You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Environments2026, 13(1), 24;https://doi.org/10.3390/environments13010024 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Claudia Arcidiacono1,
  • Paola Rapisarda2 and
  • Marco Palella3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Olga Kudryashova Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Rima Isaifan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article represents an important and rigorous study. It was conducted in accordance with PRISMA principles. Its main goal is to systematize the complex and diverse topic of monitoring harmful emissions on farms. To this end, the authors proposed a new quantitative metric – the Adherence VERA Index (AVI). They also created a minimum set of reporting rules (VERA-short), which is crucial for comparing future studies and improving the assessment of harm to human health and the environment. The article's topic is ecology and standards in agriculture, which is consistent with the scope of the journal Environments.

 

I liked the article. I have very minor questions and comments for the authors.

  1. I found this section somewhat redundant. It contains repetitions of ideas, particularly about livestock's contribution to ammonia emissions and health impacts. I think the Introduction could have been shortened without losing its meaning.
  2. Materials and Methods. Why did the authors choose the VERA protocol for the assessment? There are other guidelines (for example, from IPCC or EMEP/EEA). Could you briefly discuss its advantages? Perhaps it is particularly focused on livestock?
  3. The authors rightly point out the need for wider implementation of the VERA protocol. But how do the authors envision practical ways to achieve this? For example, how do they envisage further steps to promote their proposed VERA-short? Could the results of this work help in the creation of official regulations for government agencies or professional associations?
  4. The authors provide useful summary tables. However, for clarity, it would be interesting to see some figures. For example, a diagram of average AVI values ​​with a spread across different animal species, or something similar.

Although the article contains some minor flaws, overall, in my opinion, it is ready for publication. It proposes a new method that could help better monitor farm ecology. The proposed methodological approach can be used in the future to improve work in these areas. Therefore, the article can be published as is (or, if necessary, with my minor comments taken into account first).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Reviewer 1

We thank the Reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:
    “I found this section somewhat redundant. It contains repetitions of ideas, particularly about livestock's contribution to ammonia emissions and health impacts. I think the Introduction could have been shortened without losing its meaning.”

Authors’ response:
We thank the Reviewer for this comment. We revised the Introduction to remove redundancies and improve conciseness while fully preserving the scientific content and all original citations

 

  1. Reviewer comment:
    “Materials and Methods. Why did the authors choose the VERA protocol for the assessment? There are other guidelines (for example, from IPCC or EMEP/EEA). Could you briefly discuss its advantages? Perhaps it is particularly focused on livestock?”

Authors’ response:
We appreciate this important point. We clarified in the Materials and Methods section why the VERA protocol was selected. In particular, we highlighted that, compared with broader guidance documents such as IPCC or EMEP/EEA, the VERA protocol provides species-specific and housing-specific methodological requirements tailored to livestock environments. This makes it especially suitable for evaluating the methodological quality of on-farm NH₃ and PM monitoring studies.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:
    “The authors rightly point out the need for wider implementation of the VERA protocol. But how do the authors envision practical ways to achieve this? For example, how do they envisage further steps to promote their proposed VERA-short? Could the results of this work help in the creation of official regulations for government agencies or professional associations?”

Authors’ response:
Thank you for this insightful comment. Following your recommendation, we have expanded the Discussion section by adding specific considerations on practical strategies to facilitate wider implementation of the VERA protocol, including potential applications of the proposed VERA-short in routine monitoring and its relevance for harmonization efforts in regulatory and professional contexts. In addition, the former paragraph 3.4.7 “Innovation and transferability” has been removed from the Results section, and its content has been relocated and integrated into the Conclusions, where it fits more appropriately within the broader implications of the study.

 

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

“The authors provide useful summary tables. However, for clarity, it would be interesting to see some figures. For example, a diagram of average AVI values ​​with a spread across different animal species, or something similar.”

Authors’ response:

Done as suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
 I would congratulate on you for this valuable piece of work which I think was needed both for scientists and professionals of the field.
I reckon that a big effort was done to build this review.
However, I have some suggestions and comments that I believe will strengthen your work. I would suggest you to improve the display tabels  information throughout the manuscript to more concise.
I have included detailed comments in the attached file.
Thank you. Good job.
Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments provided. Below we provide a detailed point-by-point response.

Comment 1

Reviewer comment:
“Modify the title so that the word ‘adherence’ is not used twice”

Authors’ response:
We thank the Reviewer for this remark. We have revised the title by removing the first occurrence of the term “adherence”.

Comment 2

Reviewer comment:
“I would suggest you to improve the display tables information throughout the manuscript to more concise.”

Authors’ response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion.

Table 1: has been split into two tables, with the first containing general characteristics (Table 1) and the second containing monitoring data (Table 2).

 Regarding the request to include GPS coordinates for each farm, unfortunately this information was not reported in the original studies.

Table 2 (now renamed Table 3): has been corrected by standardizing the layout within each column.

Comment 3

Reviewer comment:
“I have included detailed comments in the attached file.”

Authors’ response:
We carefully addressed all the comments provided in the annotated file and implemented all necessary modifications throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. Avoid abbreviations in the title, so remove VERA
  2. I did not find any reference to the expansion of VERA in the introduction. Kindly consider expanding it and introducing it properly as Verification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production
  3. The introduction provides good global context, but it would help to clarify why VERA is the most suitable benchmark compared to other protocols (e.g., EPA, UNECE, ISO standards).
  4. Several statements cite broad trends in emissions but would benefit from more precise quantification or referencing consistency.
  5. The search strings appear narrow. Consider broadening or at least acknowledging possible omissions due to limited search terms.
  6. The PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1) lacks information on reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage per category; the figure would benefit from clearer labels.
  7. Clarify whether the binary scoring system used for AVI was piloted or tested for inter-rater reliability beyond two reviewers agreeing.
  8. The manuscript should state whether the VERA protocol domains were weighted equally and why.
  9. Table 1 is highly detailed but difficult to navigate. Consider summarizing key characteristics (e.g., ventilation, manure management) in a more compact comparative structure.
  10. Many studies lack reporting of lighting, ventilation, or feed type. This absence reinforces your findings, but could be highlighted explicitly in the narrative
  11. The heterogeneous monitoring methods (e.g., different sensors, flow rates, PM cut-off methods) are well described, but the manuscript could further discuss how this affects comparability across studies.
  12. Some monitoring instruments listed (e.g., DustTrak) have known biases in livestock environments; it would be useful to mention this in the interpretation.
  13. It is unclear whether the 20–75% AVI range is significantly different between species categories; statistical comparison could strengthen the findings.
  14. Clarify whether some VERA criteria were universally non-applicable to certain farm types.
  15. The observation that lower AVI correlates with higher pollutant concentrations is intriguing; however, the causality or direction of this relationship should be addressed cautiously.
  16. The discussion could better integrate the One Health perspective by linking worker exposure, animal welfare, and environmental emissions in a single conceptual paragraph.
  17. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge that VERA is European in origin; thus, applying it globally may introduce regional bias.
  18. The authors should address the limitation that some studies lacked full methodological reporting, likely underestimating true adherence.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Reviewer 3

We thank the Reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:
    “Avoid abbreviations in the title, so remove VERA.”

 

Authors' response:
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have modified the title by replacing the acronym with its full description. However, we kindly ask for the possibility of retaining the acronym VERA in the title, as it is necessary to refer to our index. The wording “Adherence VERA Index” represents the full name of the acronym of our index (AVI). We also considered removing the acronym VERA entirely, but we were unable to identify an alternative title that would convey the same concept with equal clarity. For this reason, we respectfully request to keep the acronym in the title.



  1. Reviewer comment:
    “Kindly consider expanding it and introducing it properly as Verification of Environmental Technologies for Agricultural Production.”

 

Authors' response:
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. According to the suggestion we introduced the full name before using the acronym.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:
    “Clarify why VERA is the most suitable benchmark compared to other protocols.”

 

Authors' response:
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We explained the reason for choosing VERA over the others in paragraph 2.3.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

“Several statements cite broad trends in emissions but would benefit from more precise quantification or referencing consistency.”

 

Authors' response:

Done as suggested

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 “Search strings appear narrow; acknowledge possible omissions”.

 

Authors' response:
The search strategy was intentionally designed to be specific rather than exhaustive, in order to identify studies explicitly focused on on-farm monitoring of particulate matter and ammonia. Broader search strings were tested during preliminary searches but returned a high proportion of irrelevant records (e.g., ambient air quality studies not related to farming activities).

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

“PRISMA diagram lacks information on reasons for exclusion.”

 

Authors' response:

Done as suggested

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

“Clarify whether AVI scoring was piloted or tested for inter-rater reliability.”

 

Authors’ response:
Thank you for this comment. This work represents a pilot study aimed at developing and testing the AVI index using the articles included in the systematic review.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Clarify whether VERA domains were weighted equally and why.

 

Authors' response:
Done as suggested. We clarified this aspect in the Methods.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Table 1 is highly detailed but difficult to navigate. Consider summarizing key characteristics in a more compact comparative structure.

 

Authors’ response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion.

Table 1: has been split into two tables, with the first containing general characteristics (Table 1) and the second containing monitoring data (Table 2).

 Regarding the request to include GPS coordinates for each farm, unfortunately this information was not reported in the original studies.

Table 2 (now renamed Table 3): has been corrected by standardizing the layout within each column.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Highlight missing reporting information (lighting, ventilation, feed).

 

Authors' response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We emphasized this gap in the Results section.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Elaborate how methodological heterogeneity affects comparability.

 

Authors' response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Methodological heterogeneity was not a problem for us, as our goal was not to compare the various livestock farming systems but to evaluate the application of the VERA protocol

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Mention known biases of some instruments (e.g., DustTrak).

 

Authors' response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. It was our intention to include, among the outcomes, the quality of the data based on the analytical methods used by the individual studies; however, as shown in Table 3, this information is unfortunately not reported by the majority of the authors.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 It is unclear whether the 20–75% AVI range is significantly different between species categories; statistical comparison could strengthen the findings.

 

Authors' response:

We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion; however, no hypothesis testing was performed because AVI values were derived from heterogeneous studies with different designs, measurement methods, and summary-level reporting. These data do not meet the assumptions required for inferential statistics (e.g., independence and comparable variance), and formal testing would therefore risk misleading interpretation. For this reason, AVI ranges were presented descriptively.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Clarify non-applicable VERA criteria.

 

Authors' response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. Non-applicable VERA criteria refer to those not selected among the 14 criteria considered essential for this study and were excluded from the AVI computation.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Interpret cautiously the link between low AVI and higher pollutant concentrations.

 

Authors' response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. A caution statement was added in the section 3.4.6 where this association is reported.

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Integrate the One Health perspective.

 

Authors' response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. We added a concise One Health perspective in the Discussion.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Acknowledge regional bias due to VERA’s European origin.

 

Authors' response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. We added a limitation statement.

 

 

  1. Reviewer comment:

 Acknowledge that incomplete reporting may underestimate adherence.

 

Authors' response:
We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. We explicitly addressed this limitation.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now ok

Author Response

Dear Dr. Caporossi,

thank you very much for your careful review and for your constructive comments.

We would like to inform you that we have addressed all the points you raised. Specifically, we have carefully revised the English throughout the manuscript to correct typographical and grammatical errors, including the one highlighted at line 319. In addition, the text has been reformatted in full compliance with the journal’s guidelines, including the sections previously mentioned as well as all tables, which have been aligned with the journal’s template. Finally, the reference list has been revised according to the journal’s formatting requirements, with appropriate punctuation, italics for journal titles, bold formatting for publication years, and a thorough check to ensure that DOIs are included where available.

We believe that these revisions have further improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

 

Maria Fiore