PONE-D-24-38603Diazinon residues levels in farm-gate Brassica oleracea var. Acephala of Kimira-Oluch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project, KenyaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Oromo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We notice that your figures are uploaded with the file type 'Other'. Please amend the file type to 'Figure'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments:

The article has notable merits; however, the extraction and clean p method did not written properly. Therefore, the article can be accepted for publications after necessary corrections, and clarifications.

Specific comments:

In page 4 ,line 118- 136: Extraction and partitioning of samples should be re-written. In this section the authors only needs to mention the extraction and cleanup of the real samples, it is not wise to mention the procedures of addition of standard of diazinon. The addition of standard or the fortification of standard should be mentioned in the preparation of fortified samples in the method validation part. In this section the authors only mention the extraction of diazinon, however, they did not mention the procedures of clean up. It should be addressed properly?

In page 7, line 172-176: How the authors have measured the mean concentration of Blank sampes in case of LOD and LOQ determination? The determination of LOQ was not appropriate. In case of LOQ determinations please follow the CODEX or EU (SANTE) guidelines.

In page 8. Iine 200-202: In case of HRI estimation, the ADI value is mentioned for specific pesticides in all food items that the consumers have taken in a day. However the EDI was measured for the specific pesticides in a single food items not for all food items that the consumers have taken in a day, so how it is comparable? Please clarify.

In page 12, ine 256: The reference (39) you have cited was an old one, please replace with the new one: Nahar KM., Khan MSI., Habib M., Hossain SM., Prodhan MDH and Islam MA. Health risk assessment of pesticide residues in vegetables collected from northern part of Bangladesh. Food Research 4 (6), 2281-2288

In page 13, ine 280: The reference (46) you have cited was an old one, please replace with the new one: Habib M., A. Kaium, M.S.I. Khan, M. D. H. Prodhan, N. Begum, M. T. I. Chowdhury, M.A. Islam. 2021. Residue level and health risk assessment of organophosphorus pesticides in eggplant and cauliflower collected from Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Food Research 5 (3), 369-377

The authors are requested to add very recent references in introduction and discussions chapter, you may add the following articles: 1. Multiple pesticide residue determination in major vegetables purchased from Gazipur district of Bangladesh.

2. Analysis of organophosphorus pesticide residues in selected vegetables purchased from Narsingdi district of Bangladesh using QuEChERS Extraction.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

The article has no merits at this stage. The article has not been written with proper scientific questions and hypotheses. The article required substantial improvement before acceptance on the given concerns below.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

It should be concise with quantified data and more information about Diazinon and its uses in Brassica.

The research implications are very wide. Please give the precise implications of the study.

Introduction:

The sentences “These conditions promote the rapid spread of vegetable pests and diseases (20,21). The smallholder farmers manage the pests by use of synthetic pesticides.” are very broad and irrelevant to study. Please give specific mentions of insect pests and control by which insects in Brassica field in particular locations recommended by the authority.

No scientific hypothesis and research gaps are provided by the authors in the introduction part.

“Brassica oleracea var. acephala” once it has been used; after that, it gives a short name for this.

Result section:

Separate result and discussion part

Line 235-236: “The data set (Table 1) had no outliers”. What was the method of outlier detection?

Calibration, validation and peak of pesticide detection are to be provided for review purposes.

Specific recommendations and utility of the present research at the end of the discussion and conclusion are to be provided in the revised manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Mohammad Dalower Hossain Prodhan

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Dr. Jaipal Singh Choudhary

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Diazinon residues levels in farm-gate Brassica oleracea var. Acephala of Kimira-Oluch Smallholder Farm Improvement Project, Kenya

PONE-D-24-38603R1

Dear Dr. George Odoyo Oromo

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: