A Survey Analysis Comparing Perceptions of Plastic Use in Nurseries and Greenhouses in the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigate the perceptions of nursery and greenhouse growers and scientists regarding the use of plastic and its impact on water quality. The manuscript offers interesting insights into an important issue. However, it is essential to address existing knowledge gaps by incorporating recent studies on this subject to strengthen the paper. The paper is well-written and reports interesting data analysis, only some modifications are needed. This paper has the potential to contribute significantly to the field and be considered for publication after revision.

Specific comments:

In general, define better "nurseries" and "greenhouse" and which are the main differences among them. More advanced statistics need to be applied to have high-quality results.

1. Introduction: The Authors raised concerns about water contaminants such as microplastics and PFAS, which can affect both water and edible crops. However, more emphasis on plastic pollution and PFAS in freshwater should be given. Report the concentration of those contaminants in rivers and habitats of your interest.
2. Introduction: I would suggest adding the size of MPs and a reference
3. Intro and discussion: to strengthen your findings, the Introduction needs some more updated and recent studies on plastic and PFAS pollution in rivers
4. The questionnaire approach is interesting, and some papers in different areas have used it. I strongly suggest considering the topic on questionnaire in Introduction by also adding recent research 
5. Methods: In general, the methodology is robust but could be improved by addressing some limitations. The study does have some limitations, such as only including growers with internet access and potentially not capturing the full diversity of opinions within the industry. ​Overall, methods and data analysis are well performed and provide strength to this manuscript. I am also wondering if different numbers of respondents (N=20 and N=66) provide different results. Try to standardise this.
6. Methods: ensure you added all details about to understand and replicate your methods as well as to allow readers to clearly understand your study.
7. Methods: what about the answering people countries? What about their age? What about people who have not answered? Have all these features included in the online survey and data analysis?
8. Results, figures : think if it is good to add another catchier figure(s) to better show your results.
9. Discussion : The Authors properly discussed their findings. I would suggest adding more emphasis on pollution in crops related to your aims and to possible implications for these ecosystems.
10. Your findings suggest that better communication and research could help mitigate the environmental impacts of plastic use in the nursery and greenhouse industries. ​How can this be achieved in the next future? You could add some of this in discussion.
11. Please ensure that all funding sources are acknowledged in the manuscript, and thank the reviewers and Editor for their valuable insights and feedback, which have contributed to improving the draft.
12. Please carefully review the manuscript for any English language errors throughout the text.

Author Response

Please see attached reviewer response. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the complement to get better paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review of our manuscript. We believe it has been much improved throughout the review process and appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “A Survey Analysis Comparing Perceptions of Plastic Use in Nurseries and Greenhouses in the United States” discusses the on a topical and very important topic: the impact of microplastics used in greenhouses and nurseries by farmers on water quality, based on producers' perceptions and exploring how to better align research with industry concerns, and enable an open dialogue on the benefits and challenges of integrating alternatives to plastic in nurseries and greenhouses.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review of our manuscript. We believe it has been much improved throughout the review process and appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have compared scientists' perceptions of plastic use and its impact on water quality with those of nursery/greenhouse growers in the U.S., highlighting uncertainties about plastic's environmental effects and identifying barriers to reducing plastic use. Both groups recognized surface water pollution as a critical issue. Interestingly, they did not see on-farm plastic use as a significant threat, citing limited equipment, financial constraints, and uncertain availability of alternatives as primary obstacles. The findings underscore the need for targeted research on plastic byproducts in water systems and improved communication strategies to promote sustainable practices.

My comments:

1. Please use a consistent font style and referencing style throughout the manuscript.
2. Could you please expand on the discrepancy between scientists' and growers' perceptions of plastic alternatives and discuss potential reasons for this difference? Is there any existing literature that looked into this? If not, could you hypothesize why there could be differences in perceptions?

Author Response

Please see attached reviewer response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors slightly improved the ms, I think the bibliography is still not too recent, and also there are a few papers quoted. Moreover, check figure 5: is it a table or an image? Another point is to discuss more figs. 6-7 and making examples and comparing with the literature.

ensure to emphasise the importance of studying plastics as plastic impacts biodiversity and ecosystems, check those papers: https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/57061/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X22011845, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/4/519, and https://portlandpress.com/emergtoplifesci/article-abstract/6/4/389/232120/The-ecological-impact-of-plastic-pollution-in-a 

After checking the manuscript and improving it, it deserves publication

 

Author Response

Thank you, once again, for your feedback. We appreciate the time for a thorough review and have addressed your next set of suggestions in the manuscript and detailed them in the attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigate the perceptions of nursery and greenhouse growers and scientists regarding the use of plastic and its impact on water quality. The manuscript offers interesting insights into an important issue. However, it is essential to address existing knowledge gaps by incorporating recent studies on this subject to strengthen the paper. The paper is well-written and reports interesting data analysis, only some modifications are needed. This paper has the potential to contribute significantly to the field and be considered for publication after revision.

​

I provided some detailed comments to improve the draft of the paper.

1. Introduction : Authors raised concerns about water contaminants such as microplastics and PFAS, which can affect both water and edible crops. However, more emphasis on plastic pollution and PFAS in freshwater should be given. Report the concentration of those contaminants in rivers and habitats of your interest.
2. Introduction: I would suggest adding the size of MPs and a reference
3. Intro and discussion : to strengthen your findings, the Introduction needs some more updated and recent studies on plastic and PFAS pollution in rivers
4. Questionnaire approach is interesting and some papers in different areas used it. I strongly suggest considering the topic on questionnaire in Introduction by also adding recent research (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721059921, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12898-016-0063-2, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724066841?via%3Dihub, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oana-Modoi/publication/369767198_ON_THE_IMPORTANCE_OF_PUBLIC_VIEWS_REGARDING_THE_ENVIRONMENTAL_IMPACT_OF_PLASTIC_POLLUTION_IN_CLUJ_COUNTY_ROMANIA/links/6457a23e5762c95ac37aba11/ON-THE-IMPORTANCE-OF-PUBLIC-VIEWS-REGARDING-THE-ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT-OF-PLASTIC-POLLUTION-IN-CLUJ-COUNTY-ROMANIA.pdf, and https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/12/5040 ).
5. Methods: In general, the methodology is robust but could be improved by addressing some limitations. The study does have some limitations, such as only including growers with internet access and potentially not capturing the full diversity of opinions within the industry. ​Overall, methods and data analysis are well performed and provide strength to this manuscript.
6. Methods: ensure you added all details about to understand and replicate your methods as well as to allow readers to clearly understand your study.
7. Methods: what about the answering people countries? What about their age? What about people who have not answered? Have all these features included in the online survey and data analysis?
8. Results, figures : think if it is good to add another catchier figure(s) to better show your results.
9. Discussion : The Authors properly discussed their findings. I would suggest adding more emphasis on pollution in crops related to your aims and to possible implications for these ecosystems.
10. Your findings suggest that better communication and research could help mitigate the environmental impacts of plastic use in the nursery and greenhouse industries. ​How can this be achieved in the next future? You could add some of this in discussion..
11. Please ensure that all funding sources are acknowledged in the manuscript, and thank the reviewers and Editor for their valuable insights and feedback, which have contributed to improving the draft.
12. Please carefully review the manuscript for any English language errors throughout the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please carefully review the manuscript for any English language errors throughout the text.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for details on how your comments were addressed to strengthen the submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is an interesting study, and it would be very meaningful to determine the impact of plastic use on water quality and try to find effective and efficient alternatives. Unfortunately, this does not read like a research paper, but like a summary report of a questionnaire. The manuscript in its present form is not suitable for publication.

Some minor issues

1. Section 2.3, a flowchart could be added to show the main processes of this research.
2. Too few visualizations in the manuscript.
3. There is no section on conclusions in the manuscript?

The lack of some actual data to prove the effect of plastic use on water quality is the biggest drawback of this study, and it may be inappropriate to draw some important conclusions only through questionnaires. In addition, the manuscript does not express the research methodology in sufficient detail. The content of the study appears thin and needs to be further strengthened.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for details on how your comments were addressed to strengthen the submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

Title: Calcification of article is a research scientific, so it will be convenient to use a academic syntaxis in the title, for instance to avoid, sustained the land or water warriors, perhaps using “study over plastic using in  . . .” impact of plastic over sustainability . . .: survey analysis” . . .

 

ABSTRAC: Suggestion, to be specific in the discussion or results

 

INTRODUCTION: The authors are using the introduction to explain the plastic problem, which are spread know around the world, but, according objective and method in this reviewer opinion, it will be convenient to understand, why does the authors think knowing the perception of some people contribute to improve the pollution problem. There are other related works? Where? What were the results or methodology?

METHODOLOGY: Here is the critical section, because the author just mentioned the use of survey (on line) to acquire information data, many question . . . how was created the survey, what was the population, how was the section of people, etc. After that, how was the organization of the information, statistical, control of data, error, etc.

Two main questions: how the people perception can get better the sustainability of the plastic pollution and, if N=20 is enough to obtain conclusions if it is representatives

I think the authors must be include in the analysis and conclusion, many issues in the information derivate of the survey, because it is dispersed and ambiguous, for instance, how these characteristics of people are impacting the process of reduce the plastic use o pollution; as you well know, all of them knowing the problem and understand it, but how improve the conditions ??

Some specific comments are in the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for details on how your comments were addressed to strengthen the submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this study was to identify perceptions of nursery and greenhouse growers and scientists about plastic use and its impact on water quality, barriers to reducing plastic use, and ways in which scientists and growers can communicate about research that affects water quality issues such as plastics.

Unfortunately, I found that the manuscript lacks originality, novelty, experimental data, and in-depth discussion. The manuscript requires significant revision, including extensive rewriting and the addition of more detailed discussion. Due to the numerous issues identified, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form. The abstract should be rewritten to make it more interesting and informative. It should clearly state the purpose, methods, and key conclusions of the study.

The study results should also include quantitative results such as chemical analysis of the waters for the contaminants studied. This will make the article more comprehensive, increase its relevance, and connect with the impact of perceptions on water quality and the environment, thus meeting the journal's publication standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Please see the attached document for details on how your comments were addressed to strengthen the submission. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The ms has quite improved by addressing most of the Reviewers' comments. However, significant modifications still need to be made regarding references. Precisely, references are only about 25 and need to be implemented, like providing more robustness to your discussion. Many references have been provided in the previous round of revisions. Furthermore, at L43 the reference is still misplaced and I suggest changing it with more general papers on the topic of plastics - see papers by Thompson et al. or Rochman et al. 

The aims need more emphasis on the hypothesis.

The Authors should also define how they have considered the "I don't know" answers in data analysis. 

Data visualization now allows readers to follow your paper.

Discussions need to be checked and provide robustness. 

After these changes, the ms might deserve publication.

 

Author Response

Thank you, once again for your review. Please see attached document articulating how we addressed your thoughtful comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has excellently completed the revisions according to the review comments.

Author Response

Thank you for looking over our manuscript again and we appreciate your support. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly revised, rewritten and additional details have been provided .

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript a second time and we greatly appreciate your support of the revisions.