Dear Dr Wiedner
I have considered the referees comments and author responses and am satisfied that the revisions you outline are satisfactory in addressing the majority of the reviewers comments. There are however, a few points that need more attention which I have detailed below.

Reviewer 2, point 7 needs addressing more thoroughly. The author response only deals with the 2nd part of the point on microglass. The first point the reviewer is making is that if you report non-significant effects of microplastics on PLFAs, then even if there are trends in the data, the discussion should focus on why there are no significant effects. This is especially true given the very high input rates of microplastics which have been used.
Reviewer 2, point 8 states : The paragraph in the discussion section on the effects of micro-particles on macrofauna seems irrelevant when the experiments were about testing microbial populations.
Editor – I would agree with the reviewer that this paragraph should be removed or reduced to a single statement as it is not the focus of the paper.
Both reviewers indicate that figure 1 is unnecessary and should be removed. The figure contains information which can be gained from the references cited, and also the figure is not used as a conceptual framework for the experiments or referred to elsewhere in the paper, beyond one mention in the introduction. It should therefore be removed from the manuscript.
Editor comment – Regarding the attribution of specific PLFA indicators for general fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi these attributions are incorrect (see Frostegard et al 2011 for discussion and correct use). The authors use General fungi: 18:2ω6,9, 18:1ω9c, 20:1ω9c; and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF): 16:1ω5c. For general fungi I have never seen 20:1ω9c ascribed to fungi so would question if this is accurate (Frostegard et al 2011). For arbuscular fungi it is widely published that PLFA 16:1ω5c can only be used in for AMF in non-soil systems as it also present in bacteria (Olsson et al 1999). It is the NLFA which should be used in soils (Frostegard et al 2011, Soil Biol Biochem). These attributions need correcting or strongly justifying.
Please incorporate the suggested revisions from the editor and reviewers and the manuscript with detailed responses.
Yours sincerely
Jeanette Whitaker

Thankyou for revising the manuscript in accordance with the editors and reviewers comments. I am happy to accept the manuscript for publication.
Regards
Jeanette Whitaker

Dear authors,

I am happy to inform you that your paper 2019-38 is accepted for publication. However, I agree with the topical editor who suggested a final proof-read to improve the English grammar. Please revise your ms and resubmit the revised version with these technical corrections as soon as possible.
Thank you for considering SOIL.

Kind regards,

K Van Oost