Artificial Sweeteners in Aquatic Ecosystems: Occurrence, Sources and Effects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agreed to review this manuscript because it is an interesting and timely topic. I am not a chemist, but rather a biologist interested in the impact of these chemicals on aquatic species.

The manuscript is well-written, but I found myself really wanting more information to understand the implications and details. The article was surprisingly short and mostly consisted of tables.

Everything through line 80 seemed appropriate.  For the listed chemicals, I have no idea how closely related they are (e.g., do they differ by only one carbon? entire structure?). Showing the chemical structures might help with this.

Figure 1 is not useful at all and should be removed.

Table 1: I am not sure I like this table, especially covering 2+ pages. There are so few studies that we are examining the distribution of global scientists as much as the distribution of chemicals. Having a map of counties studied might help, but I would lose the focus on countries.

Table 2: There is so much going on in this table, that I found myself lost. First, I would like to know more about the animals as not all are familiar to me. Are they crabs? insects? large or microscopic? adults or larvae? etc. Were they all tested in lab or are some studied in field? What about comparisons among chemicals for a specific species? 

There are also effects that lose me - example: having increased SOD activity. You define SOD but not what it is actually does to a crab. 

This manuscript has the potential to be impactful and highly cited. As it stands, there is so much missing material that the authors will likely cite the original research only as they will need to check out every article to obtain sufficient details.

Finally, the Conclusions section is not strong enough. This is a "scare" article to encourage more funding and research. Unfortunately, I'm not scared enough with this draft.  To me, it came across as interesting but not something to really worry about.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the pertinent suggestions, which we have carefully addressed. These contributions have allowed us to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to the review.

-I agreed to review this manuscript because it is an interesting and timely topic. I am not a chemist, but rather a biologist interested in the impact of these chemicals on aquatic species.

 

-The manuscript is well-written, but I found myself really wanting more information to understand the implications and details. The article was surprisingly short and mostly consisted of tables.

 

-Everything through line 80 seemed appropriate.  For the listed chemicals, I have no idea how closely related they are (e.g., do they differ by only one carbon? entire structure?). Showing the chemical structures might help with this.

Response

A table has been added with the molecular structure and properties of the main artificial sweeteners.

 

-Figure 1 is not useful at all and should be removed.

Response

"We sincerely thank the reviewer for the comment regarding Figure 1. We understand the concern; however, we kindly consider that the figure plays an important role in the manuscript, as it visually summarizes the pathway by which artificial sweeteners may reach different ecosystems. In our view, this graphical representation helps readers better understand both the potential sources and the environmental fate of these compounds, complementing the textual description. For this reason, we believe that retaining Figure 1 strengthens the clarity and accessibility of the manuscript."

 

-Table 1: I am not sure I like this table, especially covering 2+ pages. There are so few studies that we are examining the distribution of global scientists as much as the distribution of chemicals. Having a map of counties studied might help, but I would lose the focus on countries.

Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment regarding Table 1. The purpose of presenting the information in this format was to highlight not only the presence of artificial sweeteners across different environmental matrices, but also to provide a comparative overview of the countries where these compounds have been reported. Our intention is to illustrate geographic trends and emphasize which sweeteners appear to be more predominant in certain regions compared to others, thus allowing the reader to contextualize differences in monitoring efforts and environmental relevance worldwide.

We agree that a complementary visualization, such as a map, could further enhance clarity. However, we consider it important to retain the country-specific information, as it enables readers to identify research gaps and regional patterns that might otherwise be overlooked in a purely spatial representation.

 

-Table 2: There is so much going on in this table, that I found myself lost. First, I would like to know more about the animals as not all are familiar to me. Are they crabs? insects? large or microscopic? adults or larvae? etc. Were they all tested in lab or are some studied in field? What about comparisons among chemicals for a specific species?

Response

The type of animal that each organism is and whether it belongs to freshwater or saltwater has been added to the table 2.

The following references have been added regarding algae, aquatic plants, and cyanobacteria:

KOBETIČOVÁ, K.; MOCOVÁ, K.A.; MRHÁLKOVÁ, L.; PETROVÁ, Š. Effects of Artificial Sweeteners on Lemna Minor. Czech Journal of Food Sciences 2018, 36, 386–391, doi:10.17221/413/2016-CJFS.

Lillicrap, A.; Langford, K.; Tollefsen, K.E. Bioconcentration of the Intense Sweetener Sucralose in a Multitrophic Battery of Aquatic Organisms. Environ Toxicol Chem 2011, 30, 673–681, doi:10.1002/etc.433.

Stolte, S.; Steudte, S.; Schebb, N.H.; Willenberg, I.; Stepnowski, P. Ecotoxicity of Artificial Sweeteners and Stevioside. Environ Int 2013, 60, 123–127, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.08.010.

 

-There are also effects that lose me - example: having increased SOD activity. You define SOD but not what it is actually does to a crab.

Response

New version

Line 244-249:

In Table 2, freshwater fish such as Cyprinus carpio and Carassius auratus showed an increase in SOD activity after Ace-K exposure. This increase has also been observed after exposure to other emerging pollutants such as ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, and sulfadiazine [76]. The increase in SOD could be related to the increase in superoxide anion, which is catalyzed by SOD, producing oxygen and H2O2 [76].

 

-This manuscript has the potential to be impactful and highly cited. As it stands, there is so much missing material that the authors will likely cite the original research only as they will need to check out every article to obtain sufficient details.

 

-Finally, the Conclusions section is not strong enough. This is a "scare" article to encourage more funding and research. Unfortunately, I'm not scared enough with this draft.  To me, it came across as interesting but not something to really worry about.

Previous version

The growing global consumption of artificial sweeteners, driven by demand for low-calorie products and health concerns, has contributed to their classification as emerging pollutants due to their persistent presence in various environmental matrices. Their low metabolism rate and the limited effectiveness of conventional wastewater treatments have facilitated the accumulation of artificial sweeteners in the environment, with sucralose and ACE-K being the most commonly detected compounds. Even in cases where certain sweeteners degrade relatively quickly, their continuous introduction into the environment through domestic and industrial discharges gives them a pseudo-persistent character, which exacerbates their potential ecological impact and reinforces the need for their monitoring and control. Although their concentrations are usually low (ng–µg L⁻¹), multiple studies have shown that they can cause physiological, neurological, reproduc-tive, and behavioral effects in aquatic organisms, even at levels close to those found in the environment, which represents a significant ecological risk. However, most of this re-search has been conducted in freshwater ecosystems, while studies in marine environ-ments are scarce and fragmentary, preventing an adequate characterization of the envi-ronmental risk in the latter. Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote research aimed at evaluating the behavior, persistence, and ecotoxicological effects of these compounds in marine and coastal ecosystems. Similarly, it is important to strengthen environmental regulation, implement advanced water treatment technologies, and promote mechanis-tical studies based on high throughput molecular approaches to better understand their long-term impact on population dynamics.

 

New version

Line 279-302:

The rapidly increasing global consumption of artificial sweeteners, driven by the rising demand for low-calorie products and health concerns, has dangerously escalated their classification as emerging pollutants due to their relentless and persistent presence contaminating multiple en-vironmental matrices. Their extremely low metabolism rate combined with the alarming ineffi-ciency of conventional wastewater treatments has allowed artificial sweeteners to accumulate unchecked in the environment, with sucralose and ACE-K emerging as the most frequently de-tected and concerning compounds. Even when some sweeteners degrade relatively quickly, their continuous and unregulated release into the environment through domestic and industrial dis-charges gives them a pseudo-persistent nature that amplifies their potential for severe ecological damage, underscoring the critical need for strict monitoring and control. Although their concen-trations are typically low (ng–µg L⁻¹), numerous studies have revealed that they can trigger profound physiological, neurological, reproductive, and behavioral disturbances in aquatic or-ganisms at levels alarmingly close to those currently found in the environment, signaling a sig-nificant and growing ecological threat. Yet, the majority of these investigations have been limited to freshwater ecosystems, while studies focusing on marine environments remain scarce and fragmented, leaving a dangerous gap that prevents comprehensive assessment of the environ-mental risks in these vital habitats. Consequently, there is an urgent and non-negotiable need to promote research focused on understanding the behavior, persistence, and ecotoxicological effects of these compounds in marine and coastal ecosystems before irreversible damage occurs. Like-wise, it is crucial to reinforce environmental regulations, implement advanced water treatment technologies, and encourage mechanistic studies utilizing high-throughput molecular approaches to fully comprehend their long-term impacts on population dynamics and ecosystem stability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 77 Search criterion  III) identification of limitations in wastewater treatment plants. The use of the term ‘limitations’ is incorrect and biased for a scientific search profile. It should be more neutral, such as 'performance rate'.

Lines 78 and 79. Search criterion V) use of aquatic organisms in exposure tests. The standard wording here is not ‘exposure tests’, but something like ‘(eco)toxicity tests’.

Lines 133-159.  The text on removal rates in WWTP is highly fragmented and unbalanced. For example, data on removal rates in conventional WWTP are not given. And the information on innovative, potentially more effective removal techniques is simply dropped in a few sentences without discussion.

Line 167. The high sea water concentration of 50.2 ug/L has reference number 35, whereas in Table 1 it is 33. On top of that, reference 33 (nor 35) seems to refer to Chinese waters as suggested in Table 1, but the titles of the publication refer to other regions/countries.

There seems to be more incorrect in Table 1, as the 120 ug/L cyclamate concentration of in seawater from Korea refers to a study (39) that seems to focus on another sweetener according to the title of the publication.

Only single figures are presented in Table 1. Are these maximum levels, minimum levels, P95 levels, …..?  This is not an objective and scientific way of presenting monitoring data.

Lines 173-198. This is all highly speculative as data from different countries (different conditions) are combined when drawing conclusions.

Lines 202-207. A plea is made for more marine effect testing. The reasoning, however, is poor. The few seawater concentrations given in Table 1 are indeed quite high, but any additional information on conditions, etc. is lacking. Furthermore, reference 41 shows very low cyclamate concentrations in Spanish coastal waters suggesting the opposite. I really doubt whether the marine environment is the compartment of concern for the environmental impact of sweeteners due to high dilution rates, etc.

Line 239. Different trophic levels, but data on primary producers such as algae are missing in Table 2.

Table 2. This table shows a highly unbalanced picture of potential effects of sweeteners on aquatic organisms. All kinds of effects are referred to, ranging from conventional (eco)toxicity studies that are possibly performed under standardized conditions (OECD guidelines) to various types molecular studies. The latter category is often missing the link to ecological relevance, population dynamics, etc. The magnitude of the effects is also missing in most cases: is it an EC10 level  of EC50 or ….? The fact that in a number of studies positive effects (stimulation) were found is not discussed. Are they relevant from an environmental perspective?

Lines 282-284  The conclusion to ‘promote mechanistical studies based on high throughput molecular approaches to better understand their long-term impact on population dynamics’ may be true, but cannot be based on and underpinned with the results of this superficial review. The same holds for the conclusion in the lines 273-276 on that the data demonstrate ‘significant ecological risk’. The extra focus needed on sea water/coastal water (lines 276-281) is also insufficiently motivated as discussed already.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the pertinent suggestions, which we have carefully addressed. These contributions have allowed us to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to the review.

-Line 77 Search criterion  III) identification of limitations in wastewater treatment plants. The use of the term ‘limitations’ is incorrect and biased for a scientific search profile. It should be more neutral, such as 'performance rate'.

Response

Previous version

Line 77: III) identification of limitations in wastewater treatment plants.

New version line 78:   (III) identification of performance rates in wastewater treatment plants.

 

-Lines 78 and 79. Search criterion V) use of aquatic organisms in exposure tests. The standard wording here is not ‘exposure tests’, but something like ‘(eco)toxicity tests.

Response

Previous version

Line 78 and 79: V) use of aquatic organisms in exposure tests.

New version:

Line 79 and 80: (V) use of aquatic organisms in ecotoxicity tests.

 

 

-Lines 133-159.  The text on removal rates in WWTP is highly fragmented and unbalanced. For example, data on removal rates in conventional WWTP are not given. And the information on innovative, potentially more effective removal techniques is simply dropped in a few sentences without discussion.

Response

Previous version

Line 133 and 159:

The most commonly used conventional treatments in WWTPs worldwide include acti-vated sludge, anaerobic digestion, and sequencing batch reactors [7]. However, there are more advanced alternatives, such as membrane bioreactors, bioelectrochemical systems, and constructed wetlands, which offer more effective solutions for the removal of these compounds [7]. Other alternatives, such as the use of UV light in combination with periodate for the re-moval of NEO, electro-Fenton processes for the removal of SUC, and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for the degradation of CYC, have been shown to achieve removal rates of up to 97% [30,31], 96.1% [32], and 99.6%, respectively [33].

These advances underscore the importance of incorporating innovative technologies into WWTPs to remove artificial sweeteners and other emerging contaminants from waste waters before their reintroduction into surface and marine environments. Research on anaerobic reactors, electro-Fenton processes, and UV-based methods has not only shown high removal efficiencies but has also provided valuable insights into the kinetics and toxicity of these processes, facilitating their optimization.

New version:

Line 139 and 154:

Removal rates of artificial sweeteners in WWTPs is variable and depends on the compound and the treatment applied. In conventional WWTPs, the highest removal rates have been observed for Saccharin (SAC) and Cyclamate (CYC) with removal efficiencies around 90–97%, with average removal rates of 97.26 ± 3.24% and 96.84 ± 2.47% for SAC and CYC, respectively. On the other side, low or variable removal rates have been reported for Acesulfame (ACE) and Sucralose (SUC) are much more persistent, with removal efficiencies ranging from ineffective to occasionally high, depending on the WWTP's processes. In conventional WWTPs, SUC has shown negative to very low removal (−10% to +10%), indicating potential release from sludge or incomplete degradation. One study showed an overall removal as low as −116% under conventional treatment whereas removal rates up to 99.1% could be achieved under Ultraviolet/Peroxydisulfate Oxidation UV/PDS and Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) adsorption treatments. Acesulfame (ACE) also shows variable removal rates ranging from under 2% under conventional treatment up to over 90% depending on microbial adaptation and treatment configuration, as well as using conventional activated sludge treatment with denitrification and nitrification.

 

Li S, Geng J, Wu G, Gao X, Fu Y, Ren H. Removal of artificial sweeteners and their effects on microbial communities in sequencing batch reactors. Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 21;8(1):3399. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21564-x. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 3;8(1):10298. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28588-3. PMID: 29467367; PMCID: PMC5821853.

Li J, Li X, Li Y, Liu H, Wang Q. Artificial sweeteners in wastewater treatment plants: A systematic review of global occurrence, distribution, removal, and degradation pathways. J Hazard Mater. 2025 Aug 15;494:138644. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138644. Epub 2025 May 16. PMID: 40393290.

Subedi B, Kannan K. Fate of artificial sweeteners in wastewater treatment plants in New York State, U.S.A. Environ Sci Technol. 2014 Dec 2;48(23):13668-74. doi: 10.1021/es504769c. Epub 2014 Nov 14. PMID: 25365516.

Qiao S, Huang W, Kuzma D, Kormendi A. Acesulfame and other artificial sweeteners in a wastewater treatment plant in Alberta, Canada: Occurrence, degradation, and emission. Chemosphere. 2024 May;356:141893. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141893. Epub 2024 Apr 4. PMID: 38582168.

Castronovo S, Wick A, Scheurer M, Nödler K, Schulz M, Ternes TA. Biodegradation of the artificial sweetener acesulfame in biological wastewater treatment and sandfilters. Water Res. 2017 Mar 1;110:342-353. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.041. Epub 2016 Nov 17. PMID: 28063296; PMCID: PMC5292994.

 

-Line 167. The high sea water concentration of 50.2 ug/L has reference number 35, whereas in Table 1 it is 33. On top of that, reference 33 (nor 35) seems to refer to Chinese waters as suggested in Table 1, but the titles of the publication refer to other regions/countries.

Response

The reference for seawater of 50.2 ug/L has been removed and reference 33 has been corrected.

 

-There seems to be more incorrect in Table 1, as the 120 ug/L cyclamate concentration of in seawater from Korea refers to a study (39) that seems to focus on another sweetener according to the title of the publication.

Response

The reference to a 120 µg/L cyclamate concentration in seawater from Korea has been removed.

 

-Only single figures are presented in Table 1. Are these maximum levels, minimum levels, P95 levels, …..?  This is not an objective and scientific way of presenting monitoring data.

Response

The word “maximum” has been added to the table 2 to indicate that every effort has been made to include the maximum concentration reported in these environmental matrices.

 

-Lines 173-198. This is all highly speculative as data from different countries (different conditions) are combined when drawing conclusions.

Response

We would like to clarify that the intention of the text is not to draw conclusions, but rather to report the environmental concentrations documented in different studies. For this reason, we have removed certain parts of the manuscript that could lead to speculative interpretations.

Previous version

Line line 173-176

On the other hand, SUC, although detected in WWTP effluents at lower concentrations of around 10.8 μg L^-1 [66], shows significant persistence in water bodies such as rivers and lakes, with values of up to 9.6 μg L^-1 [12]. In contrast, NEO has concentrations in the order of 0.03 μg L^-1 in wastewater influents and effluents in China [42] suggesting greater efficiency in its removal or lower use globally.

New version:

Line 191-194

On the other hand, SUC, has been reported in WWTP effluents at lower concentrations of around 10.8 μg L^-1 [66], and in water bodies such as rivers and lakes, with values of up to 9.6 μg L^-1 [12]. In contrast, NEO has concentrations in the order of 0.03 μg L^-1 in wastewater influents and effluents in China [42].

Previous version

In the case of CYC, marked differences are observed between matrices. While in WWTP in-fluents values can reach up to 250 μg L-1 [37], in groundwater the levels are considerably lower, with only 0.003 μg L-1 [39], reflecting the lower mobility of this compound to deeper layers or its greater degradation in certain environments. In contrast, ASP has higher con-centrations, with 3.1 μg L-1 in Vietnam [44], followed by 1.8 μg L-1 in the US [26]. It is im-portant to note that although aspartame is one of the most widely consumed artificial sweeteners worldwide, its presence in aquatic ecosystems tends to be limited, probably due to its low environmental persistence. On the other hand, saccharin has been found in remarkably high concentrations, such as 303 μg L-1 in WWTP influents in India. [26]

New version

Line 195-200:

In the case of CYC, marked differences are observed between matrices. While in WWTP influents values can reach up to 250 μg L-1 [37], in groundwater the levels are considerably lower, with only 0.003 μg L-1 [39] In the case of ASP, the highest concentrations, with 3.1 μg L-1 were found in Vietnam [44], followed by 1.8 μg L-1 in the US [26]. On the other hand, saccharin has been found in remarkably high concentrations, such as 303 μg L-1 in WWTP influents in India [26].

 

-Lines 202-207. A plea is made for more marine effect testing. The reasoning, however, is poor. The few seawater concentrations given in Table 1 are indeed quite high, but any additional information on conditions, etc. is lacking. Furthermore, reference 41 shows very low cyclamate concentrations in Spanish coastal waters suggesting the opposite. I really doubt whether the marine environment is the compartment of concern for the environmental impact of sweeteners due to high dilution rates, etc.

Response

In open marine waters, the reported concentrations are generally negligible; however, in semi-enclosed bays or at the mouths of large rivers receiving discharges from multiple urban areas, concentrations can reach significant levels, as reported in table 2.

Previous version

Whilst there is substantial evidence of the adverse effects of artificial sweeteners on freshwater organisms, covering a wide range of biological responses, research in marine environments is still limited and fragmented. Despite detection of these compounds in seawater, especially in coastal areas, little is known about their impact on marine species. This gap highlights an urgent need for targeted studies to understand their potential eco-logical risks in saltwater ecosystems.

New version

Line 212-217:

Whilst there is substantial evidence of the adverse effects of artificial sweeteners on freshwater organisms, covering a wide range of biological responses, research in marine environments is still limited and fragmented. Despite detection of these compounds in seawater, especially in coastal areas, little is known about their impact on marine species in the open sea. This gap highlights an urgent need for targeted studies to understand their potential eco-logical risks in saltwater ecosystems.

 

 

-Line 239. Different trophic levels, but data on primary producers such as algae are missing in Table 2.

Table 2. This table shows a highly unbalanced picture of potential effects of sweeteners on aquatic organisms. All kinds of effects are referred to, ranging from conventional (eco)toxicity studies that are possibly performed under standardized conditions (OECD guidelines) to various types molecular studies. The latter category is often missing the link to ecological relevance, population dynamics, etc. The magnitude of the effects is also missing in most cases: is it an EC10 level  of EC50 or ….? The fact that in a number of studies positive effects (stimulation) were found is not discussed. Are they relevant from an environmental perspective?

 

Response

We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the revised version, we have included additional studies on primary producers (algae, cyanobacteria, and aquatic plants) in Table 3. The purpose of this table is to highlight both acute and chronic effects, through standardized toxicity assays as well as physiological, cellular, and molecular responses, thereby reflecting the diversity of approaches used in the literature. We acknowledge that some studies do report effect concentrations such as EC10 and EC50, and these have been indicated when available, although such data remain limited. Finally, cases of stimulatory effects have also been acknowledged to provide a more balanced perspective.

 

-Lines 282-284  The conclusion to ‘promote mechanistical studies based on high throughput molecular approaches to better understand their long-term impact on population dynamics’ may be true, but cannot be based on and underpinned with the results of this superficial review. The same holds for the conclusion in the lines 273-276 on that the data demonstrate ‘significant ecological risk’. The extra focus needed on sea water/coastal water (lines 276-281) is also insufficiently motivated as discussed already.

Previous version

The growing global consumption of artificial sweeteners, driven by demand for low-calorie products and health concerns, has contributed to their classification as emerging pollutants due to their persistent presence in various environmental matrices. Their low metabolism rate and the limited effectiveness of conventional wastewater treatments have facilitated the accumulation of artificial sweeteners in the environment, with sucralose and ACE-K being the most commonly detected compounds. Even in cases where certain sweeteners degrade relatively quickly, their continuous introduction into the environment through domestic and industrial discharges gives them a pseudo-persistent character, which exacerbates their potential ecological impact and reinforces the need for their monitoring and control. Although their concentrations are usually low (ng–µg L⁻¹), multiple studies have shown that they can cause physiological, neurological, reproduc-tive, and behavioral effects in aquatic organisms, even at levels close to those found in the environment, which represents a significant ecological risk. However, most of this re-search has been conducted in freshwater ecosystems, while studies in marine environ-ments are scarce and fragmentary, preventing an adequate characterization of the envi-ronmental risk in the latter. Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote research aimed at evaluating the behavior, persistence, and ecotoxicological effects of these compounds in marine and coastal ecosystems. Similarly, it is important to strengthen environmental regulation, implement advanced water treatment technologies, and promote mechanis-tical studies based on high throughput molecular approaches to better understand their long-term impact on population dynamics.

 

New version

Line 279-302:

The rapidly increasing global consumption of artificial sweeteners, driven by the rising demand for low-calorie products and health concerns, has dangerously escalated their classification as emerging pollutants due to their relentless and persistent presence contaminating multiple en-vironmental matrices. Their extremely low metabolism rate combined with the alarming ineffi-ciency of conventional wastewater treatments has allowed artificial sweeteners to accumulate unchecked in the environment, with sucralose and ACE-K emerging as the most frequently de-tected and concerning compounds. Even when some sweeteners degrade relatively quickly, their continuous and unregulated release into the environment through domestic and industrial dis-charges gives them a pseudo-persistent nature that amplifies their potential for severe ecological damage, underscoring the critical need for strict monitoring and control. Although their concen-trations are typically low (ng–µg L⁻¹), numerous studies have revealed that they can trigger profound physiological, neurological, reproductive, and behavioral disturbances in aquatic or-ganisms at levels alarmingly close to those currently found in the environment, signaling a sig-nificant and growing ecological threat. Yet, the majority of these investigations have been limited to freshwater ecosystems, while studies focusing on marine environments remain scarce and fragmented, leaving a dangerous gap that prevents comprehensive assessment of the environ-mental risks in these vital habitats. Consequently, there is an urgent and non-negotiable need to promote research focused on understanding the behavior, persistence, and ecotoxicological effects of these compounds in marine and coastal ecosystems before irreversible damage occurs. Like-wise, it is crucial to reinforce environmental regulations, implement advanced water treatment technologies, and encourage mechanistic studies utilizing high-throughput molecular approaches to fully comprehend their long-term impacts on population dynamics and ecosystem stability.

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the requested changes and the manuscript is now suitable for publication.