The authors perform a detailed analysis of 32 pesticide residues across 20 sites and two soil depths. The interpretation of these data lacks contextualization with respect to key soil physicochemical parameters. Soil properties such as organic matter content, pH, texture, cation exchange capacity, and microbial activity play a foundational role in governing pesticide fate, including sorption, degradation, and mobility. Yet, the paper does not report or incorporate any measurements of these variables in its analysis. This omission raises concerns about the robustness of both the site-to-site comparisons and the clustering results (Figures 2–7), which assume homogeneity in soil behavior without evidence.
How did the authors account for the influence of key soil physicochemical properties, such as organic matter content, pH, texture, and microbial activity, on pesticide residue distribution and persistence across sampling sites, given that these parameters are critical to interpreting residue mobility, sorption, and degradation? Without reporting or normalizing for these variables, how can the site-to-site comparisons and cluster analyses be considered robust?