Risk Assessment of Sulfonylurea Herbicides Based on a Complex Bioindicator

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

After carrying out the review of the article entitled “Risk assessment of sulphonylurea herbicides based on a complex bioindicator”, proposed for possible publication in Agriculture Journal would like to express that from my perspective the work is interesting, and the topic is relevant from the environmental point of view. However, I believe that some aspects should be considered and corrected before the work could be accepted. Next, I list some suggestions for improvement and details that I observed in it:

In the abstract line 17, change analysed to analyzed.

Do not use abbreviations in the introduction or in the document if the meaning is not indicated at least once. Eg UN line 27, UNO line 56.

Line 58 after the authors place “based on” and eliminate “or” since the idea raised is confusing.

Lines 68-69 do not highlight in bold Parr et al. (1992), 72 Elliott, (1997), and 94 Poporisch et al (2020).

For the argument indicated in lines 11-113 include a reference.

Lines 143 and 145 change areas and ureas for urease.

Change line 147 (Negoita et al., 2001; Stefanic et al., 1998, 2006) with the corresponding numbers in the list of references and place them between bullets according to the journal's normative.

Line 164 enter the complete geographic coordinates.

Homogenizing the use of compound units in some parts of the documents expresses them with superscript g ha^-1 while in others it uses diagonal g/ha (example table 2.1).

Lines 174-176 change table 2.1. by table 1.

Line 193 change “2.3. Metode pentru evaluarea parametrilor biotici si enzimatici” from Romanian to English.

Line 242 delete in this chapter and indicate the corresponding figures.

Number consecutively according to the order of appearance of both figures and tables.

Change figure 3.1 to figure 1, inside the figure indicate with letters if there were significant differences between the treatments. Also, place titles on both the Y and X axis.

Line 256 change chapter by section.

The discussion needs to be improved, most of the works with which their results are compared are very old, it is suggested to carry out an exhaustive review of recent works that address the problem addressed and compare with the research carried out.

Lines 411-412 change to the English language "Pe de alta parte".

The authors must standardize the format of the references, in some, they abbreviate the name of the journals and in others they do not.

The supplementary material should be limited to only the table, it is suggested to remove the Romanian text presented in it.

The authors should discuss more about the indicator generated and those already existing than considering other parameters such as those mentioned in the supplementary material.

Once the suggestions have been addressed, the work can be considered for publication.

 Kind regards.

Author Response

We would like to thank for appreciation of our work and for giving us such constructive recommendation for improving the quality and scientific relevance of this manuscript. To facilitate the review of our changes, the response point-by-point to the questions and comments are presented in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

After detailed readings in the manuscript, entitled: "Risk assessment of sulphonylurea herbicides based on a com plex bioindicator", I suggest, the Accept of manuscript with minor corrections:

1 - At the end of the "Abstract" could emphasize the global scale, its study can go further, including applied in other countries.

2 - It is not appropriate to repeat in the "Keywords" the terms present in the title of the manuscript, this must be reviewed.

3 - The authors and representations of the references in numerical form do not need to be in bold in the text of the manuscript.

4 - The excerpt on page 3, lines 117 to 125, could accompany this formation:

5 - Therefore, we propose a Biological Synthetic Indicator, noted ISB, defined by all of biotic and enzymatic processes described mathematically by the following partial indicators: - The Vital Activity Potential Indicator, which includes biotic parameters (respiratory potential, cellulosic activity, nitrification), noted IPAV, presented in six research papers [44-49]; - Enzymatic Activity Potential Indicator, which contains the enzymatic parameters (catalase, urease, saccharase, phosphatase), noted IPAE, presented in three research papers [50-52] from which the phosphatase potential was not published.

6 - At the end of the introduction, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the global scale of the study. This would further enhance the credibility of the manuscript.

7 - The item "2.4. Statistical analysis", it is necessary to specify, detail in more detail the items and subjects.

8 - Figure 3.1 is not adequate, it may confuse readers. I suggest replacing: Figure 1. Apply the same suggestion to tables.

9 - At the end of the conclusion, it is necessary to indicate the possibility of future work. This allows the continuation of the study.

Author Response

We would like to thank for appreciation of our work and for giving us such constructive recommendation for improving the quality and scientific relevance of this manuscript. To facilitate the review of our changes, the response point-by-point to the questions and comments are presented in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

After carrying out the review of the article entitled “Risk assessment of sulphonylurea herbicides based on a complex bioindicator”, proposed for possible publication in Agriculture Journal would like to express that from my perspective the work is interesting, and the topic is relevant to the environmental point of view. I am grateful that you have addressed the recommendations in such a way that the structure and content of the document has improved substantially. I would just like to add the following comment regarding geographic coordinates:

Geographic coordinates continue to be expressed incorrectly. It is suggested to use the "GMS" sexagesimal system: degrees (°) minutes (′) seconds (″).

Once the suggestion has been addressed, the work can be accepted for publication.

Kind regards.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and comments, which were very useful to improve the manuscript. We made the minor revision suggested by Reviewer 1. Regarding English corrections we have decided to use MDPI suggestion and to send to your center.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx