Environmental Education as a Fundamental Tool for Preventing the Ingestion of Chemical Contaminants in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've carefully read and assessed the article "Environmental Education as a Fundamental Tool for Preventing the Ingestion of Chemical Contaminants." This study explores the significance of environmental education in preventing chemical contaminant intake and offers suggestions for enhancing educational strategies based on student awareness surveys. While it has practical relevance, several revisions are needed:

 

1. Major Recommendations
2. While the study explores the link between environmental education and chemical contaminant prevention, it lacks sufficient theoretical underpinnings. The authors should introduce relevant theories like the "Environmental Education Theory Framework" or the "Health Belief Model" to strengthen the research foundation and deepen the discussion.
3. The research focuses on rural Spain, limiting the generalizability of its conclusions. The authors need to broaden the scope to include more countries and regions, or conduct in - depth analysis of differences across rural areas, to enhance the applicability of the findings.
4. The article qualitatively analyzes students' understanding of environmental issues but falls short in integrating quantitative data. The authors should supplement with more quantitative data, such as statistical results on the correlation between environmental education levels and contaminant intake, and clarify how qualitative and quantitative data complement each other to reinforce the conclusions.
5. The suggestions for improving environmental education are too general. The authors should offer more targeted and actionable recommendations, like detailed implementation steps for mobile environmental education units or school - based environmental education programs in rural areas, to boost the practical value of the advice.
6. Some viewpoints in the article, especially on the importance of environmental education and the dangers of chemical pollution, lack adequate literature support. The authors should cite more authoritative sources, such as reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) or the World Health Organization (WHO), to strengthen the credibility of the arguments.
7. Minor Recommendations

The article uses terms like "environmental education" and "sustainable development education" inconsistently, causing confusion. The authors should clearly define key terms in the introduction and use them uniformly throughout the paper to enhance precision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall language is clear, but there are some issues. The author should simplify complex sentences and correct minor grammatical and punctuation errors to improve readability and ensure concise expression.

Author Response

Revisor 1

I've carefully read and assessed the article "Environmental Education as a Fundamental Tool for Preventing the Ingestion of Chemical Contaminants." This study explores the significance of environmental education in preventing chemical contaminant intake and offers suggestions for enhancing educational strategies based on student awareness surveys. While it has practical relevance, several revisions are needed:

 Major Recommendations

1. While the study explores the link between environmental education and chemical contaminant prevention, it lacks sufficient theoretical underpinnings. The authors should introduce relevant theories like the "Environmental Education Theory Framework" or the "Health Belief Model" to strengthen the research foundation and deepen the discussion.

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated information on the Theoretical Framework of Environmental Education and the Health Model. We have taken into account the United Nations Environment Programme and the WHO.

 

1. The research focuses on rural Spain, limiting the generalizability of its conclusions. The authors need to broaden the scope to include more countries and regions, or conduct in - depth analysis of differences across rural areas, to enhance the applicability of the findings.

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. Although the study focuses on Spain, given that environmental pollution is practically widespread and causes thousands of deaths according to various international organizations, this model can be transferred to other countries. Therefore, we have included information on this topic for areas of Latin America and the Caribbean.

 

 

1. The article qualitatively analyzes students' understanding of environmental issues but falls short in integrating quantitative data. The authors should supplement with more quantitative data, such as statistical results on the correlation between environmental education levels and contaminant intake, and clarify how qualitative and quantitative data complement each other to reinforce the conclusions.

 

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. This article analyzes both qualitatively and quantitatively the level of students' knowledge about environmental pollution, since in the survey, students rated the questions on a Likert scale of 1 to 5.

 

1. The suggestions for improving environmental education are too general. The authors should offer more targeted and actionable recommendations, like detailed implementation steps for mobile environmental education units or school - based environmental education programs in rural areas, to boost the practical value of the advice.

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We've included a text in which we propose the use of uncontaminated natural spaces and agricultural areas, which will allow students to conduct a comparative study for decision-making.

 

1. Some viewpoints in the article, especially on the importance of environmental education and the dangers of chemical pollution, lack adequate literature support. The authors should cite more authoritative sources, such as reports from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) or the World Health Organization (WHO), to strengthen the credibility of the arguments.

 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. To further solidify the study, we have added a total of 14 new references (in red) to the introduction, methodology, results, and discussion sections. We have therefore arranged the in-text citations and references in the order in which they are presented.

 

1. Minor Recommendations

The article uses terms like "environmental education" and "sustainable development education" inconsistently, causing confusion. The authors should clearly define key terms in the introduction and use them uniformly throughout the paper to enhance precision.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. The use of environmental education and education for sustainable development has been corrected; we have chosen to use the term environmental education.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall language is clear, but there are some issues. The author should simplify complex sentences and correct minor grammatical and punctuation errors to improve readability and ensure concise expression.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. Once all the corrections were made, the article was reviewed by a native English-speaking expert.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the article is well-written 

1- please indicate the kind of your study. is this cross-sectional or what?

2- who did you calculate the sample size?

3- what are the limitations of your research? should be written in the discussion section 

4- what kind of student is included in your study? school? college?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2

the article is well-written 

• please indicate the kind of your study. is this cross-sectional or what?

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. In response to your observation, we have included the following paragraph in the text: "Taken together, this evidence strongly supports the need to incorporate environmental and health content into educational programs and reinforces the focus of this research by positioning environmental education as an essential cross-cutting theme for students' comprehensive education and the improvement of public health."

• who did you calculate the sample size?

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. The sample size was suggested by an expert in Experimental Science Teaching.

• what are the limitations of your research? should be written in the discussion section 

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We describe the limitations of the study in the methodology section, as well as in the discussion section. The most notable limitations are the students' diverse backgrounds and the lack of scientific vocabulary.

 

• what kind of student is included in your study? school? college?

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. This study included three types of students: middle school, high school, and university students. The first two were used to obtain information on their level of knowledge about environmental pollution, which will be useful for teaching students who aspire to become future teachers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have some recommendations:

Introduction. State the purpose of the study and the gap it covers.

Materials and Methods. This section should be restructured. I suggest including a diagram to help the reader understand the study's methodology. Provide the context and characteristics of the students and the University.

Results / Discussion. Only statistical results are shown. I suggest integrating the Results and Discussion and drawing comparisons with other studies. The authors' suggestions based on the results for improvements or implementation in other studies are included.

Conclusion. Please place final remarks and perspectives.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3

 Suggestions for Authors

I have some recommendations:

Introduction. State the purpose of the study and the gap it covers.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We have included the following paragraph in the text: “Given the lack of content related to environmental pollution in students' curricula, and due to the current serious pollution that causes thousands of deaths according to the WHO, it is necessary to raise awareness and provide health education, to avoid ingestion, and where appropriate, to mitigate the effects of harmful chemical agents.”

Materials and Methods. This section should be restructured. I suggest including a diagram to help the reader understand the study's methodology. Provide the context and characteristics of the students and the University.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We have included a diagram table that improves the methodology and substantially clarifies the study. We have also included the student characteristics.

Results / Discussion. Only statistical results are shown. I suggest integrating the Results and Discussion and drawing comparisons with other studies. The authors' suggestions based on the results for improvements or implementation in other studies are included.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We have integrated the results and discussion into a single section, which improves the study.

Conclusion. Please place final remarks and perspectives.

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We've added new comments on the final conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The subject matter of the article is highly relevant and important, addressing key challenges of the contemporary world. The authors explore issues related to environmental education, sustainable agriculture, the risks associated with the use of pesticides and herbicides, the need for curriculum reform, student engagement in environmental actions, and awareness of chemical hazards.

All these components are significant both for science and for society, as they pertain to the quality of education, public health, food safety, and sustainable management of environmental resources. These topics are closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), addressing gaps in teacher education and potentially having a tangible impact on future generations of students, citizens, and our planet.

The authors employed a wide range of research methods and techniques, including: a diagnostic questionnaire, statistical analysis (PCA, cluster analysis, Shapiro–Wilk test), qualitative assessment of student reflections, field observation and comparative analysis of floristic data from different years, and literature review. This suggests a detailed and reliable study.

The language and editorial quality of the article are appropriate and, in my opinion, do not require significant revision.

However, in my opinion, the weaker aspect of the manuscript is the insufficient coherence between the title, abstract, objectives, methodology, and conclusions, which affects the readability and logical structure of the article.

 

 

Specific Comments

1. Coherence of the article structure

The article gives the impression of being inconsistent: the title, abstract, literature review, objectives, and conclusions suggest a very broad research scope — without any geographic, age-related, or institutional limitations. In contrast, the methodology reveals that the study was conducted on a small group of first-year students at a single university in Spain.

To ensure methodological transparency and aid reader comprehension, I suggest clearly organizing and presenting this information — particularly in the title and abstract, as these sections are the primary entry point for readers in evaluating whether to engage with the rest of the article.

2. Methodology

Given the extensive thematic scope of the article — including the assessment of students’ knowledge levels, the effectiveness of specific teaching methods (PBL, inquiry-based learning, flipped classroom), the analysis of educational curricula, the environmental and health impacts of chemical risks in agriculture — the methodology section would benefit from more explicit structure and clarification. At present, the relationships between the identified research gap, objectives, research tools, and resulting conclusions are unclear. I recommend adding a table or diagram that clearly outlines the applied methods, their specific objectives, data sources, and the basis of the conclusions drawn. Currently, some conclusions stem from questionnaire responses, others from student reflections, and still others from observations or literature/document analysis. Greater transparency in this regard is in my opinion highly recommended.

3. Absence of a "Limitations" section

The article lacks a clearly defined limitations section, which is a significant shortcoming. The sample was small (n=37), homogeneous (students from a single university and academic program), and the findings were based on qualitative observations and a one-time survey — without any follow-up or post-activity evaluation. The absence of a control group and pre–post measurements limit the strength and generalizability of the conclusions.

I recommend adding a dedicated "Limitations" section, in which the authors acknowledge and discuss these constraints.

 

General conclusion

The topic of the article is undoubtedly timely, socially significant, and scientifically relevant. I sincerely hope the article will be published — provided that the above comments are considered.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

General Comments

The subject matter of the article is highly relevant and important, addressing key challenges of the contemporary world. The authors explore issues related to environmental education, sustainable agriculture, the risks associated with the use of pesticides and herbicides, the need for curriculum reform, student engagement in environmental actions, and awareness of chemical hazards.

All these components are significant both for science and for society, as they pertain to the quality of education, public health, food safety, and sustainable management of environmental resources. These topics are closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), addressing gaps in teacher education and potentially having a tangible impact on future generations of students, citizens, and our planet.

The authors employed a wide range of research methods and techniques, including: a diagnostic questionnaire, statistical analysis (PCA, cluster analysis, Shapiro–Wilk test), qualitative assessment of student reflections, field observation and comparative analysis of floristic data from different years, and literature review. This suggests a detailed and reliable study.

The language and editorial quality of the article are appropriate and, in my opinion, do not require significant revision.

However, in my opinion, the weaker aspect of the manuscript is the insufficient coherence between the title, abstract, objectives, methodology, and conclusions, which affects the readability and logical structure of the article.

 Dear reviewer

Thank you for your general comment. Based on your suggestion, we have made several corrections that improve the study.

Specific Comments

1. Coherence of the article structure

The article gives the impression of being inconsistent: the title, abstract, literature review, objectives, and conclusions suggest a very broad research scope — without any geographic, age-related, or institutional limitations. In contrast, the methodology reveals that the study was conducted on a small group of first-year students at a single university in Spain.

To ensure methodological transparency and aid reader comprehension, I suggest clearly organizing and presenting this information — particularly in the title and abstract, as these sections are the primary entry point for readers in evaluating whether to engage with the rest of the article.

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We've specified the title and included a sentence in the abstract to give greater coherence to the article's structure.

1. Methodology

Given the extensive thematic scope of the article — including the assessment of students’ knowledge levels, the effectiveness of specific teaching methods (PBL, inquiry-based learning, flipped classroom), the analysis of educational curricula, the environmental and health impacts of chemical risks in agriculture — the methodology section would benefit from more explicit structure and clarification. At present, the relationships between the identified research gap, objectives, research tools, and resulting conclusions are unclear. I recommend adding a table or diagram that clearly outlines the applied methods, their specific objectives, data sources, and the basis of the conclusions drawn. Currently, some conclusions stem from questionnaire responses, others from student reflections, and still others from observations or literature/document analysis. Greater transparency in this regard is in my opinion highly recommended.

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comment. We provide methodological information supported by new references to clarify the research and the current gap in this research. We also provide a graphic table to clarify the methodology used.

 

1. Absence of a "Limitations" section

The article lacks a clearly defined limitations section, which is a significant shortcoming. The sample was small (n=37), homogeneous (students from a single university and academic program), and the findings were based on qualitative observations and a one-time survey — without any follow-up or post-activity evaluation. The absence of a control group and pre–post measurements limit the strength and generalizability of the conclusions.

I recommend adding a dedicated "Limitations" section, in which the authors acknowledge and discuss these constraints.

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comment. A section is included with information on the study's limitations. The most notable limitations are the students' diverse backgrounds and the lack of scientific vocabulary.

 

General conclusion

The topic of the article is undoubtedly timely, socially significant, and scientifically relevant. I sincerely hope the article will be published — provided that the above comments are considered.

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your general feedback. We have taken all of your comments into account and have included relevant information in the text, substantially improving this article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None

Author Response

REPLY

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for revising the manuscript taking into account the suggestions provided in the first round.

Author Response

REPLY

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded thoroughly and constructively to the comments provided in the initial review. I would like to highlight the following key improvements:

1. Scope clarification – The title and abstract now clearly state that the study was conducted in Spain, which aligns with the actual methodology and participant context.

2. Methodological transparency – The revised manuscript includes a comprehensive “Materials and Methods” section, providing detailed information about the participant group, research tools, and statistical techniques.

3. Limitations – A separate and explicit “Study Limitations” section has been added, acknowledging the small sample size, lack of a control group, and the non-experimental nature of the design.

4. Improved structure – The inclusion of a summary table of methods and findings significantly enhances the clarity of the research design and the link between methods, objectives, and outcomes.

5. Literature context – The updated manuscript expands the theoretical framework and includes relevant references to international environmental education guidelines and sustainability goals.

I accept the current version of the article, while kindly suggesting that the authors consider the following:

• Clearer distinction between empirical results and interpretative commentary – In several instances within the discussion, insights from literature or student reflections are interwoven with data-derived results. Distinguishing these sources more explicitly would reinforce the scientific robustness of the conclusions for the readers.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded thoroughly and constructively to the comments provided in the initial review. I would like to highlight the following key improvements:

1. Scope clarification – The title and abstract now clearly state that the study was conducted in Spain, which aligns with the actual methodology and participant context.
2. Methodological transparency – The revised manuscript includes a comprehensive “Materials and Methods” section, providing detailed information about the participant group, research tools, and statistical techniques.
3. Limitations – A separate and explicit “Study Limitations” section has been added, acknowledging the small sample size, lack of a control group, and the non-experimental nature of the design.
4. Improved structure – The inclusion of a summary table of methods and findings significantly enhances the clarity of the research design and the link between methods, objectives, and outcomes.
5. Literature context – The updated manuscript expands the theoretical framework and includes relevant references to international environmental education guidelines and sustainability goals.

REPLY

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your review.

I accept the current version of the article, while kindly suggesting that the authors consider the following:

• Clearer distinction between empirical results and interpretative commentary – In several instances within the discussion, insights from literature or student reflections are interwoven with data-derived results. Distinguishing these sources more explicitly would reinforce the scientific robustness of the conclusions for the readers.
•  

REPLY

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your suggestion. We have created the subsections "Analysis of Results" and "Discussion Analysis" to avoid confusion between results derived from the data and the discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf