments are presented below:

 

Specific comments:

Title:

The author is suggested to revise the title and modified it more scientifically.

 

Graphical abstract:

The author must provide the graphical abstract to ease the reading.

 

Highlights and keywords:

1. The author is suggested to provide the highlights of the paper that the reader can easily catch the summary of the current paper. 2. Decrease the word count of the keywords.  

Abstract:

1.   The author is suggested to avoid the words “I, our, etc.” in the abstract and the whole manuscript. 2.   The inter-layer space is increased in F1, F2, and F3 while it was decreased in the treatment F4. the author should provide specific reason. 3.   The author is suggested to provide the concluding remarks at the end of the abstract.

 

Introduction section:

In my opinion, this section should discuss in more detail about the slow release mechanism of urea to the plants and what are the diffidence of the current materials and existing materials regarding applying to the soil.

1. Paragraph one is discussing the release of ammonia and reducing NEU which have impact on air quality, the author is suggested to discuss that either this emission and reduction is beneficial or harmful 2. Paragraph two is only containing the output of previous litterateur, the author is suggested to provide their concluding remarks about their output. 3. The author must elaborate the novelty of the current research as the novelty is weak.

Materials and Methods:

1.   In materials and methods the author is suggested to merge the sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 under the subtitle of “characterization of fertilizer” 2.   The student t-Test was done, the author is suggested to provide the software name.   Results and discussion: 1.  In section 3.2, “Accordingly, the results of 213 normal and low-angle XRD are consistent with the release pattern” the author must provide the citation.  2.   In section 3.3, the author should discuss the importance of mentioned FTIR spectra in the produced materials.   Discussion: The author is suggested to elaborate the discussion of the manuscript.

 

Other comments:

1.    Revise the English of the manuscript with native person. 2.    Modify the caption of the figures 3.    It is suggested to provide the table of the output of current research. 4.    No statistical analysis were seen in the current format. 5.    Update the citation of the manuscript. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need a bit improvement 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers 3,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing our article entitled " Synthesis the Slow Release Urea fertilizer by Eco-friendly Ma-2 terials and Screw press method ". Your comments have been valuable in improving the quality of our work.     

After considering your feedback we have made several revisions to address your comments.

Specific comments:

1-Title:

The author is suggested to revise the title and modified it more scientifically.

 

 Regarding your comment, the article title has been modified.

2-Graphical abstract:

The author must provide the graphical abstract to ease the reading.

Regarding your comment, the graphical abstract has been attached to the article.

3-Highlights and keywords:

1. The author is suggested to provide the highlights of the paper that the reader can easily catch the summary of the current paper.
2. Decrease the word count of the keywords.  

Regarding your comment, the paper highlights have been attached to the article, and the number of keywords has been reduced.

4-Abstract:

1. The author is suggested to avoid the words “I, our, etc.” in the abstract and the whole manuscript.
2. The inter-layer space is increased in F1, F2, and F3 while it was decreased in the treatment F4. the author should provide specific reason.
3. The author is suggested to provide the concluding remarks at the end of the abstract.

 

Regarding your comment,

1. First-person pronouns (e.g., "I," "our") have been removed from the abstract and the entire manuscript.
2. The abstract now includes an explanation for the reduced distance between layers: In treatment F4, the lowest amount of Mt and the highest amount of PPP led to increased spacing between Mt layers due to heat and pectin gelation, potentially resulting in complete exfoliation.
3. A conclusion has been added to the abstract section.

5-Introduction section:

In my opinion, this section should discuss in more detail about the slow release mechanism of urea to the plants and what are the diffidence of the current materials and existing materials regarding applying to the soil.

1. Paragraph one is discussing the release of ammonia and reducing NEU which have impact on air quality, the author is suggested to discuss that either this emission and reduction is beneficial or harmful
2. Paragraph two is only containing the output of previous litterateur, the author is suggested to provide their concluding remarks about their output.
3. The author must elaborate the novelty of the current research as the novelty is weak.

 

Regarding your comment,

1. Paragraph one now describes the harmful effects of ammonia emissions and reduced nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Paragraph two summarizes and presents the outputs of manufactured fertilizers.
3. The last paragraph of the introduction section now presents an innovative aspect of this research.

6-Materials and Methods:

1. In materials and methods the author is suggested to merge the sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 under the subtitle of “characterization of fertilizer” 
2. The student t-Test was done, the author is suggested to provide the software name.

 

  Regarding your comment,

1. Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 have been merged under the subheading "Fertilizer Identification."
2. Tukey's test was performed instead of t-test so that the significance can be shown as letters on the curves of Figure 6 . Software name was also added

 

 

7-  Results and discussion:

1. In section 3.2, “Accordingly, the results of normal and low-angle XRD are consistent with the release pattern” the author must provide the citation.
2. In section 3.3, the author should discuss the importance of mentioned FTIR spectra in the produced materials.

 

   Regarding your comment,

1. The suitable citation was added
2. The author discussed the importance of FTIR spectra in the Discussion section, rather than in section 3.3.

 

8-Discussion:

 The author is suggested to elaborate the discussion of the manuscript.

 

Regarding your comment, a Discussion section has been added to the manuscript.

9-Other comments:

1.  Revise the English of the manuscript with native person.
2.  Modify the caption of the figures
3.  It is suggested to provide the table of the output of current research.
4.  No statistical analysis were seen in the current format.
5.  Update the citation of the manuscript.

 

Regarding your comment,

1-The manuscript's English has been corrected by a native speaker.

2-Figure descriptions have been reviewed and corrected.

3-The output table of the current research has been included.

4-Statistical analysis has been added to the manuscript.

5-Manuscript citations have been updated.

We hope that these changes are satisfactory, however, if there is a need for further editing, we would be happy to make any additional changes that you suggest.

Best Regards

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.       Page 3, line 171: “Characterization fertilizer” is not clear. Please rephrase.

2.       No version of the SPSS software is given. Same remark for Excel.

3.       The SRU abbreviation stands for “Slow release urea” in the manuscript, ant not for “slow release urea fertilizer” as suggested by the authors (see page12, line 582 compared with page 13, line 644). Please be more consistent.

4.       Normalization of XRD patterns (as well as  FTIR spectra) is not related to the angle in which the XRD analysis was taken. Consequently, the question about how the normalization of these analyses was carried out is still under discussion.

5.       The authors added “a 8% water (8 mL)”, but no information about how is expressed that percentage (mass, mole, volume) is provided.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and attention in reviewing our article entitled " Synthesis of highly intercalated urea-clay nanocomposite via pomegranate peel waste as eco-friendly materials". Your comments have been valuable in improving the quality of our work. After considering your feedback we have made several revisions to address your valuable comments as below:

 

1-Page 3, line 171: “Characterization fertilizer” is not clear. Please rephrase.

Regarding your valuable comment. the subtitle was corrected.

 

2. No version of the SPSS software is given. Same remark for Excel.

Regarding your valuable comment. the version of softwares were added.

 

3. The SRU abbreviation stands for “Slow release urea” in the manuscript, ant not for “slow release urea fertilizer” as suggested by the authors (see page12, line 582 compared with page 13, line 644). Please be more consistent.

Regarding your valuable comment. abbreviation of SRU was uniform throughout the text.

 

4. Normalization of XRD patterns (as well as FTIR spectra) is not related to the angle in which the XRD analysis was taken. Consequently, the question about how the normalization of these analyses was carried out is still under discussion.

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In order to draw the XRD and FTIR curves, we used the original data of the XRD and FTIR Instruments, so, no normalization was done. For clarity, the pdf diagrams that these instruments gave us have been attached.

 

5. The authors added “a 8% water (8 mL)”, but no information about how is expressed that percentage (mass, mole, volume) is provided.

Regarding your valuable comment. the dimension of water percentage was expressed.

 

Best regards