Integrated Ecological Risk Assessment of the Agricultural Area under a High Anthropopressure Based on Chemical, Ecotoxicological and Ecological Indicators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Good job
This study clear presents the ecotoxicological and ecological effects in the agricultural area long-time contaminated with organic pollutants (PAHs). Furthermore, the aim of the current study was the deployment of detailed integrated risk assessment procedure including multidisciplinary approach based on chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological lines of evidence.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
2.1. Study area and sampling campaigns
As reported: “The study was carried out in the area located in the south-western part of the Silesian region in Czerwionka, Rybnik ditrict, Poland. The territory is very diverse, it includes agricultural and urban parts as well as industrial and post-industrial sites.”
Comments: I suggest adding a Map of study area with land use types/ land cover including sampling locations (e.g. could be use the CORINE Land Cover, see Efthimiou et al. (2023), Land , 12(1), 119; Kosma et al., (2022) Land, 11(4), 557;...). When referring to agricultural land, land use types/land cover is an important factor in understanding the origin of pollutants. Usually, these pollutants originate from long-term crop management practices on agricultural land (Triantafyllidis et al. (2020) Water Air Soil Pollut. 231, 1-17) or changes in land use, as you very correctly state in your study (lines 528, 529).
2.2. Soil characteristic and chemical analysis
A critical factor for agroecosystem pollution control is the sampling period (soil, water,…) (Stamatis, et al. (2013) Sci. World J.; Triantafyllidis, et al., (2010) Int J Environ Anal Chem 90(3-6), 344-356, ….). Please, add the sampling season to your study.
Lines 120-121 “The total content of 16 PAHs (16PAH) was determined by gas chromatography-mass 120 spectrometry (GC-MS)..” Please add the model. Also, in a supplementary file some of the chromatograms (reference site and sampling sites) could be added.
Line 129 (QA/QC parameters) please explain.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents an important research study on the ecological risk assessment of agricultural land exposed to anthropogenic pressure for an extended period. The authors highlight the limitations of previous studies that only consider total contaminant concentration and emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach integrating chemical, ecotoxicological, and ecological analyses.
The methodology employed in this study, including the measurement of both total and bioavailable PAH content and the use of various bio-assays and ecological indicators, appears to be comprehensive and appropriate for assessing the risk in the study area. The integration of data from multiple indicators is commendable and provides a more holistic understanding of the ecological risks involved.
The results of the integrated risk assessment, as indicated by the IntRisk index, demonstrate that the majority of the study area has acceptable risk levels. It is noteworthy that the chemical risk index contributes significantly to the overall risk, while the ecotoxicological and ecological results suggest no or low risk in most cases. The identification of specific areas with higher risk levels that require additional action is a valuable outcome of this study.
The article builds upon the authors' previous research by expanding the focus to ecotoxicological and ecological effects, thereby adding more depth to the ecological risk assessment of the long-term contaminated agricultural area. The inclusion of parameters characterizing the availability of pollutants enhances the reliability of the assessment.
Some further clarification and discussion in certain areas may strengthen the overall impact and scientific rigor of the study:
1. Introduction: The Introduction provides a clear overview of the research study. However, more details on the weaknesses and disadvantages of previous studies on the ecological risk assessment of soil pollutants can be provided. For example, the authors claimed that “a lot of studies on the ecological risk assessment are… based on chemical analysis of the total pollutant concentrations and chemical risk indexes…” (Lines 47-50). Please add examples and specific reasons why these previous approaches can lead to overestimation or underestimation of risk.
2. For the end of the Introduction, it would be helpful to provide a concise statement summarizing the expected findings of the research to capture the reader's attention and establish the significance of the study (Lines 88-91).
3. Research Approach: The article briefly mentions the interdisciplinary approach used in the study, integrating chemical, ecotoxicological, and ecological analysis. It would be beneficial to use appendices (or supplementary documents) to provide a bit more detail about the specific methods employed within each discipline to give the reader a clearer understanding of the research design and the data collected.
4. Lines 96-97: Characteristics can be briefly described here. Unless the information is not the same in the three cited articles, there is no need to cite all of them for repeating descriptions.
5. Line 136: The number 316 x 10^3 is not correct scientific notation. Check similar errors throughout the article.
6. Line 259-282: The equations are incorrect. Please double check. Use equation editors to present equations in a reader friendly manner.
7. Figure 1: In the figure, high toxicity (yellow) and very high toxicity (black) are not visible. Consider using a different scale to make them visible and comparable across different scenarios.
8. Provide your original data and manipulated data for review and examination.
9. Make a list of abbreviations/acronyms at the beginning of the article. There are too many of them throughout the article and it is easy to lose track of their meanings.
10. Language and Grammar: The article is generally well-written, but there are a few instances where sentence structure and word choice could be improved for clarity. Careful proofreading and editing would help ensure a smoother flow of information.
The article is generally well-written, but there are a few instances where sentence structure and word choice could be improved for clarity. Careful proofreading and editing would help ensure a smoother flow of information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work deals with interesting issues regarding about risk assessment of chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological indicators of the agricultural area. The work mainly concerns issues in the field of agronomy and environmental protection. Study confirms that the set of 15 indicators allowed to derive quantitative risk indexes and delineate the limited area which needs additional action. Findings could have certain practical significance for improving and sustaining the condition of soils in agriculture sector.
However, I have a few comments for further improvement as follows:
1 In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], not the source abbreviation. Authors are using the mix of APA and Agriculture Journal styles. See in the Instructions for Authors, Manuscript Preparation.
2. In Materials and Methods section, it is worth presenting the plan of study area and sampling campaigns. It can be done using graphical expression or graphical abstract or just shoving points in the map. It would help to understand whole experiment, whole samples number, number of repetitions, sampling time, sample weight and etc.
3. Meteorological conditions in my opinion is important for such kind of research. For example, rainfall quantities, monthly temperature and other parameters could be presented in Materials and Methods section. I think that at least minimal information about meteorological conditions should be provided or justify that these conditions could not affect the results.
4. Conclusions have to contain purposes and suggestions, according with introduction, abstract and title of the paper as well. The conclusions should respond to the statements of the set main objective. The aim of the current study was the deployment of detailed integrated risk assessment procedure including multidisciplinary approach based on chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological lines of evidence. In my opinion, the conclusions should be more concrete and specific comparable quantitative results could be use. Also, maybe answers can be provided in response to the question in which region was the highest risk and why?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 2 Report
Previous comments have been decently addressed.
Minor language editing/polishing is recommended.
