Title: “at” or “on” the border? I think it should be the latter.

Abstract
Description of the PANES should come before the statistical analyses.

Introduction
Line 53- extra comma

On Page 5- first sentence on “there is growing evidence…” should come earlier when first talking about colonias to begin to further set up the context for the present study sooner

In this same paragraph (main paragraph on page 5), ideas about gender-related disparities should be put together- and it seems like the first sentence of this paragraph should be the one starting with “neighborhood socioeconomic conditions, housing quality, …”

Methods
Page 6- clarify if you mean that the parent study- rather than this cross-sectional analyses- is what was registered.

“and restricted to adults over 18”- this is confusing, you previously say that eligibility criteria was 18-64

Sentence about 20-item CESD not needed

Indicate at the end of the statistical analyses what you considered statistical significance (i.e. p<0.05).

Results

“PANES total score was 2.4 (SD= 0.5) and the average BEI total score was 2.9 (SD= 1.6), indicating a less than favorable neighborhood environment for physical activity.” – indicate the potential range of the scores again so that it’s easy for readers to follow.

In the table notes, indicate that ALL models shown adjusted for those covariates so its abundantly clear- and title should indicate Adjusted Linear Regression

Discussion

Start of page 12- single sentence is a paragraph- combine with the following paragraph.

The second sentence is redundant “Overall, participants who reported that their neighborhood environment was more amenable for physical activity based on the PANES had lower stress and depression scores. A more favorable built environment was also related to better mental health outcomes; specifically, higher residential density and increased access to neighborhood recreational facilities were associated with lower depression scores.”

Very relevant literature on the association of neighborhood environment and mental health/depression in Latinos along the Texas-Mexico border is missing.

“Therefore, our analysis is innovative, as the relationship between physical activity and mental health is well established” – the logic of this sentence does not quite follow from what was previously said.

The discussion does a lot to explore mechanisms for what was found but focuses only one paragraph on page 12 on the specific findings of the present study. Would encourage the authors to further explore their specific outcomes (rec facilities, residential density, etc.) and nest that within the literature a bit more. Also, might be better to be more organized- like a paragraph for stress and one for depression, or one about residential density and another about recreational facilities, or some other organizational scheme that is easy to follow.

Main paragraph on page 15- while this paragraph starts off with stating that these findings have implications for the community- it proceeds to talk about contextual factors that do not flow from these findings. For example, how colonias have grown is not an implication of these findings.

Add “which this study did not explore” to this sentence “When elucidating mental health inequities within the Latinx community, it is important to consider how racism, xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments, policies and systems function as unique social and cultural determinants of health.”

“Fourth, our study examined a limited set of neighborhood environment variables. Future studies should consider pollution, lack of shade structures and other neighborhood factors,…”- The authors are not making any distinction between what they measured- which is the perceived neighborhood environment, vs. these suggestions that are more objective measures. In fact, “perceived neighborhood environment” should be used throughout the manuscript (including title) as that is what the PANES is. Strengths/limitations could then include that these are perceived environment measures- which are still critically important- or even more important for outcomes- but it should still be acknowledged.