Detection of Tomato Leaf Pesticide Residues Based on Fluorescence Spectrum and Hyper-Spectrum
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper "Detection of tomato leaf pesticide residues based on fluorescence spectrum and hyper-spectrum" discusses innovative methods for rapid and nondestructive pesticide residue detection using fluorescence spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging. While the paper is well-structured, the authors should follow the recommendations below to enhance the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
- The introduction does not adequately discuss recent advancements in spectroscopy and machine learning, leaving the context incomplete and lacking depth in framing the novelty of the study.
- Figures 5 and 7 are of low resolution and poorly labeled, which reduces their effectiveness in conveying the information. This affects the clarity of the results and hinders proper interpretation by the reader.
- The methodology section is descriptive, but it fails to justify the choice of algorithms like SVM, PCA, and LSSVM, and the SPA wavelength extraction technique. This weakens the scientific rigor and leaves readers questioning the rationale behind these choices.
- Phrases such as "In this study, the online detection of benzyl-pyrazolate residues in tomato leaves was investigated by using fluorescence spectrometry and hyperspectrometry at the same time" are repetitive and could be rephrased for conciseness.
- Some sentences lack clarity, particularly those describing the methodology and equipment setup.
- The results, while comprehensive, lack sufficient comparative analysis between fluorescence spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging. The presentation is limited in its ability to showcase clear advantages or distinctions between the techniques used.
- The study lacks originality as it revisits methods already explored in similar works. The authors have not sufficiently highlighted the unique contributions or new perspectives brought by their research, which makes it less impactful.
- The references are overly concentrated on a narrow pool of literature, limiting the global perspective of the study. A broader, more diverse set of references would enhance the paper’s credibility and relevance.
- Overall, while the study addresses an important topic, it needs significant improvements in its justification of methods, presentation of results, and emphasis on originality to make a stronger scientific contribution.
Author Response
1.Question: The introduction does not adequately discuss recent advancements in spectroscopy and machine learning, leaving the context incomplete and lacking depth in framing the novelty of the study.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. In this study, non-destructive detection of pesticide residues in tomato leaves was conducted based on spectral technology. The current cutting-edge spectral technology and the latest algorithm are not well understood, so we will conduct in-depth research on spectral technology and algorithm in the next paper.
2.Question: Figures 5 and 7 are of low resolution and poorly labeled, which reduces their effectiveness in conveying the information. This affects the clarity of the results and hinders proper interpretation by the reader.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. The already configured pesticides were configured with different concentrations, poured into the pressure watering can for the same pressure spraying, and left for the same time to collect spectral information after the surface was dried.
3.Question: The methodology section is descriptive, but it fails to justify the choice of algorithms like SVM, PCA, and LSSVM, and the SPA wavelength extraction technique. This weakens the scientific rigor and leaves readers questioning the rationale behind these choices.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. Through the above description of the methods, the model of these methods is established. The evaluation criteria of models are basically the same. All of them were evaluated by observing R, RMESEC and other values. Therefore, the above methods can be judged by the description of this paper.
4.Question: Phrases such as "In this study, the online detection of benzyl-pyrazolate residues in tomato leaves was investigated by using fluorescence spectrometry and hyperspectrometry at the same time" are repetitive and could be rephrased for conciseness.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. The simultaneous on-line detection of benzyl pyrazolate residue in tomato leaves by fluorescence spectrometry and hyperspectrometry is also intended to strictly explain the specific method, and it is not recommended to shorten or change the method for explanation.
5.Question: Some sentences lack clarity, particularly those describing the methodology and equipment setup.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. Note If the specific device model and configuration scheme are not fully described in the main text, they are clearly displayed in the table.
6.Question: The results, while comprehensive, lack sufficient comparative analysis between fluorescence spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging. The presentation is limited in its ability to showcase clear advantages or distinctions between the techniques used.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. In the process of comparative analysis with fluorescence spectra and hyperspectra, because fluorescence spectra can be graphically established directly from spectral values. However, hyperspectral images require software for two-dimensional digital processing, spectral data extraction in the spectral image, and then spectral data image establishment.
7.Question: The study lacks originality as it revisits methods already explored in similar works. The authors have not sufficiently highlighted the unique contributions or new perspectives brought by their research, which makes it less impactful.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. At present, there are many research papers on the analysis of pesticide residues in crops by spectroscopic technology, but there are few papers comparing fluorescence spectra with hyperspectra at the same time. Moreover, different qualitative and quantitative methods based on the two spectral models are compared, which are also relatively novel.
8.Question: The references are overly concentrated on a narrow pool of literature, limiting the global perspective of the study. A broader, more diverse set of references would enhance the paper’s credibility and relevance.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. In this study, non-destructive detection of pesticide residues in tomato leaves was conducted based on spectral technology. In the process of reading the references, I mainly searched and read the spectroscopic technology and pesticide residue detection methods. In the follow-up research, I will increase the scope of reading and learn more research methods.
9.Question: Overall, while the study addresses an important topic, it needs significant improvements in its justification of methods, presentation of results, and emphasis on originality to make a stronger scientific contribution.
Response：Thank you for your careful review. At the same time, thank you for your recognition of the research content of this paper. This paper has made a variety of arrangement and combination methods for the selection of qualitative discrimination model and quantitative prediction model of spectral data, which is also rare in other papers. For other methods that are lacking in the field of spectral analysis, such as spectral analysis algorithms. I will continue to study it in depth, which will be reflected in the next paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and suggestions are included in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1.Question: R2 (abstract): it needs be corrected using a superindex
Response：Thank you for your careful review. I have processed R2 with upper corner marking.
2.Question: I recommend you to use more bibliography to justify the background. For example……
Response: Thank you for your careful review, and I have made a reference supplement to your suggestions. Specific references have been cited in the text and supplemented in the references.
3.Question: In this long sentence, it is recommended to use short sentences to a better
understanding
Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have broken up long sentences to make them easier for readers to read.
4.Question: Figures: some figures have a small size in axis numbers. It is recommended to use a bigger size (i.e figures 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). R2 (results): it needs be corrected using a superindex. In my opinion, in the results section there is a lot of explanatory information about the models that should be transferred to the methodology section.
Response: Thank you for your careful review. Due to the large fluctuation of the spectral curve, the difference between the highest peak and the lowest peak is large, if the spectral band is displayed in full, it needs to be displayed according to the existing coordinate values.
5.Question: Was the Control group sprayed with only autoclaved water or without water? Explain it. What were the steps to follow from when the leaves were harvested until the
fungicide was applied? At what time of the day did they harvest? there was
conservation, storage... Why was the benzyl-pyrazole ester chosen and why that concentration? Have you tried other pesticides?
Response: Thank you for your careful review. The already configured pesticides were configured with different concentrations, poured into the pressure watering can for the same pressure spraying, and left for the same time to collect spectral information after the surface was dried. This pesticide is chosen because benzoprazole has a particularly good feedback on spectral information, and the spectral model is also significant. In the process of the experiment, three kinds of pesticides and different concentrations of the same method experiments were carried out, and through comparative experimental analysis, benzopyrazolate was finally selected as the optimal pesticide for model establishment and analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for addressing our remarks. However, the changes made are not sufficient, and many issues remain unresolved in the paper. I do not see significant improvement. Please pay close attention to the following points and address them thoroughly:
Remark 1 (Introduction):
The response does not directly address the issue raised for the current paper. The introduction remains incomplete and lacks the necessary depth and context.
Remark 2 (Figures' Quality):
The quality of the figures has not been improved. Please ensure that they are clear, high-resolution, and well-labeled.
Remark 3 (Justification of Methods):
The response does not provide scientific justification for the selection of methods and algorithms. This weakens the methodological rigor.
Remark 4 (Repetitive Phrases):
Repetition in the text could still be minimized for conciseness, even if it is necessary to explain the methods.
Remark 5 (Clarity in Methodology):
Although you partially addressed the lack of clarity, improvements in the sentence structure and overall explanation in the text are still needed.
Remark 6 (Comparative Analysis of Results):
The comparative analysis between fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging techniques remains insufficient and needs to be strengthened.
Remark 7 (Study Originality):
The response partially addresses this comment but does not sufficiently highlight the study's unique contributions. Please emphasize the novelty and impact of your research more clearly.
Remark 8 (Diversity of References):
The references are still concentrated within a narrow pool of literature. Expanding the diversity of references will enhance the paper's credibility and relevance.
Remark 9 (Overall Scientific Contribution):
The broader scientific contribution of the paper remains unconvincing. Please provide a stronger justification of methods, improved results presentation, and a clearer emphasis on the originality of your work.
We hope you will consider these remarks carefully and make the necessary revisions to improve the quality of the paper.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Remark 1 (Introduction):
The response does not directly address the issue raised for the current paper. The introduction remains incomplete and lacks the necessary depth and context.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. Through reading and thinking carefully, I have added the in-depth background that is lacking in the introduction of this paper.
Remark 2 (Figures' Quality):
The quality of the figures has not been improved. Please ensure that they are clear, high-resolution, and well-labeled.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. I have modified the unclear graph in the article and made it clear.
Remark 3 (Justification of Methods):
The response does not provide scientific justification for the selection of methods and algorithms. This weakens the methodological rigor.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. For the processing of spectral data, after pretreatment, the quantitative prediction model and qualitative discrimination model are established on the basis of it. For both models, the evaluation indexes are the same. In the process of the establishment of the two models, I read the literature and record the methods that have been used. Because the methods used by predecessors have not achieved good model effects, I arrange and combine the existing methods before establishing the model, so as to obtain better model processing effects.
Remark 4 (Repetitive Phrases):
Repetition in the text could still be minimized for conciseness, even if it is necessary to explain the methods.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. We apologize for the difficulty in reading the text due to the redundancy of the text. I have revised the redundant parts of the article.
Remark 5 (Clarity in Methodology):
Although you partially addressed the lack of clarity, improvements in the sentence structure and overall explanation in the text are still needed.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. After careful reading, I have corrected the unreasonable sentence structure and inappropriate position of the text as a whole.
Remark 6 (Comparative Analysis of Results):
The comparative analysis between fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging techniques remains insufficient and needs to be strengthened.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. I have added a new comparative analysis of fluorescence spectrum and hyperspectrum in the paper, and the theoretical analysis described in the present paper is sufficient to explain the comparative analysis of the two spectra fully and clearly.
Remark 7 (Study Originality):
The response partially addresses this comment but does not sufficiently highlight the study's unique contributions. Please emphasize the novelty and impact of your research more clearly.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. This study is based on the study of pesticide residues in tomato by spectroscopic technology. In this paper, near infrared spectroscopy and laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy are used for non-destructive detection of pesticide residues on the surface of tomato leaves. It was tested by spectral technology, and its novelty was reflected in the spectral data processing and spectral model establishment in the later stage of the paper experiment. After preprocessing the two kinds of spectral data, in the qualitative model and quantitative model establishment process, multiple methods were used to arrange and combine, multiple methods were combined simultaneously, and multi-level algorithm was used to optimize the data for comparative analysis and processing. The influence of this study is reflected in the non-destructive pesticide residues in tomatoes, providing a new sustainable method and providing a reference for the future safety period of tomato pesticides.
Remark 8 (Diversity of References):
The references are still concentrated within a narrow pool of literature. Expanding the diversity of references will enhance the paper's credibility and relevance.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. In view of the reason that the literature pool is too small, I have deepened and widened the literature pool.
Remark 9 (Overall Scientific Contribution):
The broader scientific contribution of the paper remains unconvincing. Please provide a stronger justification of methods, improved results presentation, and a clearer emphasis on the originality of your work.
Reply：Thank you for your careful review. Through the comparison of near infrared and fluorescence spectra in this study, the evaluation indexes of qualitative model and quantitative model can be compared to judge the merits and disadvantages of the model. Moreover, we can also know the quality of the data in this study through the discrete graph in the latter part of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter doing some suggested changes and answer the questions made correctly, the manuscript is appropiate to publish in Horticulturae.
Author Response
Thank you for your careful review
