All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for your efforts in revising the manuscript in response to reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
My apologies for the length of time your manuscript was in review. The opinions of the reviewers are mixed, and I was never able to get a 3rd reviewer. Neither of the 2 reviews has much detail or many specific comments. There are concerns about the contribution of the research, which are amplified by further comments about repeated text and lengthy generic statements in the results, discussion, and conclusion sections. Please address these concerns and others pointed out in the reviews.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
1. Sentences used in this work were too verbose.
2. A lot of repetitions were in the results and discussion, and these two parts should be combined and reorganized.
no comment
This paper lacks of novelty and a lot of similar works have been reported. DEHP in landfill leachate was detected in 3-years periods and PNEC was used to assess the eco-risk of leachate. Only PNEC was calculated, which was not supported. More toxicity test should be employed here.
Line 248-255: These sentences were too verbose and you should come straight to the results.
Line 250-251: The description of PNEC should be put into the method part.
Line 278-281: More explanation should be done here and why DEHP concentrations can significantly differ, even in the same country?
Line 291-295: This work compared DEHP concentrations in landfill leachate from different regions. The explanation is too confusing and inexplicable.
The conclusion is too long and lacks originality.
The topic is not specific on what element of risk assessment the author was focusing on. Please incorporate the element that the risk assessment is related to. This is for more clarity to the readers and not make the topic to generic.
Also the Topic should be “potential” risk assessment because actual risk assessment was not conducted to avoid misleading the readers
The introduction was well written with an extensive explanation of DEHP and its potential environmental and health risk if in contact. However, nothing was said on the national strategies and limits of the quantity of DEHP in leachate or ground water posed by the polish or European government.
Line 155, state the meteorological seasons in parenthesis for more clarity
Line 183-185, Why was the instrument changed and what was the difference the author identified while using the two instrument.
was written in a proper scientific manner
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.