A Comprehensive Review of Plastics in Agricultural Soils: A Case Study of Castilla y León (Spain) Farmlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

All review points have been addressed.

A minor comment. Line 316 mentions 'substantial literature', but you only give 2 references. You either need to provide more references or be careful how you describe literature. There are several instances of this throughout. 

Author Response

Please see attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This review used a case study to illustrate the occurrence and distribution of plastics/microplastics in agricultural soils. This is an excellent manuscript that systematically reviewed the impact of MPs on soil properties, subsidiary agricultural quality and crop production, as well as identified the future research areas, which is suggested to be accepted after minor revision.

 

Main issues:

1.       Some sentences are too long and a bit confusing. It’s difficult to follow and needed to be simplified. Such as, L 18-21,

2.       The number of the keywords is suggested to be 3-5, or specifically according to journal requirements.

3.       The introductory part is lengthy and non-informative and the logic is muddled, in my opinion. It should be corrected carefully. The authors should explain more clearly why they used MPs in CYL region as a case study, and the relationship with the MPs pollution in Spain, or that in agricultural soils.

4.       In each section, there were a lot content and paragraphs, it is therefore suggested to add appropriate subheadings to make this easier to follow.

5.       Section 3. Occurrence of plastics in agricultural soils: the case of CYL. However, the first four paragraph were not relevant to this subheading.

6.       In Table 1, Plastic waste generated by agriculture, livestock, hunting and forestry by region in Spain. For people who aren't Spanish, it’s probably not familiar with these regions. It is therefore suggested to add a map, which is also useful for the understand of the following figures (4-8).

7.       L 364-366, It’s difficult to follow. What’s the meaning of “be conceptualized as a three-dimensional, spatial phenomenon”?

8.       I don't quite understand the section 5, in particular the field survey part about sampling and analyzing of two benchmark soils. Whether it is appropriate to include a specific experimental result in a review? And what the meaning of the field survey results or what role it plays in the topic of this review？

9.       L 465-468, Relevant references are required to support this statement.

10.    Unify the format of reference through the whole MS.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a useful paper that analyzes the impact of crops on plastic contaminated soil. This paper requires further refinement for publication.

1. References for figures used.

2. Physical properties for analyzed soils

3. Need analytical images, such as SEM, related to plastic removal.

4. Analysis of chemical or physical effects associated with the removal. Requires scientific analysis using graphs.

5. Need to present results with scientific evidence and analysis.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the paper with interest, It should be pointed out that the current research work benefits from an interesting topic and the resulting observations can be helpful.
the review done an exceptional informations in presenting a comprehensive overview of the impact of plastics on agricultural soils. Their meticulous research and thorough analysis of the existing literature provide invaluable insights into the various ways plastics are affecting soil quality, plant growth, and ecosystem health. The clarity with which they have structured the review allows readers to navigate through complex information with ease.

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. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

This is very comprehensive review regarding problems of microplastics in soil and related problems. I suggest you to reduce the number of sentences in your conclusion part. 

I appriciate your hard work.

Regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall, the manuscript is in very poor condition and is not suitable for publication. There are many major shortcoming that must be addressed before the review process can continue. Some of the main areas of attention are provided below, however, the entire manuscript needs to be re-worked.

Line 17 - Metamorphosis is probably not the best word to use

Line 32 - Needs to make a stronger first impression.

Line 33 - The use of 'fossil' is too ambiguous in this context. If you mean crude oil fossil fuels, you need to state this clearly. However, plastics are derived from crude oil without being a fossil fuel in their own right.

Lines 32 to 35 - Needs a reference

Line 37 - What type of films?

Line 38 - If soil is the 'usual' receptor, what are the others? This line also needs a reference.

Line 41 - What's the question? You can't make a statement without supporting it.

Lines 42 to 46 - Needs a reference. How do you know this? Where did you get it from?

Line 46 - Figure 1 has nothing to do with this statement.

Line 47 - 'Several studies' need at least 3 references, You've provided a couple.

Lines 51 to 55 - Needs references

Line 62 - Why is it' co-called'? Don't you believe it?

Line 72 - Needs a reference

The introduction needs a lot of work. There is no clear logical flow between sections, figures are not placed in the right context, the language used is not appropriate for a published article, there is a major need for more references throughout, and you don't seem to understand the difference between macro, micro, and nano plastics. There's no justification in this section for the rest of the study. Why are you doing this study?

Line 106 - This is not enough context for figure 2.

Figures need to be closer to their in-text reference.

Section 2 does not clearly present any of the methods used. This section is providing more background to the introduction.

Line 145 - You say 'studies' but only provide 1 reference. Are there multiple studies or has just person suggested this?

Section 4 needs to have a critical evaluation. It's just descriptive with too few references.

Figure 9 is not referred to in the main text.

Due to the poor quality of communication, the conclusions are not supported.

English language is typically correct, however, the way in which it is used needs to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is related to the removal of microplastics from agricultural land and we believe it has useful information.

However, there is a lack of scientific evidence and results related to plastic removal, so please re-publish after further analysis.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Generally, this is a major improvement. Be careful with English language and grammar as there are many areas in each paragraph that don't follow the correct syntax. 

The legend of figure 1 needs a lot more detail. a legend should be a stand-alone piece of text that walks the reader through the all processes and parts of the figure.

Section 2 heading - extraction of what?

Is this a review article or a research article? There is no contribution to primary research here. It's only describing and reporting on an aspect of agriculture as a review article would do.

Figure 2 serves no purpose. This could be described in the text.

Towards the end, you make recommendations, but you haven't said how you've come to those. The tone of the article is that of a review paper. If you're trying to make recommendations to change practices, you need to give the methods you've used to collect, sort, and eliminate literature. There are too many different article styles in one article. You need to re-structure this and make it clearer.

English language needs to be addressed as there are too may throw-away words that are not required and do not follow the correct grammar.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx