Risk Assessment on Organochlorine Pesticides in Agricultural Soils of Eastern City, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction:  It would be useful to mention whether has the regulatory thresholds  or standards.

2. Introduction:  While the introduction mentions Ningbo's historical pesticide use and the need for a study, more specific information about the current situation in Ningbo would be useful. For example, a brief description of the region’s agricultural practices or soil health concerns today could provide more context about why Ningbo was chosen as the case study and the potential local significance of OCP contamination.

3. Introduction: The introduction mentions that OCPs have endocrine-disrupting properties and can pose risks to public health, but it would be helpful to explain more about the specific ecological and human health risks being assessed in the study. This would clarify the types of risks the study is addressing and set expectations for the research outcomes.

4. Results: Figure 2 legend should be in English

5. Conclusion: The statement that "health risks associated with OCPs are within safe limits" is somewhat vague. While it is reassuring, the conclusion could be stronger if it briefly mentioned what those "safe limits" are based on (e.g., regulatory thresholds or previous studies). This would add credibility and context to the statement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no doubt of the originality of this work, but the level of similarity index is jeopardizing the originality of this work. Please improve quality of the paper.

1. Please check consistency, typo errors and abbreviations in the whole document. Improve gramma and resolution of all images.

2.  Please provide full meaning of all abbreviations mentioned in the abstract.

3. Please replace the n.d in the abstract with <LOD values e.g <0.07.

4.  Please provide a detailed description of the study area and sampling procedure.

5. Please provide the proposition statement of the laboratory accreditation conformity assessment standard used in this study and add reference citation in the main text and references list.

6. In a as much as the samples testing was conducted in an accredited laboratory, please provide brief information regarding sample pre-treatment and extraction method. Which analytical instrument was used for determination of these organic compounds.

7. Please combine results and discussion sections and provide a detailed interpretation and discussion of your findings.

8. Authors mentioned that simulation results demonstrate no health risks. Please expatiate which levels/ranges are associate with health risks.

9. On the section 4.1, information provided in the line 213-225 motivates the selection of the study area rather than results discussion. Please revise.

10. Please explain what factors are contributing to persistence of γ-HCH and other OCPs on the environment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions are attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments are on file.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled „Risk Assessment on Organochlorine Pesticides in Agricultural Soils of Eastern City, China“ conducted a detailed analysis of organochlorine pesticides in soil. The study was carried out through modern approaches: ecological and health risk assessment. Additionally, Monte Carlo simulation was used. This topic is of great importance and although the study has a local character, it can help to a better understanding of soil pollution. The manuscript can be published but changes are necessary.

 

1. Some important results were omitted in the abstract. The authors need to provide quantitative information related to the results of the ecological risk, health risk, and Monte Carlo simulation.
2. Please add a paragraph in the introduction about ecological and health risk assessment methods. Also, expand the paragraph about the aim of this study.
3. Line 70: it is written that samples were taken from 0-20 cm, while the following details are stated in the abstract: 0-10 cm. Correct this.
4. Figure 1 needs to be improved to better show the location of the study area. It is necessary to see where is district (research area) located in China.
5. The title of the 2.1. section should be: Study area and sample collection.
6. The units for these two factors are incorrect: „AF is the soil adherence factor (mg·cm-2 ); SA is the skin surface area for soil contact (cm2·day−1 )“. Do dimensional analysis and look at relevant literature, such as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.12.089, https://doi.org/10.3390/met13071266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.046.
7. In the following sentence, 0.0001 should be written as 10^-4:“ If the cancer risk (CR) or total cancer risk (TCR) falls below 0.0001, it represents that the level of cancer risk associated with hazardous materials is deemed acceptable.“ Correct this where appropriate.
8. Figure 2: why the legend in the table is written in Chinese? The units of OCPs on the y-axis are not clear, is that a microgram? Correct this.
9. The authors should rewrite the text in section 3.2 and take a look at the studies that explored the health risk method and their discussion. Insert numbers, percentages, etc. into the discussion of the results. For Monte Carlo there is almost no discussion at all, expand the text with quantitative data.
10. Why are the results and discussion sections separated when the obtained data are commented on in both places? In the discussion, the authors refer to figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and it is difficult to follow the text because the figure is in another section. Additionally, section 4.1 starts with a theoretical part that is unnecessary. Also the discussion in section 4.1. is repeated from section 3.1. All this also applies to section 4.2. Since there are no significant differences between the „results“ and „discussion“ sections, it is necessary to merge them.
11. Numbers in Table 1 should not be written with three decimals.
12. Why were multivariate techniques such as PCA, HCA, and correlation analysis not used in the study?
13. Correct the conclusion completely and write the main observations from the study, not the theory. Write only the main results in the conclusion.
14. RfD and SF do not have the same unit. For RfD is mg/kg/day, and for SF is (mg/kg/day)-1. Correct this. Are all three exposure pathways calculated using the RfD and SF values in Table S2?
15. Why was the usual value of IngR of 100 mg/day not utilized, and why is the value for ED 53? Evaluate the parameters from Table S1 and add more references (cite research papers) in Table S1 and for the HRA calculation method.
16. Table S1: the font is not the same.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected the manuscript "Risk Assessment on Organochlorine Pesticides in Agricultural Soils of Eastern City, China" and the recommended changes were successfully implemented. Thus, the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  Your insightful comments and suggestions have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our work.