Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1

Thanks for your comments. The suggestions provided by the reviewer will help to improve the quality of this work. In the following table, the author attempted to address the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overview of the study, its objectives, and the relevance of the research. However, it would be beneficial to provide a brief background on the environmental impact of glyphosate and its importance in agriculture, as this would help readers understand the context of the study better.

The methodology section is well-structured and comprehensively describes the experimental setup and models used. However, there are a few points that need further clarification:

a.      It would be helpful to explain the rationale behind selecting the specific soil columns (A, B, C) and how they represent different conditions or scenarios.

b.      The text mentions variations in soil-glyphosate contact times, but it would be valuable to provide more details on these variations and why they were chosen.

c.      The statement "it was difficult to determine whether phosphorus in the pre-saturation solution was an important factor for glyphosate learning" is somewhat unclear. Could you elaborate on this aspect and its implications for the study?

The results section presents the findings of the study effectively. However, there are a few points to consider:

a.      When discussing the breakthrough times and concentrations, it would be helpful to provide graphical representations or tables to understand the data better.

b.      In application 3, where it was challenging to determine the importance of phosphorus, more explanation or potential hypotheses could be provided to guide future research.

c.      The discussion of factors contributing to lower effluent glyphosate concentration in soil B is informative. However, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the implications of these factors and their significance in practical agricultural settings.

The discussion section could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the results. Specifically:

a.      The reasons behind the observed differences in recovery rates among the three applications should be discussed in greater detail.

b.      When mentioning glyphosate mineralization to 14CO2, it would be helpful to reference the previous studies that support this claim to benefit readers who may want to explore this further.

The description of the modeling approach is clear and concise. However, including a summary of the model parameters used and their significance in the context of the study would enhance the understanding of the modeling process.

 

The conclusion should recap the key findings and their implications for glyphosate leaching in different soil scenarios. Additionally, it would be helpful to suggest potential applications or future research directions based on the results.

The paper is well-structured, but some minor grammatical and typographical errors need attention

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2

Thanks for your comments. The suggestions provided by the reviewer will help to improve the quality of this work. In the following table, the author attempted to address the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf