Next Article in Journal
Local Government Competition, Environmental Regulation Intensity and Regional Innovation Performance: An Empirical Investigation of Chinese Provinces
Previous Article in Journal
Disaster Risk Resilience in Colima-Villa de Alvarez, Mexico: Application of the Resilience Index to Flash Flooding Events
Open AccessCase Report
Peer-Review Record

Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Epilepsy: A Case Report from Camelford

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(12), 2129; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122129
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(12), 2129; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122129
Received: 2 May 2019 / Revised: 14 June 2019 / Accepted: 14 June 2019 / Published: 16 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are:

1)The authors have to clarify the meaning of the number in parenthesis in relation to the Aluminium content either in the Abstract and in the Results section. The number  4.80(2.20) microg/g dry wt represents the mean (SD)?

2)The results related to Aluminium content in brain tissues.can be improved.

Author Response

1)The authors have to clarify the meaning of the number in parenthesis in relation to the

Aluminium content either in the Abstract and in the Results section. The number  4.80(2.20)

microg/g dry wt represents the mean (SD)?


We are grateful to the reviewer for their comments. We have now made it clear that the data

presented in both the Abstract and Results sections in relation to the aluminium contents state

the mean and standard deviation (mean, SD, n=5).


2)The results related to Aluminium content in brain tissues.can be improved.


We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have improved the text in the

results related to the aluminium content by minimising repetition in the text.


Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: ijerph-508342

Type of manuscript: Case Report

Title: Aluminium in brain tissue in epilepsy: A case report from Camelford

 

This Case Report describes several tests performed on different portions of brain tissue of a 60-year-old man who died of asphyxiation brought on by an epileptic fit. This man was part of the population of the Cornish town of Camelford, which in 1988 was subjected to a very high aluminium exposure through drinking water. With the results obtained, the authors intend to prove the role of aluminium in the death of this man.

With this work the authors demonstrated a correlation between several specific microscopy tests performed in different brain areas and the aluminium concentration obtained by Atomic Absorption in the same zones, especially the hippocampus and occipital lobe

The main conclusion I draw from this work, and which is also mentioned by the authors, is the fact that it is important not to forget this incident and to continue the investigations.

 

The manuscript is concisely and clearly written, the presentation of data is good and well discussed. Consequently, I recommend to accept this Case Report as it is for publication in the “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” journal. 

My observations are minor and given under;

1.      The results of the concentration of aluminium obtained by Atomic Absorption would be easier/quicker to observe if they were presented in table instead of text.

2.      Keywords: occipital instead of “occiptal”


Author Response

We are grateful for the positive comments of the reviewer.


My observations are minor and given under;

1.      The results of the concentration of aluminium obtained by Atomic Absorption would be

easier/quicker to observe if they were presented in table instead of text.


We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. A table was considered, however, as the data

collected is from a single male donor in this case, we believe that the representation of the

data in this work would be better placed in the text. We have removed repetition where

possible for the results relating to the aluminium concentrations in the revised version of the

manuscript.


2.      Keywords: occipital instead of “occiptal”

We would like to thank the reviewer for noting this typographical error. We have now

corrected the keyword to “occipital” in the revised version of this manuscript.


Back to TopTop