Application of OpenAir and AgDRIFT Models to Estimate Organophosphate Pesticide Spray Drift: A Case Study in Macon County, Alabama
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The general comment about the paper is positive. However, there are several aspects that are necessary to improve the MN and avoid in many sentences a difficulty to the reader in the understanding the meaning. I suggest the authors to check carefully the paper. Here, some examples are reported.
The insert of the reference numbers, like in OpenAir was utilized by [45] to investigate relevant pollution exposure and events that occurred naturally. [45, 47] is quite unusual and complicated to the reader, like in line 112 in the sentence are involved [48-50]. have used OpenAir, please reconsider the meaning of this and several other sentences, like line 114.
I suggest the authors to make a list of the abbreviations, as usually in these cases, to help the reader to understand.
Introduction line 19 change fields, Lastly, modeling fields, Lastly, modelling in fields. Lastly, modelling
Line 66 change urban farming. [18, 19] suggested in urban farming [18, 19] suggested
Line 76 change including estimating the downwind in including the estimation of the downwind
Line 103 in the sentence used and covered [37-40] and [11, 33] there is any reason to pack the references in this way?
Line 116 change Europe [56]. After conducting in Europe [56]. After conducting, the same in lines 251 and 632
Line 126 change , it ranks 16th in , it ranks 16th
Lines 266-267 check the model of reported references in the sentences According to the AgDRIFT model [59-65] (Teske et al., 1997, 266 2002; Bird et al., 2002; Lee et al 2005), the same in lines 431-432 and change which are listed in Table in which are listed in Table.
Line 272 change in figure (3). into in Figure (3).
Line 537 change deviate by more than 36° in deviate by more than 36 °C
References model is not uniform
I suggest a careful revision of many sentences in order to avoid many mistakes and difficulties for the reader.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our profound gratitude to you for considering reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and efforts, which enabled us to improve our work to the highest possible quality. Based on your recommendations and constructive comments, the authors have corrected/modified the original manuscript. The revised parts of the manuscript are highlighted in the modified parts in the MS using red-colored text. Hereunder is the report containing our responses in detail.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Application of OpenAir and AgDRIFT Models to Estimate Organophosphate Pesticide Spray Drift: A Case Study in Macon County, Alabama is new and interesting. It's a little out of my area of interest, so the analysis took a long time. Really, the use of pesticide spray can have harmful effects on nearby crops, water sources, and residential areas. This is the main cause of pollution in farming regions and poses a significant risk to the health of farmers, applicators, and the environment. Therefore, this topic is so important to develop and study. However, I noticed that the article is missing a very important chapter - the statistical analysis and some graphs are built without statistical validity. I think this is a must add.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our profound gratitude to you for considering reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and efforts, which enabled us to improve our work to the highest possible quality. Based on your recommendations and constructive comments, the authors have corrected/modified the original manuscript. The revised parts of the manuscript are highlighted in the modified parts in the MS using red-colored text. Hereunder is the report containing our responses in detail.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript explores a series of issues such as pesticide application and post deposition. Especially, a model was proposed to effectively estimate pesticide drift. The experiment is relatively complete, and it is recommended to accept after minor revision.
1. The introduction should summarize the advantages and disadvantages of different models more, rather than extensively introducing the hazards of pesticide drift. Because the negative effects of pesticide drift on the environment and humans are well-known.
2. The full manuscript image is not very clear, and the clarity should be improved.
2. The corn images on the right side of each sub image in Figure 16 make me very confused. This should display aerial images of crop growth, and it is recommended to replace them with other images.
4. The language of the entire manuscript should be polished, and there are many grammar errors in the abstract section.
The language of the entire manuscript should be polished, and there are many grammar errors in the abstract section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our profound gratitude to you for considering reviewing the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your time and efforts, which enabled us to improve our work to the highest possible quality. Based on your recommendations and constructive comments, the authors have corrected/modified the original manuscript. The revised parts of the manuscript are highlighted in the modified parts in the MS using red-colored text. Hereunder is the report containing our responses in detail.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Being the changes accepted, I guess the paper can be now published. I hope sincerely that the research can be the basis for a future application. The problem of many publications is that they remain as something crystallized at the starting point.
