Peloids in Skin Care and Cosmeceuticals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive review of peloids and their applications in skin care and cosmeceuticals. Peloids, which are mixtures of clays, sediments, or peat with mineral-medicinal or seawater, are commonly used for treating various skin conditions such as psoriasis, eczema, and acne. The review highlights their therapeutic benefits, including antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant effects. It also discusses their composition, classification, and the different effects of their solid, liquid, and biological phases. Additionally, the paper touches on safety concerns and the need for regulation in their use as cosmeceuticals.

The structure of the paper is generally well-organized, moving logically from an introduction to the therapeutic benefits of peloids. However, there are several areas where improvements can be made to enhance the manuscript's clarity and impact. The most significant change needed is the addition of a results section to present the findings of the literature search in a more structured and transparent manner. This will help readers understand how the reviewed studies were selected and categorized, which will improve the paper's readability and ensure that the information is clearly presented.

In the introduction, the authors should provide more context on the global demand for natural products in skin care and how peloids fit into this trend. Additionally, more recent references could be used to support the rising use of cosmeceuticals, which would give the introduction more relevance to contemporary discussions in the field.

The materials and methods section needs more detail on the search strategy used to conduct the literature review. While the authors mention using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, there is little information on how the search was conducted. The timeline of the search and the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies should be made explicit. This would improve the transparency of the review and ensure its reproducibility.

The section on peloid definition, composition, and classification could be enhanced by providing a clearer explanation of the maturation process of peloids, particularly in modern therapeutic settings. This section would also benefit from the inclusion of a diagram or visual aid that shows the differences between natural and ad hoc peloids, which would make the information more accessible to readers.

In the discussion of peloid components and their therapeutic effects, the authors should include more specific examples from studies that highlight the unique benefits of the solid, liquid, and biological phases. This would give readers a clearer understanding of how each component contributes to the overall effects of peloids. Additionally, a deeper explanation of the interaction between these components and their effects on different skin conditions, such as sensitive skin, would be helpful.

The section on therapeutic uses of peloids would be stronger if it summarized key findings from clinical studies that compare the efficacy of peloids to other cosmeceutical products. The limitations of current research should be acknowledged here, with suggestions for areas where future investigation could be beneficial. This would provide a more balanced perspective on the topic.

The safety section should be expanded to include more information on the potential risks of long-term use of peloids, particularly in individuals with sensitive skin or preexisting skin conditions. Additionally, a more thorough discussion of existing regulatory frameworks governing the use of peloids in cosmeceuticals would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the challenges involved in their commercialization.

In the conclusions, the authors should reiterate the potential for peloids to fill gaps in current dermatological treatments and highlight the need for further research into their long-term effects on skin health. More specific suggestions for future research, such as investigating the bioavailability of peloid components, would strengthen the conclusion.

Major revision - as stated above, to improve the manuscript’s structure and readability, a dedicated results section should be added. This section would summarize the findings of the literature search and categorize the studies reviewed. For example, the authors could group the studies based on therapeutic outcomes, such as anti-inflammatory effects, or by the types of peloids studied. This would help readers follow the progression of the review and understand how the different studies fit together.

All revisions made in response to these suggestions should be highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs minor editing 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution which helped us to importantly improve the paper. We have tried to address all the concerns exposed and incorporated them into the current version of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments 1: Introduction, the authors should provide more context on the global demand for natural products in skin care and how peloids fit into this trend… and more references.
Response 1: We added new information and more references. Lines: 52-82.
Comments 2: Information on how the search was conducted. The timeline of the search…
Response 2: Information added. Lines: 86-95.   Comments 3: Peloid definition and maturation… Response 3: Diagram has been added (figure 2). Comments 4: Peloid components and their therapeutic effects. Response 4: Explanation about the specific components and interactions on the skin was explained in lines from 151 to 361. Comments 5: The section on therapeutic uses of peloids would be stronger if it summarized key findings from clinical studies that compare the efficacy of peloids to other cosmeceutical products. Response 5: We a very sorry, but we can´t compare the peloids with other cosmeceutical products, since the compositions are completely different. They could be compared to facial masks and/or body plasters made with clays, although since they do not include natural mineral water, they cannot be considered peloids. Comments 6: Limitations of current research… Response 6: Information has been added. Lines: 535-539. Comments 7: Safety section. Response 7: This section has been enlarged. Lines: 585-590. Comments 8: Conclusions. Response 8: The information required is already in the section. Additionally, the section has been renamed: “Conclusions and way forward”. 3. Other improvements:       Section headings 5, 6, and 8 have been renamed. Table 2 (Results) and section 6 (Discussion) has been reorganized and research on peloids has been grouped by types: in the first part, natural peloids, and in the second part, ad hoc prepared peloids. English writing has been improved; some sentences were rewritten for a better understanding. PLEASED, FIND THE RESPONSE IN THE ATTACHED FILE.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a review paper dealing with the applications of peloids in skin care and cosmeceuticals. While the main aim of the review is not explicitly stated, the scope does cover definition and classification of peloids, composition of peloids, relevance of peloid components, use in skin care and cosmeceuticals, and lastly, concerns about safety and regulations. Overall, the scope of the review is acceptable. The review appears clear, comprehensive and relevant to the field of research. Future directions are also indicated, although this part can be improved further (please see comment below). References cited appear appropriate and are reasonably recent, having many from within the last five years, where ~ 10% of the references are from the year 2024.

 

Below are some minor comments I have for the authors’ consideration when revising their manuscript:

1.     Overall, the style of writing seems rather descriptive where the authors mainly summarized reports in the literature. The authors may consider revising their writing to evaluate in a more critical and in-depth manner the studies they reviewed. For example, it would be appropriate for the authors to critically evaluate methodology and interpretation of findings in the studies discussed in this review. Are there any flaws/shortcomings or novel/positive aspects which can be highlighted? Such insights would be very valuable for the readers.

2.     ABSTRACT:

·       This section should be revised to better/accurately reflect the scope of the review. For example, safety and regulations are discussed in the review, but it is not mentioned at all in the ABSTRACT.

·       Also, it seems inappropriate to say that “The conclusions of this review highlight the effects and specific activities of peloids in … skin barrier function improvement.” as these are actually discussed in detail in the main body of the review. To end the ABSTRACT, it is preferable to add in a concise take-home message based on the authors’ overall assessment of the current state of research on peloids in skincare and cosmeceuticals.

3.     INTRODUCTION: The authors may consider mentioning any recent reviews on a similar topic as this current review and then highlight how this review differs from the published ones. Importantly, the authors should at least briefly highlight in the INTRODUCTION how this review can offer novel contribution to the literature in light of similar recent reviews already published. Two examples I found:

(i)             Tian, X., Zhang, Y., Li, H. et al. Property of mud and its application in cosmetic and medical fields: a review. Environ Geochem Health 44, 4235–4251 (2022).

(ii)           Akimzhanova, K., Sabitova, A., Mussabayeva, B. et al. Chemical composition and physicochemical properties of natural therapeutic mud of Kazakhstan salt lakes: a review. Environ Geochem Health 46, 43 (2024).)

4.     MATERIALS AND METHODS:

·       Please indicate the date of searches/access of the databases.

·       How many articles were found in the searchers? How many matched the criteria set by the authors?

·       The authors mentioned “research question” in line 62. The “research question” should be indicated explicitly in the INTRODUCTION.

·       Line 68: Should “are considered” be “are not considered” instead?

5.     Lines 152-157: The information mentioned here should be supported with suitable references.

6.     Lines 172-183 & 475-477: For a review paper, it is preferable for the authors to prioritize analyzing primary research articles directly rather than summarizing information from other reviews. This would allow the authors to independently synthesize novel insights and avoid potential repetition of interpretations from previous reviews.

7.     Line 256: “This review…” – Please check whether the word “review” is accurate here. Mourelle et al [44], which the statement refers to, is not a review.

8.     CONCLUSIONS: I would suggest that the authors separate the paragraph on future research (lines 547-551) from CONCLUSIONS. Then in the new separate section, indicate the gaps of knowledge in current peloids research and then the corresponding future research that can be adopted to address each gap.

9.     Please check to make sure that an abbreviation is introduced in full the first time it is mentioned. Some abbreviations are not introduced at all, e.g., see “DPPH” (line 418) and “PGE2” (line 452). The abbreviation for “mineral-medicinal water” is not introduced the first time the full term is mentioned (line 54). Also, then, after the abbreviation “MMW” has been introduced, the authors reverted to using the full term again (e.g., lines 129 and 180). Please correct the random switch between full term and abbreviation.

10.  Single-sentence paragraphs are acceptable if used sparingly. But in this manuscript, such paragraphs seem to be found too often which makes the review looks rather fragmentary and flow of ideas seems rather disconnected. Please consider fixing this issue where appropriate. For example, see lines 86-89, 90-93, 100-106, 115-117, 158-160, 281-283, and 361-363.

11.  Some sentences are too long, which makes it challenging to read and understand easily. For example, see lines 100-106 and 256-261. Please consider splitting any long statements to multiple sentences where appropriate.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for your valuable contribution which helped us to importantly improve the paper. We have tried to address all the concerns exposed and incorporated them into the current version of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors   Comments 1: Overall writing… Response 1: Descriptions and writing have been improved.   Comments 2: Abstract. Response 2: Abstract has been rewritten.   Comments 3: Introduction. Response 3: Introduction has been enlarged and rewritten. Suggested references have also been added. Thanks.
Comments 4: Materials and methods.
Response 4: Information about the research methodology has been added.   Comments 5: Lines 152-157: The information mentioned here should be supported with suitable references. Response 5: Reference has been added.   Comments 6: Lines 172-183 & 475-477: For a review paper, it is preferable for the authors to prioritize analyzing primary research articles directly rather than summarizing information from other reviews. This would allow the authors to independently synthesize novel insights and avoid potential repetition of interpretations from previous reviews. Response 6: Former Lines 172-183 (please, see lines 215-216). We consider that explaining the background of peloid studies can help clarify the results obtained in the research. Lines 475-477: All the Discussion section has been rewritten.   Comments 7: Line 256: “This review…” – Please check whether the word “review” is accurate here. Mourelle et al [44], which the statement refers to, is not a review. Response 7: The sentence has been changed. New reference number [48].   Comments 7: Safety section. Response 7: This section has been enlarged. Lines: 585-590.   Comments 8: Conclusions. Response 8: This section has been renamed for better understanding so that it includes “way forward”.   Comments 9: Abbreviations. Response 9: All suggestions have been followed. Thanks.   Comments 10: Single-sentence paragraphs. Response 10: Sentences have been rewritten. Thanks.   Comments 11: Long-sentence paragraphs. Response 11: Some sentences have been split. Thanks.   3. Other improvements: -       Diagram about differences between natural and ad hoc prepared peloids has been added (figure 2). -       Section headings 5, 6, and 8 have been renamed. -       Table 2 (Results) and section 6 (Discussion) has been reorganized: in the first part, natural peloids, and in the second part, ad hoc prepared peloids.

 

PLEASE, FIND THE COMMENTS IN THE ATTACHED FILE.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your responses and corrections which I find satisfactory