Dear Dr. Fiener,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2026 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.

• A 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,

Phuping Sucharitakul

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 note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 955334.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

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

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: General Comments

This is an interesting manuscript that addresses a relevant topic, and the technical aspects are sound, and the interpretations presented by the authors are generally convincing. The overall aim of the study and its main findings are clearly conveyed, and the topic itself has sufficient relevance for the readership of the journal. While the level of novelty is moderate, the work can still make a meaningful contribution provided that the presentation and technical details are carefully refined.

The overall structure of the manuscript is reasonable, with a logical flow from introduction to conclusion. The methodology appears appropriate for addressing the stated research questions, and no fundamental methodological flaws are evident based on the current description. The discussion largely reflects the results, although clarity and readability could be improved in several places. The conclusion section would benefit from a clearer synthesis of the main findings, along with a discussion of limitations and directions for future research.

At this stage, I believe the manuscript is potentially suitable for publication after revision. The requested changes are mainly related to consistency, formatting, clarity, and completeness, but addressing them carefully will significantly improve the quality and professionalism of the manuscript.

Specific Comments

L4: Please check whether the reference numbering style used here is appropriate for this journal. If references are not meant to be indicated as superscripts, then this numbering style is acceptable, but it must be applied consistently throughout the entire manuscript.

L10: When the same unit is repeated for a series of values, it is sufficient to indicate the unit only once at the end of the series. Please revise accordingly.

L57: Please specify where the material or equipment was purchased. The location and the company name should be clearly stated.

L60: When indicating numerical ranges, please use an en dash instead of a hyphen.

L66, L67: Please revise “meter” to the SI unit symbol “m” and ensure consistent usage throughout the manuscript.

L82: The dates listed here appear rather arbitrary. Please clarify the rationale or criteria used for selecting these particular dates.

L125: Please insert commas for numbers at the thousand level (e.g., 1,000) and apply this formatting consistently throughout the manuscript.

L136: For temperature units in °C, the unit is usually written immediately after the number without a space. If this style is adopted, please ensure consistency across the entire manuscript.

L190, L227, L243, L257: Please remove the underlining from the titles and revise them to conform to the journal’s standard format for chapters and section headings.

L193: Please use an en dash for numerical ranges and insert commas for numbers at the thousand level.

L270: The paragraphs in the discussion section are excessively long. For better readability, please divide them into shorter paragraphs based on their logical and thematic structure.

L341: The conclusion should more clearly summarize the main findings of the study. In addition, it would be beneficial to explicitly mention the limitations of the current work and to suggest directions for future research. Please revise this section from that perspective.

L373: Overall, the number of references cited in the manuscript is relatively small. Please consider strengthening the literature review by incorporating additional relevant and up-to-date references.

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript repeatedly refers to “microplastic formation” and “release of microplastic particles,” yet no direct quantification or identification of microplastics (e.g., particle counting, size distribution, mass balance) is performed. The conclusions are instead inferred from changes in surface roughness, wettability, and FTIR indices. While this interpretation is reasonable, the wording in the Discussion and Conclusion sections should be softened. Statements implying confirmed microplastic generation should be reframed as potential or indirect evidence of microplastic formation unless supported by direct measurements.

2. The abrasion treatment was performed without replicates (61 days, single vessel per treatment). Given the variability inherent to abrasion processes, this limits the statistical robustness of the results, particularly for surface roughness and FTIR-based indices. This limitation should be explicitly acknowledged in the Methods and Discussion sections. The authors may also consider clarifying why replication was not feasible and how this might affect result interpretation.

3. The manuscript attempts to relate artificial UV exposure to natural sunlight exposure using a generalized energy conversion approach. While helpful, this conversion remains approximate and does not account for additional environmental factors such as temperature fluctuations, moisture, or soil-film contact. The Discussion would benefit from a clearer statement that the laboratory exposure represents a simplified scenario and may not fully capture field-scale degradation dynamics.

4.The conclusion that no increased fragmentation potential exists is based on unchanged Young’s modulus values within the applied UV exposure range. However, fragmentation in real agricultural systems is influenced not only by elastic modulus but also by embrittlement, crack initiation, and handling stresses. The authors should clarify that the absence of elasticity changes under the tested conditions does not necessarily rule out fragmentation under longer exposure times or combined environmental stresses.

5.The terms “macroplastic residues,” “plastic particles,” and “microplastic formation” are sometimes used interchangeably. A short clarification of terminology early in the manuscript would improve readability.

6. The manuscript notes that differences between films may arise from undisclosed additives. While this is reasonable, a brief discussion of how this uncertainty affects comparability between film types would strengthen the interpretation.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

UV light and abrasion’s role in degrading plasticulture films

PONE-D-25-56979R1

Dear Dr. Fiener,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Phuping Sucharitakul

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have revised the manuscript; however, I would like to request several additional corrections as outlined below:

L4: Please format the references using bracketed numbering (e.g., [1]) instead of parentheses.

L42: The citation format for Ren and Ni (2022) is incorrect. In addition, it appears again in L44. Please revise accordingly.

L75: 1800 W → 1,800 W

L199: 3,100–3,700 cm⁻¹ and 910–1,080 cm⁻¹ → 3,100–3,700 and 910–1,080 cm⁻¹

L214: The term r² is used without prior definition. Please define it before its first occurrence in the text.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********