Pesticide Pollution: Detrimental Outcomes and Possible Mechanisms of Fish Exposure to Common Organophosphates and Triazines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Khatib et al. review the multiple impacts of pesticide pollution (organophosphates and triazines) on fish. The article shows publication merit. However, some points must be improved. Please see my comments below:
- Title: okay; no comment.
- Abstract: the abstract is appropriate:
- Graphical abstract: correct “DNA dtrand breaks” to “DNA strand breaks”. This is a nice figure. On note, it could be captioned and included in the body of the manuscript.
- Introduction, first paragraph: it would be interesting to mention the top-10 countries in pesticide use.
- Introduction, second paragraph: I suggest adding the detrimental impacts of pesticides on the fish immune system, and comment on how this can affect susceptibility to pathogens, especially parasites.
- Introduction, last paragraph: I suggest changing “critical review” to “narrative review”. I also suggest stress that the review is focused on Central and East Europe. Alternatively, the authors can change the title of the second section of the review to "Spatial distribution of common pesticides in water bodies" since they also present data from other parts of the world (this would be my choice). In this case, I suggest adding some data on pesticide pollution from Latin America, especially Brazil.
- General comment 1 (links to WebPages): I suggest citing in the body of the text only the general reference of the information source (e.g., “Agency/data source, year”) and mentioning the reference link in full in the reference list. In addition, it is important for authors to mention the date of access to each link (in the reference list, together with the webpage link).
- General comment 2 (acronyms): many acronyms are used directly, without specifying their meanings in advance. This should be reviewed throughout the text.
- General comment 3 (scientific names): the scientific names of fish should be revised throughout the text. According to basic taxonomic rules, the full scientific name must be cited the first time it appears in the text. In the following times, the genus must be abbreviated and only the species written in full, always both in italics.
- Second section: it is important to mention, even briefly, the deleterious impacts of pesticides on farmers and applicators who handle pesticides in their daily working routines.
- Page 5, line 221: change to “Pesticide pollution is a worldwide problem, and powerful enought…”.
- Page 6, lines 243-249: please check the text formatting.
- Page 7, line 324: change “pretend” to another word. Pretend is a false cognate.
- Page 8, lines 362-367: What do the authors refer to when they say “DNA instability”? DNA damage, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations? It is important to specify this.
- Page 11, lines 487-488: please add some references supporting this information.
- Section “Organophosphate and triazine pesticides adverse effects for fish”, a general comment: please add more information concerning the effects of pesticides on DNA damage.
- Page 14, lines 528-530: please add references supporting this information. Also, remove “Obviously”.
- Section “Immunomodulatory and inflammatory effects of organophosphate and triazine pesticides”: please add some information regarding the effect of pesticides on the immune system and the consequent effects on susceptibility to pathogens.
- General comment 4 (gene names): gene names must be written capitalized and in italics. Please, revise it throughout the article. Protein names must be written capitalized only. Note: this is the general rule for human genes. I think this is applied also for fish, but I am not 100% sure. Please, check this before correction.
- Conclusions and outlook: add some suggestions to mitigate pesticide pollution and its impacts on ecosystems.
Author Response
Responses to reviewers of the manuscript
“Pesticide pollution: detrimental outcomes and possible mechanisms of fish exposure to common organophosphates and triazines”
submitted to the Journal of Xenobiotics
Responses to all reviewers
We would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for the positive assessment of our work and for the detailed and constructive comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. All comments were taken into account and the respective changes made as detailed below and marked in red in the text (Please see the attachment).
Comment: Khatib et al. review the multiple impacts of pesticide pollution (organophosphates and triazines) on fish. The article shows publication merit. However, some points must be improved. Please see my comments below:
- Title: okay; no comment.
- Abstract: the abstract is appropriate:
- Graphical abstract: correct “DNA dtrand breaks” to “DNA strand breaks”. This is a nice figure. On note, it could be captioned and included in the body of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for the pleasant words. The minor correction was done.
Comment: Introduction, first paragraph: it would be interesting to mention the top-10 countries in pesticide use.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: Introduction, second paragraph: I suggest adding the detrimental impacts of pesticides on the fish immune system, and comment on how this can affect susceptibility to pathogens, especially parasites.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: Introduction, last paragraph: I suggest changing “critical review” to “narrative review”. I also suggest stress that the review is focused on Central and East Europe. Alternatively, the authors can change the title of the second section of the review to "Spatial distribution of common pesticides in water bodies" since they also present data from other parts of the world (this would be my choice). In this case, I suggest adding some data on pesticide pollution from Latin America, especially Brazil.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The suggested point was revised according to the recommendation of the reviewer. Also, we have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: General comment 1 (links to WebPages): I suggest citing in the body of the text only the general reference of the information source (e.g., “Agency/data source, year”) and mentioning the reference link in full in the reference list. In addition, it is important for authors to mention the date of access to each link (in the reference list, together with the webpage link).
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done.
Comment: General comment 2 (acronyms): many acronyms are used directly, without specifying their meanings in advance. This should be reviewed throughout the text.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done and the list of abbreviation was prepared and inserted so as facilitate understanding.
Comment: General comment 3 (scientific names): the scientific names of fish should be revised throughout the text. According to basic taxonomic rules, the full scientific name must be cited the first time it appears in the text. In the following times, the genus must be abbreviated and only the species written in full, always both in italics.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done.
Comment: Second section: it is important to mention, even briefly, the deleterious impacts of pesticides on farmers and applicators who handle pesticides in their daily working routines.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: Page 5, line 221: change to “Pesticide pollution is a worldwide problem, and powerful enought…”.
Done
- Page 6, lines 243-249: please check the text formatting.
Done
- Page 7, line 324: change “pretend” to another word. Pretend is a false cognate.
Done
- Page 8, lines 362-367: What do the authors refer to when they say “DNA instability”? DNA damage, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations? It is important to specify this.
Done
- Page 11, lines 487-488: please add some references supporting this information.
Done
Comment:- Section “Organophosphate and triazine pesticides adverse effects for fish”, a general comment: please add more information concerning the effects of pesticides on DNA damage.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
- Page 14, lines 528-530: please add references supporting this information. Also, remove “Obviously”.
Done
Comment: Section “Immunomodulatory and inflammatory effects of organophosphate and triazine pesticides”: please add some information regarding the effect of pesticides on the immune system and the consequent effects on susceptibility to pathogens.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: General comment 4 (gene names): gene names must be written capitalized and in italics. Please, revise it throughout the article. Protein names must be written capitalized only. Note: this is the general rule for human genes. I think this is applied also for fish, but I am not 100% sure. Please, check this before correction.
Response: All gene names were given in the capital as the appropriate form for animals
Reviewer 2 Report
After reading the article, I notice its limitations:
1. The mechanism of action of organophosphates compounds, which in addition to inhibiting AChE activity, also inhibits the activity of other enzymes which contain serine, e.g. lipases, trypsins… - needs to be discussed.
2. Organophosphates compounds disrupt the endocrine and biochemical function of the pancreas and disrupt the insulin secretion process - this should be discussed in section 4.
3. The lack of reference to disturbances in carbohydrate metabolism, which has been shown in both animal and human studies.
4. Studies in fish showing the effect of glyphosate on histopathological changes in gills, liver and heart were not included.
5. In line with the title, the authors should limit themselves to discussing organophosphates and triazines pesticides (organochlorine pesticides, eg DDT, were not the subject of this article - lines: 330-334).
6. Wrong way of citing the reference throughout the work.
7. References section - formatting inconsistent with the journal's guidelines.
8. The article should be properly formatted (different font sizes, no table number ...).
Author Response
Responses to reviewers of the manuscript
“Pesticide pollution: detrimental outcomes and possible mechanisms of fish exposure to common organophosphates and triazines”
submitted to the Journal of Xenobiotics
Responses to all reviewers
We would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for the positive assessment of our work and for the detailed and constructive comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. All comments were taken into account and the respective changes made as detailed below and marked in red in the text (Please see the attachment).
Comments for the Author:
Comment: The mechanism of action of organophosphates compounds, which in addition to inhibiting AChE activity, also inhibits the activity of other enzymes which contain serine, e.g. lipases, trypsins… - needs to be discussed.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: 2. Organophosphates compounds disrupt the endocrine and biochemical function of the pancreas and disrupt the insulin secretion process - this should be discussed in section 4.
- The lack of reference to disturbances in carbohydrate metabolism, which has been shown in both animal and human studies.
Thank you so much for your valuable comments. For sure, the variation in the carbohydrate metabolism under the action of organophosphate and triazine pesticides is very important issue, indeed. There are some very interesting papers in the field relating to carbohydrate cellular metabolism, hyperglycemia, diabetes, insulin secretion, and so on, but mostly on mammals and humans. Teleosts pretend to be the alternative model for hyperglycaemia mechanisms studies because of similar reactions in organisms (e.g., shown in Danio rerio) to those in humans. It would be interesting to dig deeper into this point in the lab. To-date, there are not too many papers devoted to the issue in fish and, therefore, this section was omitted.
Comment: 4. Studies in fish showing the effect of glyphosate on histopathological changes in gills, liver and heart were not included.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added the correspondent information and references as well to the text. The changes were highlighted.
Comment: 5. In line with the title, the authors should limit themselves to discussing organophosphates and triazines pesticides (organochlorine pesticides, eg DDT, were not the subject of this article - lines: 330-334).
Response: Thank you for this comment. Meanwhile, we would rather keep this information as the additional one which might be helpful in the understanding of the value of organophosphate and triazine pesticides’ bioaccumulation when compared to other common chemicals.
Comment: 6. Wrong way of citing the reference throughout the work.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done.
Comment: 7. References section - formatting inconsistent with the journal's guidelines.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done.
Comment: 8. The article should be properly formatted (different font sizes, no table number ...).
Response: Thank you for this comment. The formatting was done.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to reviewers of the manuscript
“Pesticide pollution: detrimental outcomes and possible mechanisms of fish exposure to common organophosphates and triazines”
submitted to the Journal of Xenobiotics
Responses to all reviewers
We would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for the positive assessment of our work and for the detailed and constructive comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. All comments were taken into account and the respective changes made as detailed below and marked in red in the text (Please see the attachment).
- Comments for the Author:
Comment: Please add more information about the toxic effects of neonicotinoid insecticides in aquatic models
- Stara, A., Bellinvia, R., Velisek, J., Strouhova, A., Kouba, A., & Faggio, C. (2019). Acute exposure of common yabby (Cherax destructor) to the neonicotinoid pesticide. Science of the total environment, 665, 718-723.;
- Stara, A., Pagano, M., Capillo, G., Fabrello, J., Sandova, M., Albano, M., ... & Faggio, C. (2020). Acute effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on Mytilus galloprovincialis: A case study with the active compound thiacloprid and the commercial formulation calypso 480 SC. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 203, 110980.;
- Stara, A., Pagano, M., Albano, M., Savoca, S., Di Bella, G., Albergamo, A., ... & Faggio, C. (2021). Effects of long-term exposure of Mytilus galloprovincialis to thiacloprid: A multibiomarker approach. Environmental Pollution, 289, 117892.
Response. Thank you so much for your valuable piece of advice. If only we study neonicotinoid insecticides using Mytilus as a model, we will certainly refer to these important findings. Meanwhile, the present one elaborates mainly on the biomarker responses in fish exposed to organophosphate and triazine pesticides
Comment: The scientific name of the species must be given in full, genus and species, without abbreviations. For example: J. multidentata
Response. Thank you, changed as suggested.
Comment: Maybe it would be easy to follow if the studied indicators were presented in tables. Thus, the paper could be read more easily
Response. Thank you, the list with the main abbreviations has been incorporated in the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My suggestions have been satisfactorily considered by the authors.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind words.
Reviewer 2 Report
After reading the presented version, I notice that not all comments of the reviewer were explained and taken into account (e.g. the influence of organophosphorus compounds on the endocrine and biochemical function of the pancreas was not discussed, bad formatting of the references - e.g. no journal abbreviation at item 192 and many others. ...). Due to the above, I believe that the article is still not suitable for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your valuable comments.
The corrections have been made according to the reviewer's suggestion and are marked green. All references were also made consistent with the rules.
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the manuscript titled: Pesticide pollution: detrimental outcomes and possible mechanisms of fish exposure to common organophosphates and triazinesAuthors: Ihab Khatib, Piotr Rychter, Halina Falfushynska has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in JoX.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your kind words.
