Antimicrobial Resistance in Selected Foodborne Pathogens in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The results section should not have discussion points. E.g., Lines 117-118, Lines 132-135.

Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer to E. coli as a pathogen. However, they do not indicate whether the papers they examined checked for the various E. coli pathotypes. They could have maybe just reported E. coli as an indicator. This must be rectified. It is not correct to classify E. coli with Salmonella and Campylobacter as pathogens without confirmation

In the discussion, the authors attribute the resistance observed in the papers to antibiotic use in food animals. While this is one of the reasons, it must be made clear that some food additives contain heavy metals that have been linked with AMR.

Specific comments

Line 16: "However, the regional evidence base remains fragmented" Please rephrase this sentence for clarity

Line 18: rephrase point (2). It reads as if "antibiotic classes" are resistant

Line 44 and throughout the manuscript, "spp." should not be written in italics

Line 47: Start with a capital letter

Line 94: How can 90 published articles encompass 1555 studies. Did some articles report more than one study?

Line 95: The manuscript has no Figure 1

Line 100: No Figure 2 is present in the manuscript

Line 108: 102 studies???  This contradicts Table 1 and Line 94. As asked previously, how did 90 published articles report 102 studies? And this is different from the 1555 studies earlier mentioned.

Line 114: environmental samples? The inclusion criteria in the materials and methods mentions only isolates of food animals (or their products). There is no mention of environmental samples.

Line 129: See previous comments on the number of studies

Line 118: Start the second sentence with a capital letter

Line 136: Please introduce Table 4 in the text first, before it appears. Do the same for all the other tables

Line 143: Delete "Provided in" and do the same in the other instances

Line 169: "environmental samples" Please check the previous comment on environmental samples, as the authors did not mention that they were also checking environmental samples. It is also not in the data extraction table

 

Line 335: Write scientific names properly

Line 336: Why did the authors select only three antibiotic classes?

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

General comments

Comments 1: The results section should not have discussion points. E.g., Lines 117-118, Lines 132-135.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewers for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer. The result section points at Lines 117–118 and 132–135 have been moved to the Discussion section (page 8, paragraph 3, Lines 226–235). Similar adjustments have been made throughout the Results section where discussion elements were identified. These changes are highlighted in yellow in the Discussion section.

Comments 2: Throughout the manuscript, the authors refer to E. coli as a pathogen. However, they do not indicate whether the papers they examined checked for the various E. coli pathotypes. They could have maybe just reported E. coli as an indicator. This must be rectified. It is not correct to classify E. coli with Salmonella and Campylobacter as pathogens without confirmation

Response 2: We appreciate this observation. We totally agree with the reviewer and we have now rectified this problem. Some studies have reported E. coli as an indicator, while others have indicated pathogenic strains. We have now clarified that in the text and we have provided pathogenic and nonpathogenic E. coli strains.  We have now highlighted this in Table 1 and lines 131-138.

Comments 3: In the discussion, the authors attribute the resistance observed in the papers to antibiotic use in food animals. While this is one of the reasons, it must be made clear that some food additives contain heavy metals that have been linked with AMR.

Response 3: We agree that heavy metals contribute to AMR. We have highlighted this in the limitations section (line 330-332).  

Specific comments

Comments 4: Line 16: "However, the regional evidence base remains fragmented" Please rephrase this sentence for clarity

Response 4: Revised for clarity as follows: “However, regional understanding and policy responses remain limited by fragmented data and inadequate surveillance.” (Page 1, paragraph 1, Lines 20–21)

Comments 5: Line 18: rephrase point (2). It reads as if "antibiotic classes" are resistant

Response 5: Revised for clarity: “(2) compare sub group variations across countries, pathogen species, and antibiotic classes.” (Page 1, paragraph 1, Lines 23-24)

Comments 6: Line 44 and throughout the manuscript, "spp." should not be written in italics

Response 6: Agreed. All instances of spp. have been changed to non-italic formatting throughout the manuscript, following scientific conventions.

Comments 7: Line 47: Start with a capital letter

Response 7: Corrected as suggested. The paragraph now begins with “Antibacterial Resistance.” Replaced with “Antimicrobial Resistance” in the manuscript. (Page 2, paragraph 2, Lines 51)

Comments 8: Line 94: How can 90 published articles encompass 1555 studies. Did some articles report more than one study? Comments 11: Line 108: 102 studies???  This contradicts Table 1 and Line 94. As asked previously, how did 90 published articles report 102 studies? And this is different from the 1555 studies earlier mentioned. Comments 13: Line 129: See previous comments on the number of studies

Response (8,11,13): We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to this issue. It is true that, 90 articles met the inclusion criteria as included in PRISMA charts.  Some articles reported more than one pathogen. We have now corrected this error in Table 1 and Lines 124 -131. For clarity we included PRISMA charts in the result section Lines 106.

Comments 9: Line 95: The manuscript has no Figure 1. Comments 10: Line 100: No Figure 2 is present in the manuscript

Response 9 and 10: We appreciate this comment and have now included the Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart in (Page 3, Lines 106) and Figure 2 (Risk of Bias Summary) in the main manuscript (page 3, lines 110-114) as suggested.

Comments 12 and 17: Line 114: environmental samples? The inclusion criteria in the materials and methods mentions only isolates of food animals (or their products). There is no mention of environmental samples.  Line 169: "environmental samples" Please check the previous comment on environmental samples, as the authors did not mention that they were also checking environmental samples. It is also not in the data extraction table

Response 12 and 17: We agree with the reviewer. The text has been corrected to refer only to “food animals and their products” throughout the manuscript, replacing “environmental samples” for consistency (page 5, Lines 133–134, and pages 8, Lines, 209).

Comments 14: Line 118: Start the second sentence with a capital letter

Response 14: Corrected as suggested.

Comments 15: Line 136: Please introduce Table 4 in the text first, before it appears. Do the same for all the other tables

Response 15: We agree. All tables and figures are now incorporated in the text before appearing. Additionally, Table 2 was reformatted for consistency (the first column now separates “Country” and “Sample size [k]”) (pages 5, Lines, 145-146).

Comments 16: Line 143: Delete "Provided in" and do the same in the other instances

Response 16: Revised accordingly. All instances of “Provided in” were deleted for conciseness.

Comments 18: Line 335: Write scientific names properly

Response 18: Corrected. All scientific names have been formatted in italics consistently throughout the manuscript (Lines 345).

Comments 19: Line 336: Why did the authors select only three antibiotic classes?

Response 19: Thank you for the question. We apologize for the typing errors and the revised text has been added to the Methods section (Page 13, Lines 443):
“Antibiotic classes (Such as, β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines and others).”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and may be considered for publication after some concerns have been addressed.

Title: The authors featured the review on only three pathogens- Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli, therefore, I suggest a modification of the title to: Antimicrobial Resistance in some selected Foodborne pathogens in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Also, the authors have used Antibacterial Resistance and Antimicrobial Resistance interchangeably throughout the manuscript. I suggest the consistent use of Antimicrobial Resistance throughout the revised manuscript.

Line 17- change---- ‘’major’’ foodborne pathogens, to ---- ‘selected’ foodborne pathogens, otherwise enlarge the scope to include other foodborne pathogens.

Lines 21, 190, 276, 283- Authors should rephrase-----studies published between 2010 and 2025 reporting----. The year 2025 has not ended yet. It should be-----studies published between 2010 and month, 2025-----.

Line 47- Change-antibacterial to –Antibacterial

Lines 95, 100 -Figure 1 and 2 are not shown in the manuscript. Please provide them.

Line 97. The flow chart for data selection should form part of the main manuscript and not as a supplemental figure.

Line 104, 105,279, 337, Table 1- The term-‘’Middle Africa’’ is not popular- I think the region is generally regarded as Central Africa, which the authors have mentioned also at some time in the manuscript (See line 255).  I suggest the authors should correct this.

Tables 1 and 2. Authors should explain the difference in the number of studies, 90 in table 1 and 102 in table 2.

Line 118- rephrase- the use punctuation (.)

Table 3 listed 16 countries as against 19 stated in the abstract (line 26). Authors should reconcile please.

Line 154- This needs to be rephrase in line with- Polypeptide Antibiotics in table 7.  Also take into account the renderings in lines 198-200. Authors need to cross-check and reconcile please.

Line 221- The authors should justify their reference of low resistance to fluoroquinolones (23.7%) over other compounds like Phosphonic Acids 5.3%, and Polymyxins 9.0%

Lines 355 is contradictory to lines 153-17 and Table 7. Please reconcile

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

 Comments 1: Title: The authors featured the review on only three pathogens- Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli, therefore, I suggest a modification of the title to: Antimicrobial Resistance in some selected Foodborne pathogens in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We fully agree and have revised the title accordingly in the manuscript.
Revised Title: Antimicrobial Resistance in Some Selected Foodborne Pathogens in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (page 1, line 2)

Comments 2: Also, the authors have used Antibacterial Resistance and Antimicrobial Resistance interchangeably throughout the manuscript. I suggest the consistent use of Antimicrobial Resistance throughout the revised manuscript.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have now replaced all instances of “Antibacterial Resistance” with “Antimicrobial Resistance” throughout the manuscript.

Comments 3: Line 17- change---- ‘’major’’ foodborne pathogens, to ---- ‘selected’ foodborne pathogens, otherwise enlarge the scope to include other foodborne pathogens.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. We agree and have modified “major” to “selected” in line 23 and throughout the manuscript for consistency.

Comments 4: Lines 21, 190, 276, 283- Authors should rephrase-----studies published between 2010 and 2025 reporting----. The year 2025 has not ended yet. It should be-----studies published between 2010 and month, 2025-----.

Response 4: We appreciate this clarification. We have revised the statement to specify the month as “June 2025” in lines 25, 237, 323, and 357.

Comments 5: Line 47- Change-antibacterial to –Antibacterial

Response 5: Thank you for this observation. We have corrected the capitalization and also ensured consistency with “Antimicrobial Resistance” as per Comment 2.

Comments 6: Lines 95, 100 -Figure 1 and 2 are not shown in the manuscript. Please provide them.

Response 6: We appreciate this comment and have now included the Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart in (Page 3, paragraph 1, and Figure 2 (Risk of Bias Summary) in the main manuscript (page 3).

Comments 7: Line 97. The flow chart for data selection should form part of the main manuscript and not as a supplemental figure.

Response 7: We have now inserted the flow chart as Figure 1 in the main text.

Comments 8: Line 104, 105,279, 337, Table 1- The term-‘’Middle Africa’’ is not popular- I think the region is generally regarded as Central Africa, which the authors have mentioned also at some time in the manuscript (See line 255).  I suggest the authors should correct this.

Response 8: We agree with this important observation. We have replaced all instances of “Middle Africa” with “Central Africa” throughout the manuscript and Table.

Comments 9: Tables 1 and 2. Authors should explain the difference in the number of studies, 90 in table 1 and 102 in table 2.

Response 9: Thank you for highlighting this. The 90 studies represent the total number of included articles. The figure 102 was an error. We have now replaced it with 90 studies in line 125 and also in Table 2. The Table 1 was removed for clarity and avoid repetition of report.

Comments 10: Line 118- rephrase- the use punctuation (.)

Response 10: We have now added the appropriate punctuation in all manuscript.

Comments 11: Table 3 listed 16 countries as against 19 stated in the abstract (line 26). Authors should reconcile please.

Response 11: We apologize for the typing errors and the correct number is 16 countries. We have now revised the abstract (line 31) accordingly to ensure consistency.

Comments 12: Line 154- This needs to be rephrase in line with- Polypeptide Antibiotics in table 7.  Also take into account the renderings in lines 198-200. Authors need to cross-check and reconcile please.

Response 12: We apologize for the inconsistency and have reconciled the text in the Results and Discussion sections to align with Table 6. Revised Text in result section (page 7, Lines 171-182) discussion section and (page 9, paragraph 1, lines, 248–257 and paragraph 2, lines 264-281).

Comments 13: Line 221- The authors should justify their reference of low resistance to fluoroquinolones (23.7%) over other compounds like Phosphonic Acids 5.3%, and Polymyxins 9.0%

Response 13: We apologize for the inconsistency and thank you for identifying this issue. We have corrected the data and revised the result section (page 7, Lines 171-182) discussion section and (page 9, paragraph 1, lines, 248–257 and paragraph 2, lines 264-281). Conversely, the lowest resistance levels were observed for Carbapenems (2.4%), Phosphonic Acids (5.3%), and Polymyxins (9.0%).”

Comments 14: Lines 355 is contradictory to lines 153-17 and Table 7. Please reconcile

Response 14: We appreciate this valuable observation. The inconsistency has been corrected in the conclusion (Page 7, Table 6, line 454-456) to align with the results and discussion sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and detailed, but it could be improved with the following suggestions:

 

*   Although Google Scholar is a good search engine, it sometimes shows duplicate results.

*   In the Discussion section, the statement 'This prevalence surpasses comparable rates in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), highlighting weak enforcement of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)...' should be explained in more detail.

*   The reasons behind 'Excessive and unregulated antibiotic use...' should be explained in detail.

*   Adding a prevalence percentage based on isolates for each pathogen in Table 2 would allow the reader to understand the data more quickly.

*   For the search years, not only the year but also the months should be specified.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Comments 1: *   Although Google Scholar is a good search engine; it sometimes shows duplicate results.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we carefully rechecked and removed duplicate records identified through Google Scholar before screening and data extraction. This clarification has been added to the revised manuscript (Page 12, Lines 406–408).

Comments 2: * In the Discussion section, the statement 'This prevalence surpasses comparable rates in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), highlighting weak enforcement of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)...' should be explained in more detail.

Response 2: We have expanded the explanation in the Discussion section to clarify the context behind the weak enforcement of GAP and GMP in LMICs. The revised text (Page 8, Paragraph 1, Lines 211-215).

Comments 3: *   The reasons behind 'Excessive and unregulated antibiotic use...' should be explained in detail.

Response 3: We appreciate this insightful comment. The reasons for excessive and unregulated antibiotic use have been elaborated in the Discussion section (Page 8, Paragraph 4, Lines 249–258).

Comments 4: *   Adding a prevalence percentage based on isolates for each pathogen in Table 2 would allow the reader to understand the data more quickly.

Response 4: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have revised Table 1 to include the prevalence percentages based on the number of positive and total isolates for each pathogen. This update improves the clarity and interpretability of the data (Page 5, line 130-131, Table 1).

Comments 5: *   For the search years, not only the year but also the months should be specified.

 Response 5:
We appreciate this important observation. The search period has been clarified through all manuscript starts from abstract section (Page 1, Paragraph 1, Lines 21–22). The updated text reads: “The literature search covered studies published between 2010 and June 2025.”

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments

Insufficient detail on study selection criteria on inclusion and exclusion criteria—especially non-indexed sources.

Regarding the statistical methods, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how heterogeneity was assessed or managed.

Geographic Representation, where only one study from Central Africa was included. The authors should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly and consider its implications for regional policy recommendations.

The manuscript presents country-level differences in prevalence and resistance but does not sufficiently explore the underlying drivers (e.g., veterinary infrastructure, antimicrobial regulation, surveillance systems).

 

Minor comments

Line 26, ‘SAA countries’ using acronyms for the first time in text needs long terminology.

Line 49-50, ‘In SSA, where livestock production is essential for nutrition, livelihoods, and…’ What is the idea of connecting the livestock production with livelihoods?

Line 51, ‘The emergence and dissemination of resistant bacteria are driven.’ Using the specific English word ‘dissemination’ in this context is not acceptable.

Line 52. ‘limited veterinary oversight’ not appropriate use of ‘oversight’

Line 54-56, ‘Among the most prevalent foodborne zoonotic bacteria in SSA are Salmonella spp., E. coli, and Campylobacter spp., all of which can spread through the food chain and cause enteric infections in humans [14], [15], [16].

This sentence repeats the idea that is presented in the first paragraph.

Line 63, ‘..AMR ‘ The authors use this acronym for the first time. In my opinion, they misuse it together with ABR.

Line 66, ‘Food animals’ authors need to use appropriate terminology, which refers to specific animals used for food products.

Line 67. Authors present the One Health approach and the triangle for the first time, without indicating how zoonotic bacteria impact the environment and, further, human health.

Line 102: The authors have categorized the papers by African region.

The focus is Sub-Saharan Africa. Then they use 'Middle Africa' to avoid misunderstandings. I would suggest that authors present a map of the continent, with states and regionalization according to subdivisions. This is the first time I have listened to this terminology, instead of Central Africa.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors need to use appropriate synonymic words in the context of the science.

Author Response

Reviewer #4:

Major comments

Comments 1: Insufficient detail on study selection criteria on inclusion and exclusion criteria—especially non-indexed sources.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have expanded the description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, clarifying how both indexed and non-indexed sources were assessed. The revised text is now included in the Methods section (Page 11, Paragraph 1, Lines 376–381). We have inserted the following paragraph: “Studies were included if they reported primary data on antimicrobial resistance and MDR in Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, or Campylobacter spp. from food-producing animals or food products in SSA. Non-indexed sources such as, institutional reports, and local journals were screened through Google Scholar and relevant repositories, provided they contained sufficient methodological detail and laboratory-based results. Reviews, editorials, and duplicate datasets were excluded.”

Comments 2: Regarding the statistical methods, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how heterogeneity was assessed or managed.

Response 2:
We appreciate this important comment. We have revised the Statistical Analysis section to include a clearer explanation of how heterogeneity was assessed and handled (Page 12, Lines 422–434).

Comments 5: Geographic Representation, where only one study from Central Africa was included. The authors should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly and consider its implications for regional policy recommendations.

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. We have acknowledged the underrepresentation of Central Africa and discussed its policy implications in the Limitations and Policy Implications sections (Page 10, Paragraph 1, Lines 334–338).

Comments 6: The manuscript presents country-level differences in prevalence and resistance but does not sufficiently explore the underlying drivers (e.g., veterinary infrastructure, antimicrobial regulation, surveillance systems).

 Response 6: We appreciate this insightful comment. The Discussion section has been revised to elaborate on the contextual factors influencing inter-country variation (Page 8, Paragraph 1, Lines 226–231).

Minor comments

Comments 7: Line 26, ‘SAA countries’ using acronyms for the first time in text needs long terminology.

Response 7: Corrected as suggested. The first occurrence now reads “sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)” (Page 1, Line 31).

Comments 8: Line 49-50, ‘In SSA, where livestock production is essential for nutrition, livelihoods, and…’ What is the idea of connecting the livestock production with livelihoods?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rephrased the sentence to clarify the connection between livestock production and livelihood dependence (Page 2, paragraph 2, Lines 53–58). “In Sub-Saharan Africa, livestock production plays a vital role in supporting for nutrition, food security and rural incomes, making the impact of antimicrobial resistance particularly significant.”

Comments 9: Line 51, ‘The emergence and dissemination of resistant bacteria are driven.’ Using the specific English word ‘dissemination’ in this context is not acceptable.

Response 9: Revised as suggested. The sentence now reads (Page 2, paragraph 1, Line 55 - 58): “The emergence and spread of resistant bacteria are driven by unregulated antimicrobial use, poor farm biosecurity, limited veterinary supervision, and weak surveillance and laboratory systems.”

Comments 10: Line 52. ‘limited veterinary oversight’ not appropriate use of ‘oversight’

Response 10: Revised to improve word choice (Page 2, Line 55): “……Limited veterinary supervision …..”

Comments 11: Line 54-56, ‘Among the most prevalent foodborne zoonotic bacteria in SSA are Salmonella spp., E. coli, and Campylobacter spp., all of which can spread through the food chain and cause enteric infections in humans [14], [15], [16]. This sentence repeats the idea that is presented in the first paragraph.

Response 11: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have removed the redundant sentence to improve conciseness and avoid repetition (Page 2, Lines 56–57). 

Comments 12: Line 63, ‘..AMR ‘ The authors use this acronym for the first time. In my opinion, they misuse it together with ABR.

Response 12: Thank you for this clarification. We have standardized terminology throughout the manuscript and retained only “antimicrobial resistance (AMR)” consistently start from tittle (Page 1, Line 2).

Comments 13: Line 66, ‘Food animals’ authors need to use appropriate terminology, which refers to specific animals used for food products.

Response 13: Revised accordingly (Page 2, paragraph 4, Line 69-75):
“Livestock such as cattle, small ruminants, poultry, and swine can serve as reservoirs of resistant bacteria that may spread to humans through direct contact, consumption of contaminated animal products, or exposure to contaminated environments.”

Comments 15: Line 67. Authors present the One Health approach and the triangle for the first time, without indicating how zoonotic bacteria impact the environment and, further, human health.

Response 15: Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded the text to clarify the One Health interconnection (Page 2, Paragraph 4, Lines 72–75). “Addressing this challenge requires an integrated One Health framework that links human, animal, and environmental health systems, recognizing that zoonotic bacteria can persist in animal waste, can contaminate soil and water and subsequently infect humans through food or environmental exposure.”

Comments 16: Line 102: The authors have categorized the papers by African region. Comments 17: The focus is Sub-Saharan Africa. Then they use 'Middle Africa' to avoid misunderstandings. I would suggest that authors present a map of the continent, with states and regionalization according to subdivisions. This is the first time I have listened to this terminology, instead of Central Africa.

Response 16–17: We appreciate this constructive suggestion. We have revised the terminology throughout to use “Central Africa” instead of “Middle Africa” and have added a map illustrating the geographic distribution of included studies by African subregion (Page 4, Figure 3, Line 120-121).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Authors need to use appropriate synonymic words in the context of the science.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve scientific clarity, grammar, and the use of appropriate terminology. Additionally, we will submit the revised version for professional language and figure editing through the MDPI journal editing service.  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments raised

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

Congratulations to the authors for the improvement.

Please revise the references according to the MDPI Journal styles.

e.g.

[7], [8], [9], [10] instead [7-10], etc., throughout the text.

[72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. instead [72-77]....

E. O. Njoga et al., “Campylobacter Colonisation of Poultry Slaughtered at Nigerian Slaughterhouses: Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Risk of Zoonotic Transmission,” Trop Med Infect Dis, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 265, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed10090265. 

Journal/Periodical Articles

Basic Format:

Author 1; Author 2; Author 3 Title of the article. Journal Abbreviation Year, Volume, Firstpage–Lastpage/Article Number. https://doi.org/

 

 

[71] “PRIORITIZATION OF PATHOGENS TO GUIDE DISCOVERY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW 673ANTIBIOTICS FOR DRUG-RESISTANT BACTERIAL INFECTIONS, INCLUDING TUBERCULOSIS.”

[88] K. D. Mwambete and S. Stephen, “ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE PROFILES OF BACTERIA ISOLATED 722FROM CHICKEN DROPPINGS IN DAR ES SALAAM,” 2015.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors need to use appropriate synonymic words in the context of the science.