Survey of Antifungal in Surface- and Groundwater: A Portuguese Environmental Case Study
and Leonor Meisel 8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article revolves around extensive field testing of antifungal agents used for medical and agricultural purposes in surface water and groundwater in Portugal. The results are highly significant, and the overall theme of the article aligns with the requirements of the journal. Minor revisions are recommended prior to acceptance.
1. Title should be changed to "Antifungal Screening Identification in Surface- and Ground-water: An Environmental Case Study". It is also advisable to include the research location in the title.
2.In line 123, the author mentions that sampling was collected four times per year from 2017 to 2019. I believe it is necessary to provide specific information regarding the sampling time or season for each of the four sampling events. Different times or seasons may result in changes in hydrological conditions, which can, in turn, affect the distribution of pollutants.
3.In lines 155-156, the statement "The qualitative methodology used in this study allowed the detection of compounds at concentrations as low as 50 ng/L in complex matrices" implies that the detection limit of the method used is 50 ng/L. However, this conclusion has raised some confusion for me. I am unsure if this detection limit applies to all compounds, or if it pertains to a specific compound. Based on my understanding, different compounds may have different detection limits within this methodology, so it should be viewed as a range rather than a fixed value.
4. Why is there an underline in line 467? I think that lines 467 and 468 should be a continuous paragraph.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work has investigated the existence and distribution of antifungals in surface water and groundwater in Portugal using passive sampling technique and high resolution chromatographic system. And the results come that antifungals applied in medical practice were not found, just thirty-nine different fungicides molecules for agricultural purposes were found. It is an interesting and important work. The manuscript has clear ideas, detailed data, and sufficient discussion, so in my opinion, it could be accepted after a minor revision.
Suggestions for revision are as follows:
1. For the title, I do not think “ Antifungal Screening Identification” is suitable, maybe it just a survey.
2. There are no data about concentration of fungicides detected in surface water and groundwater throughout the manuscript, is it not important? In my opinion, concentration for pollutant in environment is a key factor. Please add the information if possible, at least the detection concentrations.
3. In my opinion, the conclusion is a bit long, please simplify the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented paper deals with the systematic screening of both the ground- and surface water for antifungal compound, both of medicinal and agricultural origin. 13 surface water and 13 groundwater sampling stations were deposited, and the samples were collected, extracted and analysed qualitatively using the UPLC-MS method. The data were analysed, and the frequencies of occurence for the 39 active antifungal compounds across continental Portugal were reported. Finally, the health risk and environmental impact of the reported compounds were discussed.
In general, the paper is not bad, and is worthy of publication in this journal. The reviewer recommends the following corrections.
1) Most important, the analysis method should be described in detail, so the reader should not seek for another paper (ref. 21) in order to find the details of analysis. This could be done in the supplementary materials rather than in the manuscript body.
In addition, the analytical performance of the used method should be extensively discussed.
How the detected compounds differ in retention times and peak intensities? Which standard solutions were used for device calibration? How was the matrix effect (interfering compounds in the river waters and groundwaters) taken into account? Which compounds, in addition to target antifungals, may be absorbed by the samplers from the water and later interfere? How were the degradation products identified?
How was the method validated with respect to selectivity, false positive and false negative results? Are there any limitations of the used method, and, if yes, how they may affect the analysis of the water samples? May a very high levels of some compound mask or interfere with the presence of other target compounds? And so on.
In fact, in the current state, the paper looks like a "black box", in which the analytical part is totally unknown, and it is completely unclear, how the target compounds were identified.
2) Table 1. Please, explicitly explain the describe the used quantitties like lg Kow, lg Koc, DT50 and GUS. What do these parameters mean? Which levels of each parameters are "low" or "high", "acceptable" or "dangerous". How are these parameters related to the distribution of the antifungals in the soils and the waters. This helps the reader to understand Table 1 properly.
3) Please, convert the supplementary tables to the *.pdf files and merge them into the single file for convenience.
4) In the discussion section the authors briefly described, which antifungals are used in which agricultural sector (e. g. rice production, decorative plants, corn production, fruit production etc.). However, it is interesting to analyse, in which regions of Portugal the one or another sector of agricultural production is widespread, and how the data on the occurence of one of other antifungals correlate with the type of the agricultural products harvested at the specific territory.
Best regards,
The reviewer.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine, but should be carefully checked.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: sustainability-2730891
Title: Antifungal Screening Identification in Surface- and Groundwater. An Environmental Case Study.
by Cristina De Mello-Sampayo, Paula Viana, Ana Lopes, Rita Carvalho da Silva, Rosário de Jesus, Georgina Sarmento, Anabela Almeida and Leonor Meisel
Written evaluation
Overall impression and recommendation
The manuscript reviews antifungals in surface water and groundwater in Portugal. The paper is generally well structured, it seems very interesting and it has scholarly importance. I didn't find any major objections to the work, good job authors. There are though some minor concerns which need to be addressed as stated in comments bellow.
1) Something went wrong with the page numbering when writing, please review
2) Lines 61-68: the sentence is too long, the meaning is lost while reading, reformulate it in a few sentences
3) Figure 1: the legend is unclear, it is necessary to increase the font and ensure that everything in the image is visible to the reader
4) Table S1. Uniform the fonts in the table
5) Language editing - I recommend that authors double-check their grammar, ask their native English-speaking colleague to assist to check grammar, and/or use the English editing service to ensure that it is meet the standard of publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I recommend that authors double-check their grammar, ask their native English-speaking colleague to assist to check grammar, and/or use the English editing service to ensure that it is meet the standard of publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, thank you for your revision.
In fact, almost all of my comments from the previous round were properly addressed. The authors supplied the manuscript with the analytical method and discussed the performance. The authors explained the key values in Table 1, and extended the discussion.
A few additional corrections need to be made before publication.
1) Please explicitly describe the stationary phase in the chromatographic separation, not just state the commercial column name Kinetex C18.
Imagine, if your paper will be read in 23rd century, when the current commercial names will be totally obsolete. In this case, it will be not clear for the reader.
So, please add as many revelant information as possible and describe the sorbent (the chemical name and structure, particle size, if relevant, crystal structure etc.).
If there are other commercial names of the key technological elements in the article, not noticed by the reviewer, please also add the description to make your paper easily understandable by the future generations.
2) Once again, please, convert your supplementary files to *.pdf format and merge them into the single file!
This is not a work of the editorial team, but of the authors. The SI will be published as it is presented. However, Word files are not very convenient for read in some devices and operating systems. In contrast, pdf files could be easily opened in multiple systems and device types. So, this is the authors' responsibility to make the supplementary files easily accessible for readers.
In addition, please, remove the colours indicating tracking changes in the supplementary information files, because they will NOT be edited during the production stage, and will be published as is, which will be also not convenient, if these colours persist in the final version.
Best regards,
The reviewer.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The corrections were made accordingly.
Authors' comment: Kinetex C18 column is a registered trademark, validated for the present study. Its specifications were inserted in Document S6. In addition, the supplementary files were converted to *.pdf format, and the colours indicating tracking changes were removed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, and on behalf of all authors,
