Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

The article in question has several issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered suitable for publication in the journal. The formatting is inadequate and requires significant revisions and proofreading. Additionally, the citations and references are in the wrong format and need to be fixed. Furthermore, the equations used in the article do not make sense and require further clarification. Lastly, the tables included in the article are poorly designed and make it difficult for readers to understand the presented data. These issues must be resolved before the article can be considered for publication.

Specific Comments:

Line 7: If there are only two objectives, why mention the numbering, just separate them with "and".

Line 7: "This" is in bold fonts, fix it.

Line 9: In title four regions are mentioned but in abstract it mentions "all regions" - There are more than 4 regions in Tanzania. Kindly fix this.

Line 16: Remove "and" from Keywords

Line 19-20: Aspergillus flavor and A. parasiticus, are these molds or aflatoxins? The sentence makes it looks like these are aflatoxins. Also italicize the specie names.

Line 29-31: "Aflatoxin's acute toxicity can be demonstrated... 125 died." - This is an instance of aflatoxin's toxicity, not its demonstration. Need proper rephrasing of the sentence.

There are many grammatical and tense errors because of which the manuscript lacks in scientific writing. These needs to be addressed properly.

Line 53-54: "as the risk of aflatoxin contamination and pervasiveness variations as foodstuffs pass along the value chain" - what does this sentence indicate?

Line 65-68: "Thats why this study... about what it is." - This sentence can be simplified like this: "This study required consumers to state their knowledge about aflatoxins to ensure that those who claim to be knowledgeable have accurate information about it."

Line 104-106: Around 10 studies have been cited but many of them are not present in references. Also if so many studeys for aflatoxins are performed in Tanzania region, what is the significance of your study.

Methodology: Some parts are mentioned in past, some in present and some in future. For sake of better relevance, kindly keep every aspect of methodology in past tense as the research has already been done.

Line 219: Table 1. Distribution of markets surveyed - Since all the regions have same frequency and same percentage, this can be summarized in paragraph instead of compiling table.

Section 3.3 Consumer WTP: It would be better to round down the decimal value of TZS and add Standard deviation of the TZS with "±" symbol. e.g. TZS 5,831 ± 661.

Figure 1. Distribution of WTP Consumers: The graph needs standard deviation lines.

Line 481: Table 5. Distribution of actors influencing WTP: This table can be converted to graph or added as supplementary data. In current form it is difficult to understand. Also there are numeral variables involving 1 and 0 values. These can be depicted in an understandable manner.

Line 495: "Vomiting and spines" - This phrase does not make sense.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The paper was improved following the comments and recommendations provided.

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     The article’s template is not the Sustainability template, please update it with the Sustainability template.

2.     For literature citations, please use footnotes instead of parenthetical reference，and also delete some old literature citations.

3.     Is a sample size of 480 persons sufficient? Is there a formula for determining sample size?

4.     Several sentences are written in the present tense and must be changed to past tense in 2.4 Introduction to Multiple price Lists and experimental design and the Results section (e.g., line 243 “shows” and others).

5.      The Results section and the Discussion section should be divided to 2 separate parts.

6.     Table 2 (line 302) “Sex” should not be put in the Header. The Header is not clear. What’s the meaning of the number “xxx(xxx)”?

7.     Line 313, Line 320. Change “Table 3.1” to “Table 3”.

8.     Table 4 (line 378). Why is “South Dakota” mentioned in this table?

9.     The Conclusion section is too long. Conclusions are general statements that can be rewritten with the outcome of the research carried out. Some sentences should be removed to the Discussion section.

Author Response

The paper was improved by following the comments and recommendation provided.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on the concerns related to the incidence of aflatoxin in food, in particular in cereals and nuts, the authors performed a survey in Tanzania. The manuscript aimed to evaluate the awareness of the consumers about the aflatoxin in sunflower oil and their willingness to pay (WTP) more for aflatoxin-free sunflower oil. Four regions of Tanzania and an equal number of subjects from each area were selected to answer the survey. Also, the factors influencing WTP were analysed. The conclusion was the consumers were willing to pay for aflatoxin-free sunflower oil.

The manuscript is structured in the introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusion. The results are presented in several tables and one figure, discussed, and compared to the literature. However, several shortcomings were identified and explained below.

1. WTP should be written in full and followed by the abbreviation in brackets, i.e., „willingness to pay (WTP)” when first used in the abstract (L8) and the text of the manuscript (L61).

2. The name of microorganisms should be written in Italics, e.g., L19-20 (Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus).

3. The references should be cited in the manuscript with Arabic numbers in square brackets, e.g., [1], [2], etc. Also, the list of references should contain the references numbered in order of appearance in the text.

See the Instructions for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions)

4. The price of sunflower oil used in the multiple price lists should use the same currency:

L235 The price is $0.25 to $8.75;

L255 The price is 2500TZS to 8000TZS.

4. The discussion should be improved.

A lot of redundancy could be observed between the discussion and the tables.

The data from tables could be better exploited if presented in graphics.

Figure 1 is based on data shown in Table 4.

5. The conclusion section could be reduced. It repeats some comments and values from the results and discussion section.

 6. Fine corrections of English grammar should be done. Several examples are given below.

L3 Remove the dot at the end of the title. Also, „And”, „To”; „For” should be written in small letters.

L7 Insert a comma after „oil” and remove the comma after „ii)”.

L8 Correct „WTP” with „willingness to pay (WTP)”.

L10 Insert a comma after „later”.

L12 Replace the comma after „food” with a dot and start the following sentence with ”However”.

L12-13 Replace the dot after „regions” with a dot and write „education”, not „Education”.

L13 Remove the comma after „awareness”.

L14 Replace „are significant in influencing” with „significantly influenced”.

L40 Insert a space in „A. flavus”.

L61 Insert „(WTP) after „willingness to pay”.

L65 Correct „That’s” with „That is”.

L69 Delete the comma after consumers and „a study by”. Replace the citation „Dosman et al. (2001)” with a number in square brackets.

L71 Correct „don't” with „do not”.

 

Please check and correct the whole manuscript.

Author Response

The paper was improved by following the comments and recommendations provided.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors are suggested to address the following points:

1.     The 'Material and Methods' section should be preceded by the theoretical framework, either as a separate section or as part of the 'Introduction.'

2.     Include a map of the study areas.

3.     Provide more details on how the sample size was determined, including the statistical method used and the components of the questionnaire, if applicable.

4.     Explain why the chosen models were used for data analysis and provide references to support this explanation.

 

5.     The 'Conclusion' section should not be a summary but should instead focus on the broader impact of the study and provide specific, achievable recommendations. Limitations of the study and opportunities for future research should also be addressed, and numerical discussions should be avoided in this section.

 

Author Response

The paper was improved by following the Comments and recommendations provided.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the questions are well addressed.

Reviewer 4 Report

I am comfortable with the revisions made and recommend to accept the revised manuscript.