Global Warming and Toxicity Impacts: Peanuts in Georgia, USA Using Life Cycle Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript narrates a compelling story of oral and dermal potential impacts 11 from pesticides emission and the global warming potential (GWP) impact from ?2? that is released 12 from fertilizers

 The choice of some of the experiments for this story is acceptable. This experiment is fascinating and useful, but the author has not adequately explained the contribution of this study to the research field. Moreover, why the author choose N2O and corelated with pesticides.

Although this is an interesting set of experiments with potentially useful results, the writing/presentation of this work is not compelling enough.The authors seem to be unable to distinguish content that fits the different sections of the manuscript. There are sentences in the results that should have been in the discussion or the introduction.

There are also some unwarranted introductory and explanatory sentences in the materials and methods sections. Furthermore, I understand and empathise with the authors for the fact that English might not be their first language. However, I would suggest that they seek help from a language editing service or a colleague whose first language is English to help them rewrite this manuscript. There are several places where the grammar is poor, making the sentences unintelligible.

I would like to offer some specific comments here that could help the authors ameliorate their manuscript. Title needs to rewrite and avoid the abbreviation in the title ad make it concise. Please briefly write down background of the study in your abstract. Abstract needs significant improvement. Please avoid repeating similar things in the abstract. Please add the conclusion and future direction in the abstract. Please highlight the novelty of your work and draw the concrete conclusion. The Introduction was weak. Significance and background of study is not well written. Most of cited references are old. Maybe these references help the authors,DOI: 10.1002/bab.2263, DOI: 10.3390/plants9111552, DOI:10.1007/s11356-018-3588-4 The authors should start with why each of the indicators they investigated was important and relevant, but I think a more convincing argument should be why those concentrations were selected. what’s the environmental relevant concentration and threshold level of these pesticides. Some latest literature might have been missed, please make sure to update your references. Please see this reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.06.015,, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052742. Furthermore,  the authors must emphasize the significance of studying. the discussion is less coherent and comprehensive. A comprehensive, overall summary should be included at the end of the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title is adequate for the content, informative, concise, and clear. All important and essential information are included in the abstract.
2. problematic and issues must be clearly defined in the introduction.--> authors must include a paragraph that defines the objectives and hypothesis
3. I have the impression that this paper is a part of thesis (maybe a chapter). that is not harmful but some world must be eliminated in the texte such as (Chapter 2, line 247).
4. Interpretations are sound and consistent with the article lines.
5. The materials and methods used to gather the data for this article were clearly explained and were sufficiently informative to allow replication of the experiment.
6. The results were clearly presented,  sectioned, and reported objectively. The tables and figures were well organized and would stand alone to the average reader. The conclusions were based on the findings and logically stated.
7. Ifound some missing letters in the texte (such as "s", "viper"(line 233 ), i encourage authors to read again the paper before resubmitting 
8.  (Pesticide Toxicity and Hazard, n.d.)line 259 this reference must be defined

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all queries. Manuscript should be accepted for publication.