The Distribution and Pollution Pathway Analysis of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in a Typical Agricultural Plastic Greenhouse for Cultivated Vegetables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review this comprehensive and insightful article entitled “Distribution and Pollution Pathway Analysis of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in a Typical Agricultural Plastic Greenhouse for Cultivated Vegetables,” submitted for publication in Agriculture (MDPI). The article addresses the contamination and pathway analysis of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in agricultural plastic greenhouses.

General Comment: The study thoroughly analyses PFAA contamination in different components of plastic greenhouses. The article is rich in content, and the extensive data on various types and quantities offer significant insights into the pathway of PFAAs in agricultural plastic greenhouses. The work is interesting and well-written, with a clear objective and well-presented study. After a thorough evaluation, I have identified some strengths and areas for improvement in the manuscript. I suggest that this manuscript undergo minor revisions before being considered for publication. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions for revision:

·        The abstract should be improved by more effectively encapsulating the paper's background, objectives, results, and recommendations. Additionally, in the line "Previous studies investigating perfluoroalkyl acids... PFAA was always ignored" (lines 13-16), the term ‘previous studies’ needs clarification.

·        The Introduction and Materials and Methods sections are well-written, providing good information related to the topic and proper methodology.

·        In the tables and main body of the article, ensure consistency by verifying that there are one or two digits after the decimal point for numbers.

·        Does the age of the greenhouse effect PFAA concentration? The author mentioned the greenhouse age in Table 1 but did not describe it in the main body of the results or the discussion.

·        The manuscript lacks a discussion section. It is suggested to improve the discussion part with references to supporting published literature.

·        The Conclusions section is adequate but could be improved with corresponding data to support the conclusions regarding PFAA concentration.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is OK, however minor editing required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "agriculture-3089271" should be reconsidered for publication due to significant errors. The objective of the study is to identify the sources of contamination of PFAAs compounds in greenhouse systems in China. The following are some aspects that I consider necessary to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript: Abstract: It fulfills its purpose, however, the methodology used to carry out the study is not clearly presented, and the importance of the study is not sufficiently supported. Introduction: This section fulfills its purpose to a certain extent, some spelling errors should be corrected, as well as the establishment of references, however, it is necessary to establish reference criteria regarding contamination levels, so that readers have a basis to have a criterion of contamination. Methodology: The study handles several tables as complementary material, it is suggested that some of them be included in the main body of the paper, in general, the methodology is well established, in addition to the above, the tables should be self-explanatory, therefore, it is suggested to include footnotes in each one where the acronyms used are established. Results: In general, the figures should be improved, since they are very small and cannot be seen in detail, and the statistical part of the study needs to be improved, since there are assertions of significant differences; however, in the statistical analysis section there is no mention of any post hoc tests performed. Conclusions: The results apparently support the conclusions of the study, however, without conducting the necessary statistical tests, it is not possible to be sure of what is mentioned in this section. The specific comments were placed in the pdf file, in the yellow highlights.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf