Next Article in Journal
Industrial Energy Transitions and the Dynamics of Innovation Systems: The Swedish Pulp and Paper Industry, 1970–2010
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of the Interaction of Gadolinium with Several Organic Ligands and Humic Acid by Ligand Competition Using 4-(2-Pyridylazo)-Resorcinol (PAR)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Monitoring Arsenic Species Content in Seaweeds Produced off the Southern Coast of Korea and Its Risk Assessment

Environments 2020, 7(9), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7090068
by Min-hyuk Kim 1, Junseob Kim 2, Chang-Hyun Noh 1, Seogyeong Choi 1, Yong-Sung Joo 2 and Kwang-Won Lee 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Environments 2020, 7(9), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7090068
Submission received: 22 July 2020 / Revised: 29 August 2020 / Accepted: 31 August 2020 / Published: 3 September 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 31 - The authors do not accurately represent the relation between oxidation state of arsenic in inorganic and methylated species and toxic potential. It is true that mono- and di-methylated oxy-arsenicals containing AsV are less cytotoxic than arsenate or arsenite. However, the orthologs of these methylated species that contain AsIII are more cytotoxic than either inorganic arsenical. In addition there is evidence that methylated thio-arsenicals containing AsV are more toxic than inorganic arsenicals. The idea that the formation of methylated arsenicals from inorganic arsenic is entirely a detoxification process is not consistent with the literature. To use this outdated approach to evaluating arsenical species in not sound. The authors need to rewrite this section to reflect our current understanding on the relation between methylation and toxicity. Evaluating inorganic and methylated species in seaweeds is important because inorganic arsenicals exert specific toxic effects and are also methylated to mono- and di-methylated species that have specific toxic effects. 

Line 123 - The description of the method for determination of As species could be improved. It is not clear to the reader whether this should be regarded as an extraction or as a destructive method for determination of all arsenicals. Can this be clarified?

Table 2 - The data show that most of the arsenic in seaweeds is not accounted for by the As species quantified in this analysis. Presumably the balance is present as arsenosugars and arsenolipids. Is it clear that these complex organic arsenicals do not make a contribution to exposure to inorganic and methylated species and can be excluded from the risk assessment. There is a small literature on the fate of arsenosugars and arsenolipids in humans that may provide insights into this issue.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Answer to the questions of reviewers of Manuscript NO: environments-891460

Thank you for your positive consideration letting us to have an opportunity to publish our manuscript in Environments.

 

Reviewer 1

Comments

Open Review

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Line 31 - The authors do not accurately represent the relation between oxidation state of arsenic in inorganic and methylated species and toxic potential. It is true that mono- and di-methylated oxy-arsenicals containing AsV are less cytotoxic than arsenate or arsenite. However, the orthologs of these methylated species that contain AsIII are more cytotoxic than either inorganic arsenical. In addition there is evidence that methylated thio-arsenicals containing AsV are more toxic than inorganic arsenicals. The idea that the formation of methylated arsenicals from inorganic arsenic is entirely a detoxification process is not consistent with the literature. To use this outdated approach to evaluating arsenical species in not sound. The authors need to rewrite this section to reflect our current understanding on the relation between methylation and toxicity. Evaluating inorganic and methylated species in seaweeds is important because inorganic arsenicals exert specific toxic effects and are also methylated to mono- and di-methylated species that have specific toxic effects.

 Þ Answer:

We’d like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the careful and critical reading of our manuscript. With highlighted in green color text, we made the correction in response.

We made the concerned responses according to the reviewer’s comments in text such as in line (L) 31-33 and L36-45 in the revised manuscript. Please see the corrections in text.

 

2) Line 123 - The description of the method for determination of As species could be improved. It is not clear to the reader whether this should be regarded as an extraction or as a destructive method for determination of all arsenicals. Can this be clarified?

Þ Answer:

We made the correction in L134-136 in the revised text.

 

3) Table 2 - The data show that most of the arsenic in seaweeds is not accounted for by the As species quantified in this analysis. Presumably the balance is present as arsenosugars and arsenolipids. Is it clear that these complex organic arsenicals do not make a contribution to exposure to inorganic and methylated species and can be excluded from the risk assessment. There is a small literature on the fate of arsenosugars and arsenolipids in humans that may provide insights into this issue.

Þ Answer:

We made the concerned responses according to the reviewer’s comments in text such as in L222-228 in the revised text.

 Finally, we really appreciate the critical and useful input from the reviewer which were guidance for revising our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript titled “Monitoring arsenic species content in sea weeds produced off the southern coast of Korea and its risk assessment” by Kim et al., presents a very interesting study on the As concentration and speciation on different sea weeds and provides a risk assessment of seaweed intake for residents. The manuscript is well written and explained. I enjoyed reading the manuscript.

The following is my suggestions.

1) The knowledge gap should be clearly defined in the Introduction, which allows the readers to know why authors performed such as study and what work has been done before. Have the previous studies done similar analysis or study As in other types of seaweeds? What are the new things that this study would like to present to the reads?  

2) Lines 233-238: Could the authors further explain why tAs concentration varies so much in different seaweeds? The high metal-chelating capacity of functional groups of the cell definitely can be one of the reasons. Any possible that the seawater in different regions contribute to high As in different seaweeds?

3) In the Risk Assessment, iAs was considered for assessing the risk. Since the iA speciation varies among the different seaweeds, do you think if the different iA speciation with different toxicity should be considered when assessing the risks?

Generally, the study is significant and useful. I look forward to the publication of this manuscript. Please see other minor comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answer to the questions of reviewers of Manuscript NO: environments-891460

Thank you for your positive consideration letting us to have an opportunity to publish our manuscript in Environments.

Reviewer 2

Comments

Reviewer 2

Open Review

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript titled “Monitoring arsenic species content in sea weeds produced off the southern coast of Korea and its risk assessment” by Kim et al., presents a very interesting study on the As concentration and speciation on different sea weeds and provides a risk assessment of seaweed intake for residents. The manuscript is well written and explained. I enjoyed reading the manuscript.

The following is my suggestions.

 

1) The knowledge gap should be clearly defined in the Introduction, which allows the readers to know why authors performed such as study and what work has been done before. Have the previous studies done similar analysis or study As in other types of seaweeds? What are the new things that this study would like to present to the reads?

Þ Answer:

We’d like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for the careful and critical reading of our manuscript. With highlighted in green color text, we made the correction in response.

We made the concerned responses according to the reviewer’s comments in text such as in line (L) 63-67 and L74 in the revised manuscript. Please see the corrections in text.

    

2) Lines 233-238: Could the authors further explain why tAs concentration varies so much in different seaweeds? The high metal-chelating capacity of functional groups of the cell definitely can be one of the reasons. Any possible that the seawater in different regions contribute to high As in different seaweeds?

Þ Answer:

We made the concerned responses according to the reviewer’s comments in L25-258 in the revised text.

Please note that samples used in this experiment were purchased evenly mixed samples produced in the sea of three sides of Korea, the differences between the regions do not appear significantly.

 

3) In the Risk Assessment, iAs was considered for assessing the risk. Since the iA speciation varies among the different seaweeds, do you think if the different iA speciation with different toxicity should be considered when assessing the risks?

Þ Answer:

We made the concerned responses in text such as in line L342-345 and L356-358.

And also, please note that we responded notes marked in the pdf manuscript and corrected them.

Generally, the study is significant and useful. I look forward to the publication of this manuscript. Please see other minor comments in the attached pdf.

 

Finally, we really appreciate the critical and useful input from the reviewer which were guidance for revising our manuscript.

Back to TopTop