Review Reports - Environmental Fate and Sustainable Management of Pesticides in Soils: A Critical Review Focusing on Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an extensive review of the environmental risks associated with pesticide losses to the soil during application.

The authors have highlighted the existence of a global technological gap in measuring pesticide residues in the soil. They also point out that some pesticides degrade into sub-residues that are more toxic than the original compounds.

The manuscript is well-organized, following a systematic analysis of the aspects under review. At the end, the authors provide suggestions and actions to consider for reducing environmental risks in the future.

However, the Authors should revise the text to avoid repeating the same concepts multiple times. Additionally, they could introduce aspects related to European Directive 2009/128/EC (which promotes the adoption of integrated pest management in the European region since the 2009) and European Directive 2009/127/EC (which mandates the revision of pesticide application machinery to ensure their full functionality, improve application quality, and reduce drift and pesticide losses to the soil).

Therefore, in my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication, but requires minor revision.

Some specific comments are provided below.

In my opinion, the last sentence in the abstract (rows 24–25) is not supported by the content of the manuscript, as no application method has been analyzed. Therefore, this sentence should be deleted.

In row35 there is an “1” that appears out of context.

In rows 66–70 and rows 88–90 the same concept is repeated almost with the same words. The Authors should revise the text to eliminate this repetition.

In rows 76–79 the Authors reference certain regulatory bodies and their functions. Similar reference are made in rows 412–414, 436–440 and 502–504. Moreover, the last two references appear in the same paragraph, which seems excessive and should be reconsidered.

At rows 96–99 objectives iii) and iv) of the manuscript are presented. The Authors should better highlight these objectives in the subsequent paragraphs and in the conclusions.

In rows 165–180, the transformation process of DDT is repeated twice. A single mention is sufficient. Additionally, the same process is repeated in rows 370–373.

In row 276 there are two “iii) points; the second one should be corrected to “iv)”.

In rows 471–472, the Authors refer to the opportunity to adopt ‘an integrated pest management approach’. Here, it is necessary to include a reference to European Directive 2009/128/EC.

In rows 506–510 the Authors again repeat the Sustainable Development Goals mentioned in lines 103–105. This repetition should be avoided.

In lines 526–527, there is an obvious statement: 'the bound residue of pesticide due to non-extractability cannot be extracted from soils.' It is self-evident that non-extractable substances cannot be extracted.

In rows 597–600 a reference to the sprayer machines is missing, even though they have a significant impact on the quality of the pesticide distribution.

In rows 642–645, the Authors could also reference to the TOPPS–Life project, which aims to provide guidelines to reduce losses of Plant Protection Products (PPP) to water (https://www.topps-life.org/topps-life-project.html).

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1

The manuscript is an extensive review of the environmental risks associated with pesticide losses to the soil during application.

Response: Thank you for your kind appreciation. The authors have revised the manuscript as per the specific suggestions of the reviewers.

Response: Thank you for your considerate comment. The authors are grateful for your kind evaluation.

Response: The authors are thankful for the insightful comment. We sincerely revise the manuscript to avoid any potential redundancy. In addition, the European Directive 2009/128/EC and European Directive 2009/127/EC have been amended in the revised manuscript to enhance the discussion of IMP and the sustainable application of pesticides in global agriculture.

All the changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted with red font color for easy spotting by the evaluators.

Therefore, in my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication, but requires minor revision.

Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for this considerate comment and appreciation. We did a meticulous revision as per the reviewer’s concern. All the revisions have been highlighted in red font color for easy spotting by the evaluators.

Some specific comments are provided below.

Response: Thanks for noting this concern and excellent suggestions. The spotted sentence has been deleted in the revised manuscript. Please see the revised abstract section (rows 22-23).

In row35 there is an “1” that appears out of context.

Response: We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. It has been corrected in the revised manuscript. It was the reference number 1, but mistakenly missing the third bracket. The correction was highlighted in red font color (row 34).

In rows 66–70 and rows 88–90 the same concept is repeated almost with the same words. The Authors should revise the text to eliminate this repetition.

Response: We sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. The spotted sentences in rows 88-90 have been modified to avoid potential redundancy. Please see revised rows 65-69, and 86-88 highlighted in red color.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. The authors apologize for this unintended redundancy. The spotted sentences in rows 76-79, 412-414, and 502-504 have been revised to avoid the redundancy of regulatory bodies. The details of the regulatory bodies are keeping only one section 8. Safety guidelines for pesticide and good agricultural practice. Please see rows 75-77, 462-463, 505-509, and 571-574. The changes are highlighted in red color.

At rows 96–99 objectives iii) and iv) of the manuscript are presented. The Authors should better highlight these objectives in the subsequent paragraphs and in the conclusions.

Response: We are sincerely thankful for the kind suggestions. Objectives iii) and iv) have been highlighted in later sections of the manuscript. In particular, we amended two new figures highlighting the key research gap and sustainable management of pesticides in soils. Please see Figures 8 and 9 of the revised manuscript.

In rows 165–180, the transformation process of DDT is repeated twice. A single mention is sufficient. Additionally, the same process is repeated in rows 370–373.

Response: Thank you for these excellent suggestions. The repetition in rows 165-180 has been revised. In addition, the DDT transformation process has been deleted from the spotted section in rows 370-373. All the changes are highlighted in red color in revised sections. Please see row 166-169, 174-177, 404-408.

In row 276 there are two “iii) points; the second one should be corrected to “iv)”.

Response: The authors are sincerely apologizing for this typo. The spotted typo has been corrected as iv) instead of iii). Please see the revision in red font color (rows 292-293).

In rows 471–472, the Authors refer to the opportunity to adopt ‘an integrated pest management approach’. Here, it is necessary to include a reference to European Directive 2009/128/EC.

Response: Thank you for your kind suggestion. The suggested reference (European Directive 2009/128/EC) has been included in the spotted section (rows 471-472) to validate the global acceptance of the IPM approach. Please see rows 540-545 and the revised reference list highlighted in red color.

In rows 506–510 the Authors again repeat the Sustainable Development Goals mentioned in lines 103–105. This repetition should be avoided.

Response: Thank you for noting this concern. To avoid the repetition of SDG, the inclusion from lines 103-105 (review methodology section) has been deleted, and those SDGs discussed only in one section 9 (9. Sustainable management of pesticides in soils). The changes are highlighted in red color (please see rows 99-102, and 576-581).

Response: The spotted line in 526-527 has been revised suitably to avoid ambiguity. Please see the revised lines 594-598 in the revised manuscript.

In rows 597–600 a reference to the sprayer machines is missing, even though they have a significant impact on the quality of the pesticide distribution.

Response: Thanks for noting a crucial point. The pesticide drift, spray, and losses are governed by the sprayer machine and its design. This point is incorporated in the spotted section (rows 597-600). Please see the revised line 664-671.

Response: Thank you for deciphering an excellent reference. The suggested reference has been included in the revised manuscript. Please see the revised reference list and the revised line 734-741.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

（1）The paper could benefit from the inclusion of more visual aids, such as charts and graphs, to provide a clearer illustration of pesticide migration, transformation, and residue in soil. For example, a spatial distribution map of pesticide residues could show how residues are distributed across different regions, while a metabolic pathway diagram could highlight the pathways and toxicity differences of various pesticides. These visuals would not only make the information more accessible and easier to understand but also improve the readability and persuasive power of the paper.

（2）The paper mentions future research directions in the final section, but this could be further elaborated and made more specific. For instance, more detailed research directions on pesticide monitoring and risk assessment could be proposed, such as developing new techniques and methods for pesticide detection, studying the mechanisms of pesticide migration and transformation in soil, and assessing the environmental and human health impacts of pesticide residues. These suggestions could provide valuable guidance for future research and underscore the academic and practical significance of the paper.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2

Response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for this insightful comment. As per suggestions, several visual presentations have been amended. For example, a spatial distribution map of pesticides and their movement through water (Figure 3), and the metabolic pathway (Figure 5), metabolic toxicity (Figure 6) has been amended and revised for a vivid presentation of global pesticide contamination and its consequences. Please see revised figures (fig. 3, fig. 5, and fig. 6).

Response: Thank you for your valuable insight. The detailed research direction was amended in a new Figure 9 during revision. The key points for sustainable management of pesticide contaminations including regular monitoring, global synchronization of safety guidance, and advanced and green remediation of pesticide-contaminated sites were highlighted. In addition, the revision was performed in section 9 and conclusion. Please see the revised figure and respective sections highlighted in red color. Earlier research has already meticulously suggested the management recommendations, thus, key research gaps are focused in this study to avoid any potential redundancy.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explored the environmental fate and sustainable management of pesticides in soil in the form of a review, and concluded that "residual uncertainty, secondary pollution, diverse fate and transport, and toxic metabolites were identified as key research pitfalls". However, the paper only summarizes the existing literature, and does not draw new viewpoints, nor does it have enlightening thoughts on pesticide management. Furthermore, the types of pesticides in this paper are very rich, and the standards in different countries are different, so the author's general analysis may not be rigorous.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3

Response: Thank you for your kind evaluation and observation regarding our submitted manuscript. We have provided a suitable revision as per the reviewer's suggestions.

However, the paper only summarizes the existing literature, and does not draw new viewpoints, nor does it have enlightening thoughts on pesticide management. Furthermore, the types of pesticides in this paper are very rich, and the standards in different countries are different, so the author's general analysis may not be rigorous.

Response: Thank you for your critical insight. The authors have agreed that the study is based on the existing literature and their key research gaps.

However, the review motivations and skimming of the research gap by sorting key findings and keywords have been provided in Figure 1 and Section 2. Review motivation and arrangement of literature (lines 98-128). Thus, we have identified the key research gap in the existing literature. Further, the transformation of toxic metabolites from parent pesticides was also meticulously described and presented in two separate figures (figure 5 and Figure 6). This is a pioneering approach concerning the safety guidance of pesticide studies.

In the conclusion and recommendation section, we have proposed several key recommendations for future studies (please see Figure 9 and section 9). In a nutshell, the existing research gap and future research direction has been focused for this study. Although pesticide chemistry and sustainable management is a giant thematic area for research and several studies (both research and review) have already been published. Thus, to avoid potential redundancy, we have squeezed the content of our manuscript and highlighted the research gap and future direction of pesticide safety guidance under the shed of global regulatory investigations (e.g., US-EPA, CODEX-EU, OECD, SANTE). A global synchronization is suggested to achieve the sustainable and efficient management of pesticide contamination in this current manuscript. Please see the revised manuscript with highlighted red font color and visual presentation for your kind consideration and vividness of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been greatly improved after being revised by the author, and it is recommended to accept this paper.

Author Response

The paper has been greatly improved after being revised by the author, and it is recommended to accept this paper.

Response: Thank you for your appreciation and for recommending the revised manuscript for acceptance. The authors are grateful for your time and insightful comments, which were truly helpful for the authors to revise the manuscript and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript during revision.

However, during round 2 revision, we addressed the suggestions and comments of the editor for fine-tuning and enhancement of the illustrations and figure quality of the revised manuscript.