Review Reports
by
- Amparo Mauricio-Gutiérrez 1,
- Omar Romero-Arenas 2,* and
- Alfredo Baéz Simón 2
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a topic of research interest and with significance in daily life. I only have a few minor comments.
First, the authors explained very briefly on the sampling design but important information is missing. E.g. are the responders selected randomly within each location? Are locations chosen proportional to the exposure to the pesticide? Is clustering or stratification used at any stage?
Second, in table 1 on page 5, it would be useful to include the education distribution.
Third, it is not clear what are the study limitations. The authors should state them very clearly in the discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
I inform you that each of your comments was addressed to substantially improve the work presented. The attached file shows the changes marked.
Comment 1
First, the authors explained very briefly on the sampling design but important information is missing. E.g. are the responders selected randomly within each location? Are locations chosen proportional to the exposure to the pesticide? Is clustering or stratification used at any stage?
Answer
Respondents were randomly selected at each selected site. Each zone was selected with a homogeneous population size of around 80 to 91 per site, however in zone 1 the population size increased due to the very low incidence of infectious diseases.
Two selection criteria are used, the variables used for grouping were zones (zone 1, zone 2, zone 3, zone 4), sex (women, men), occupation (farmer, businessman, housewife, retiree, student, minors), infectious diseases (once a month, none); and the variables used for stratification were chronic degenerative diseases (type II diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, breast cancer, leukemia, none), alcohol consumer (2 times a week, once a week, no alcohol), smoker (more 6 cigarettes/week, 1-5 cigarettes/week, no smoking) and age.
The description was added to the document in the sampling design section highlighted in green.
Comment 2
Second, in table 1 on page 5, it would be useful to include the education distribution.
Answer
The population has a basic educational level mainly according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), so it was not considered.
https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/#Microdatos
Comment 3
Third, it is not clear what are the study limitations. The authors should state them very clearly in the discussion.
Answer
Our study focuses on the prognosis of developing infectious diseases through non-invasive tests, however one of the limitations of the study is the lack of being able to correlate the risk of developing chronic degenerative diseases or infections with invasive tests; combined with the idiosyncrasy of the population linked to customs and beliefs.
The limitations of the study were added in green color discussion section. We plan to study a pilot group of the population that collaborates with invasive tests.
Comment 4
Moderate editing of the English language is required.
Answer
English was revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the publication presents a very important topic on human health exposure to pesticides and hydrocarbons. Article is interesting and valuable. However, some information should be corrected and completed before publishing the article.
Comment 1
Please improve the legibility of the figures and their descriptions.
Comment 2
The publisher of the SPPS Statistics software is missing.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
I inform you that each of your comments was addressed to substantially improve the work presented. The attached file shows the changes marked.
Comment 1
Please improve the legibility of the figures and their descriptions.
Answer
The figures were improved.
Comment 2
The publisher of the SPSS Statistics software is missing.
Answer
SPSS Statistics software editor was corrected and marked in yellow in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction: The introduction is well-written but focuses mainly on human health. I recommend writing a paragraph about pesticides' effect on the ecosystem and the aquatic organisms. I recommend checking and mentioning some articles in this part, like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022003577?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045622001818?via%3Dihub
Material and methods:
Fig.1: I recommend revising the whole map and indicating on the map of Mexico where the state of Puebla is, and after, also show where the subzones are.
Also, I recommend choosing more contrasting colors.
Results:
L166-167: Make a statistical test (e.g., chi-square) for testing the gender distribution if it is genuinely equal or not.
Table 1: Define the zones because every table and figure should be self-explanatory. In this case, you mention that zones are mentioned according to Fig 1.
Table 2: Did the authors use parametric or non-parametric correlation analysis? Please add it to the adequate part of the material & methods. Furthermore, please define what kind of variables are in Table 2. E.g., Spearman rank correlation's coefficient? Could you explain what significant and highly significant mean at the Note of the table because every table has to be self-explanatory?
Please revise Table 3-4 according to the abovementioned information.
The visibility of Fig 2-3 is also wrong; please improve it according to the information mentioned in Fig 1.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
I inform you that each of your comments was addressed to substantially improve the work presented. The attached file shows the changes marked.
Comment 1
Introduction: The introduction is well-written but focuses mainly on human health. I recommend writing a paragraph about pesticides' effect on the ecosystem and the aquatic organisms. I recommend checking and mentioning some articles in this part, like https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022003577?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045622001818?via%3Dihub
Answer
The following paragraph marked in pink was added to the text.
Different biomarkers have been reported, such as biometrics, histochemical, biochemical assays (catalase activity, glutathione reductase activity, glutathione peroxidase, cholinesterase activity, lactate dehydrogenase activity, alanine aminotransferase) and genotoxic are tools that determine toxic damage in invertebrate organisms (mollusks) and aquatic vertebrates (fish) caused by organic and inorganic contaminants.
Yancheva, V., Georgieva, E., Velcheva, I., Iliev, I., Stoyanova, S., Vasileva, T., Bivolarski, V., Todorova-Bambaldokova, D., Zulkipli, N., Antal, L., Nyeste, K. Assessment of the exposure of two pesticides on common carp (Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758): Are the prolonged biomarker responses adaptive or destructive? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology 2022, 261: 109446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2022.109446.
Comment 2
Material and methods:
Fig.1: I recommend revising the whole map and indicating on the map of Mexico where the state of Puebla is, and after, also show where the subzones are.
Also, I recommend choosing more contrasting colors.
Answer
The figures were edited as suggested.
Comment 3
Results:
L166-167: Make a statistical test (e.g., chi-square) for testing the gender distribution if it is genuinely equal or not.
Answer
The chi-square test was carried out as presented in Table 2. The statistical part was corroborated, and the result is conclusive, there was no significant difference for gender in the distribution of the zones, having a significance of p=0.470 marked in the Table 1 with pink color.
Comment 4
Table 1: Define the zones because every table and figure should be self-explanatory. In this case, you mention that zones are mentioned according to Fig 1.
Answer
The suggestion was made, and the changes were marked in pink in Table 1.
Comment 5
Table 2: Did the authors use parametric or non-parametric correlation analysis? Please add it to the adequate part of the material & methods. Furthermore, please define what kind of variables are in Table 2. E.g., Spearman rank correlation's coefficient? Could you explain what significant and highly significant mean at the Note of the table because every table has to be self-explanatory?
Answer
Parametric data was used for Pearson correlation and was added in the materials and methods section in pink. Thus, Table 2 is restructured by adding the Pearson correlation coefficient and the significances at 0.05 and 0.01.
Comment 6
Please revise Table 3-4 according to the abovementioned information.
Answer
Tables 3 and 4 were described more broadly at the reviewer's suggestion, marking the changes in pink.
Comment 7
The visibility of Fig 2-3 is also wrong; please improve it according to the information mentioned in Fig 1.
Answer
The figures were edited as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors performed the requested revisions, therefore I feel the manuscript is suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.