Critical Review on Toxicological Mechanisms Triggered by Inhalation of Alumina Nanoparticles on to the Lungs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A. Comments on formatting:
1. Abstract: The seventh line needs revision to “current knowledge on underlying toxicological, molecular, and cellular mechanisms”
2. Please correct the spell of word “commonly”. Please reframe sentences on lines 117-120.
3. Please reframe sentence on line 162. Increases of polymorphonuclear “cells”.
4. Please provide reference for statement on lines 164-167.
5. Please put “respectively” on line 223.
6. Please reframe sentence on lines 235-238.
7. Could you please provide reference for the statement on lines 260-262? Do you mean Alumina NPs? Please specify what kind of NPs have been at the origin of “increased”. This statement shouldn't be made broadly on NPs. Please clarify.
8. Please use non-breaking space “ALT+0160” for the sentence “(ranging from 0.2 to 5” to get mg/m3 on the same line. Similarly, use non-breaking space for a sentence on line 393 “et…al.”
9. Please use non-breaking line “ALT+8209” for experiment word on line 395.
10. Please change combine to "combined" on line 401.
11. Please reframe sentence on lines 413-414.
12. The first statement on conclusion section is incomplete. Please amend it. Lines 427 to 430 are incomplete. Please provide better explanation.
13. Please revise the title of the paper to “Critical review on toxicological mechanisms triggered by inhalation of alumina nanoparticles on to the lungs.”
B. Please provide mitigation /prevention strategies/efforts ongoing towards reducing alumina related toxicities in predisposed populations in the introduction section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dekali et al. review in their manuscript “Critical review in toxicological mechanisms triggered by inhalation of alumina nanoparticles on the lungs” the effects of aluminum nanoparticles on the respiratory system. They include original research on human test subjects, animal models and in vitro cell studies. They critically evaluate studies and put them into context by evaluating their limitations. Thereby, the reader understands the sometimes-conflicting results and gains a profound overview of the field. The article is well written but should undergo minor proofreading and a few long sentences should be split to improve readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
