Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript entitled Fusarium species and mycotoxin associated to sorghum grains in Uruguay brings important information on food and feed safety. I enjoyed read it. I only suggest the authors to mention about the international allowed levels of mycotoxin in sorghum. They may also mention about maize crop especially when used as crop rotation...I know this mentioned somehow in the discussion section but should be well highlighted in the introduction.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

First of all, the authors would like to thank the work of the reviewer. Your comments have been of enormous value to this revised manuscript version.

Reviewer 1:

Because there are no nationally and internationally regulations for sorghum crop, and it is mainly used for animal feed in our country, the recommended levels for animal feed and raw material we used in order to evaluate the results obtained.

In Uruguay, maize crop is cultivated at the same time as sorghum (both are summer crops). Therefore, we understand that is not necessary to mention the rotation with maize crop.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: toxins-2494488

 

The manuscript investigated the occurrence of Fusarium species and mycotoxin contamination in sorghum grain in Uruguay. The study showed that the Fusarium graminearum appeared as the predominant species followed by F. proliferatum, F. andiyazi, F. fujikuroi and F. thapsinum. Deoxynivalenol and zearalenone were two most prevalent mycotoxins detected in sorghum grain, with the 27% and 64% of samples exceeding the recommended levels in Uruguay for DON and ZEN, respectively. The authors also conducted fungicide sensitivity study of two dominant Fusarium species (F. graminearum and F. proliferatum). The findings from this study could help implement strategies to minimize fungal infection and mycotoxin contamination in sorghum and to ensure animal and human health. I would like to recommend its acceptance for publication in Toxins. The following are some comments and suggestions.

 

1.     Wrong citation (line 54): The reference 14 didn’t mention association of FBs with esophageal cancer and neural tube defects.

2.     Figure 1: Using 2016 + 2017 to represent the average data of 2016 and 2017 is a little bit confusing. I would suggest using a better label for clarity.

3.     I would like to suggest using a table to present the result of 2.3 (lines 94-99), including the range of mycotoxin concentration.

4.     Line 97: Why did one result have one decimal place (74.5%) while the rest have whole number?

5.     Table 1: There are two NIV lines in Table 1.

6.     Lines 311-330. Studies showed that substrates had distinctive effect on the mycotoxin production. Was there a special reason to use rice, instead of sorghum, as substrate for this experiment?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewer

First of all, the authors would like to thank the work of the reviewer. Your comments have been of enormous value to this revised manuscript version.

Reviewer 2:

Line 54: reference modified.

Figure 1: 2016+2017 label was modified.

Lines 94-99: The mycotoxin levels produced by strains were not quantified. For this reason, we understand that is not necessary to include the results obtained in a table.

Line 97: the percentage (74.5%) was corrected.

Table 1: NIV line was corrected.

Lines 311-330: We use rice because mycotoxin production is frequently reported using this substrate. This also makes it possible to compare the data with that reported in other works.

Reviewer 3 Report

Sorghum is an important grain crop widely used as food, feed, and brewing raw materials, However, there is still a lack of systematic research on the pollution of mycotoxins in Uruguay . This article systematically studied the main Fusarium species infected with sorghum, and major mycotoxins were analyzed.  Furthermore, A comparative study was conducted about fungicides which could be used to control stem rot, and reduce fungal toxin pollution. However, there are some questions in the article, mainly as follows:

1.       Line23, “in Uruguay” needs to be added at the end of the sentence. Because it was only the first report in Uruguay.

2.       Line205, Is it ZEA or ZEN? Please confirm.

3.       Line209,” In our country”needs to be changed into “in Uruguay”.

4.       Line 190, corresponding literature here need to be added.

5.       The conclusion is too simplistic, such as “F. graminearum s.s was the predominant species, ”and the situation about mycotoxin should be described.

6.       Please confirm “FB1 and FB2”if there are subscript.

7.       Fig1,Fig2 and Fig3 are not clear enough, please refer to pictures in the published articles of this journal to revise figures.

NO

Author Response

Response to reviewer

First of all, the authors would like to thank the work of the reviewer. Your comments have been of enormous value to this revised manuscript version.

Reviewer 3:

Line 23: “In Uruguay” was added.

Line 205: “ZEN” instead of “ZEA”.  

Line 209: “In our country” need to be changed by “in Uruguay”. Modified.

Line 190: reference added.

Point 5: the conclusion is too simplistic, such as “F. graminearum s.s was the predominant species, “ and the situation about mycotoxin should be described.  We don't understand what part of the manuscript are referring to.

Point 6: FB1 and FB2 are not subscript.

Point 7: Figures revised according to the journal requirements.

Reviewer 4 Report

This interesting article deals with one of the important summer crops in Uruguay – sorghum and its contamination with Fusarium species and mycotoxins, causing losses and presenting risk to consumers. The authors highlighted Fusarium graminearum species complex as the one with highest incidence, followed by Fusarium fujikuroi species complex, amongst which Fusarium fijukuroi was isolated for the first time from sorghum grains. Deoxynivalenol and zearalenone were the most frequently found mycotoxins in sorghum samples, while fumonisins and nivalenol were detected only at low levels. The authors also investigated fungicide performance against analysed Fusarium species, revealing metconazole as the best option, and pointing out the need for defining management practices to minimize fungal infection and mycotoxin production.

Manuscript seems to be well written and article subject nicely presented. Methods are adequately described, and references well cited, although not being entirely current. As this article certainly adds some new knowledge regarding the subject, showing abovementioned important scientific contribution, I have no objections for its publication. Although some minor text screening for minor mistakes (typos, etc.) is necessary, for example:  Line 21 – Fusarium not in cursive; Table 1 – (μg/Kg); Line 218 – F. proliferatum not in cursive; Line 332 – Fifty-five instead of 55; Line 340 – NaH2PO4; etc.

Author Response

First of all, the authors would like to thank the work of the reviewer. Your comments have been of enormous value to this revised manuscript version.

Reviewer 4:

Line 21: Fusarium not in cursive. Corrected.

Table 1: “µg/Kg” was corrected.  

Line 218: Fusarium proliferatum not in cursive. Corrected.

Line 332: “Fifty- five” instead of “55’. Modified.

Line 340: “NaH2PO4”. Subscripts were corrected.