Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the review “Risk Transmission of Hg/MeHg from Aquatic Environments to Dietary Exposure through Aquatic Products: Network-Based Pathway Identification and Bayesian Probabilistic Early Warning” aims to connect the environmental fate of mercury (Hg) and methylmercury (MeHg) with human dietary exposure. Then authors discuss the importance of complex networks, BNs, and Monte Carlo exposure assessment that can constitute complementary components for an integrated framework. The manuscript is in the aim and scope of “Foods” journal however, in my opinion, it does not respect the standards for a publication. 
The manuscript presents a lot of walls of text with few references. For example, from L35 to L166 there are 14 references. The same in all the manuscripts, for example from L432 to 473. Furthermore it is not clear how authors selected references, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, non-English literature etc. The authors must choose their narrative and how they selected sources in a “Methods” section and frame better their reviews. Because, to be comprehensive and to link all the topics that you want to include, a total of 36 references is not enough. 
The references on China’s surface water quality standard is not sufficient to support a food safety framework due to different regulations, environment, daily intake around the word. A review for international food science should not depend only on Chinese standards and data.
I suggest rejection because the review methodology is absent, the proposed network/BN/Monte Carlo integration remains conceptual, and the manuscript is not supported enough by references to be defensible as a review.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter for our point-by-point responses to Reviewer #1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Risk Transmission of Hg/MeHg from Aquatic Environments to Dietary Exposure through Aquatic Products: Network-Based Pathway Identification and Bayesian probabilistic early warning" examines the important interdisciplinary issue of Hg/MeHg contamination in aquatic products and proposes combining network analysis, Bayesian networks, and probabilistic exposure assessment. The topic is relevant, and the discussion offers useful insights into Hg methylation, food-web transfer, uncertainty, and the distinction between network structure and actual pollutant transfer. However, substantial revisions are needed before the manuscript can be considered further.

1.  Although the manuscript is presented as a comprehensive review, it provides too little detail on the literature search, including the databases and search terms used, eligibility criteria, screening methods, and study-selection process. This makes it difficult to determine whether the literature coverage is comprehensive or selective. The authors should specify whether the article is a narrative, scoping, or systematic review and describe the corresponding methodology.
2. A recurrent problem throughout the manuscript is the use of terms such as “nutrient level,” “high-nutrient organisms,” “nutrient transfer,” and “nutrient-level amplification” when the intended concepts appear to be trophic level, higher-trophic-level organisms, trophic transfer, and trophic magnification. Similarly, expressions such as “food net” and “floating food web” should be replaced by the standard ecological terms “food web” and “pelagic food web.” They affect the scientific meaning of the manuscript and should be corrected consistently.
3. Several numerical values drawn from individual studies appear unusually high or lack sufficient experimental context. For instance, the reported increase in dissolved MeHg of up to 15,918% should be carefully verified against the original source. The review should specify whether each result derives from field observations, laboratory experiments, microcosms, models, or other systems. Findings obtained under highly specific experimental conditions should not be extrapolated to natural aquatic ecosystems without appropriate qualification.
4. The manuscript sometimes presents the Hg/MeHg pathway too linearly. Methylation is an important process, but MeHg exposure also depends on Hg speciation, bioavailability, uptake, food-web structure, trophic transfer, tissue distribution, consumption behavior, and other factors. The authors should distinguish clearly between methylation potential, actual methylation, environmental concentration, biological accumulation, trophic magnification, and human dietary exposure.
5. Standardize the use of MeHg, methylmercury, and related abbreviations.
6. Clarify whether regulatory values cited are environmental-water standards or food-safety limits.
7. Define the source and applicability of reference values used for THQ and dietary exposure calculations.
8. For a review it is necessary to use a large number of references, improve this part. Also adding a section talking about analytical method for the determinatio / speciation of Hg

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter for our point-by-point responses to Reviewer #2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review examines mercury (Hg) and methylmercury (MeHg) as key aquatic pollutants, focusing on their transport among water, particles, and sediments, as well as microbial methylation. It explores how eutrophication, algal blooms, and variations in CO₂ influence Hg bioavailability, MeHg production, and its incorporation into aquatic food webs. The review also addresses the transfer of Hg and MeHg to edible aquatic organisms through planktonic and benthic food webs and their implications for human dietary exposure.

General comment: Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the environmental fate of Hg and MeHg, covering their sources, environmental contamination, transport pathways, bioaccumulation, and potential risks to human health. However, the review's broad scope comes at the expense of depth, as it addresses some topics only superficially rather than exploring them in more detail. In addition, the methodology underlying the literature review is not clearly described; the authors should specify the criteria and rationale used to select the cited studies, particularly those included in the tables, to improve the review's transparency, reproducibility, and scientific robustness. Additionally, the authors need to revise abbreviations throughout the text, as they are frequently not explained on first mention.

 

Specific comments and suggestions:

Line 44: the pollutants do not have feeding relationships. I suggest replacing the feeding relationship of pollutants with trophic transfer of pollutants

Line 46: replace intake with portion size

Line 46: body weight is clearer than mentioning just weight

Line 49: the mention of biological and food webs is redundant. A more appropriate option could be: ....to pay attention to the continuous process of the trophic transfer of pollutants from environmental media to the human exposure end.

Line 64: dietary exposure in the environment: it is unclear what this means

Line 68: to avoid repetition and redundancy, replace "growth and decay of algae" with "proliferation and decay of algae"

Line 71: Walter and other - revise citation rules

Line 73: english needs revision. Sentence is unclear.

Line 77: The risk does not have formation mechanisms like chemicals. Better to refer for example “to fully explain the underlying mechanism driving the development of human health risks"

Line 91: revise citation rules - Jermilova et al.

Line 120: The "occurence forms"or "chemical species" with be more suitable than storage status

Line 121-122: aquatic organisms are exposed to pollutants, not the other way around. Please replace with, or similar: the types and levels of pollutants to which aquatic organisms are actually exposed.

Line 146: "emerging contaminants" or "emerging pollutants" is better suited, please replace new pollutants

Line 176: bioavailability instead of bioavailable

Line 183: please make reference to chemical species as total concentration alone is not sufficient, including in the case of Hg. Suggestion: Pollutant concentration and its chemical species in edible tissues

Line 207: occur bioaccumulation is not very correct; please replace with "and can bioaccumulate..."

Line 207: biomagnification is a better term than nutrient-level amplification  

Line 216-218: a word is missing at the end od the sentence. For example "MeHg production"

Line 222: methylating not methylated

Line 224: introducing the Abbreviation for the first time. It should be total mercury (THg)

Line 237: MeHg instead of methyl mercury.

Line 244 to 246: this sentence is missing a bibliographic reference

Line 249: Which nutrients may be involved? Please specify.

Line 258: abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear

Line 268: should read methylation instead of methylated

Line 312: BCF and BAF were first mentioned in line 258

Line 338: Table 1. What is the timeframe for this literature review? What is the rationale for including or excluding research papers?

Line 350: “ingested by a specific population through dietary channels “ redundancy in wording

Line 354: EDI - abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear

Line 357: ith???

Line 363: abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear

Line 400: Abbreviations should be defined here, not in lines 416-419

Line 404: formatting. It is unclear where the caption for Figure 1 ends. Is it intended to be from line 404 to line 419? This would be a very long caption. Figure 1 is very nice.

Line 411: better to refer to pelagic and benthic pathways to align with Figure 1

Line 737-739: unclear what is intended by “transfer of pollutants to high nutrient levels “. Do the authors mean “transfer of pollutants to higher trophic levels”?

Line 738: high secondary production would be a better option than high productivity, as this would refer to biomass production in alignment with the work by Walters et al.

Line 755: extra word “Have”

Line 832: the formation of risks is not correct terminology. Can be replaced with “the development of…” or “the factors driving….”

Line 864: abbreviations - would be better if they appeared in alphabetical order

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter for our point-by-point responses to Reviewer #3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See file for authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter for our point-by-point responses to Reviewer #4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Risk Transmission of Hg/MeHg from Aquatic Environments to Dietary Exposure through Aquatic Products: Network-Based Pathway Identification and Bayesian probabilistic early warning" aims to focus on mercury (Hg) and methylmercury (MeHg) as representative pollutants and discusses their transport processes between water bodies, particulate matter, and sediments, as well as the microbial methylation process. The manuscript is within the journal's scope, is well organized, and covers a very interesting topic.

The manuscript does not provide sufficient information on the literature search and selection. The authors should describe the databases, search terms, time period, and inclusion/exclusion criteria used for the review.

The authors should more clearly state the review's novelty and explain how it differs from and adds to previous reviews on Hg/MeHg cycling, food-web transfer, and dietary exposure.

The authors discuss the concept of "probabilistic early warning," but they do not demonstrate any early-warning application. The authors should clarify whether the proposed framework is conceptual or has already been validated in practice.

The network-analysis section is largely conceptual. Include more examples of Hg/MeHg applications to support the proposed approach.

The differences between network analysis and Bayesian networks should be presented more clearly, including their objectives, data requirements, outputs, and limitations. A short comparative table could be useful.

Although the authors state that Bayesian-network links do not necessarily represent causal relationships, they should maintain this distinction consistently throughout the manuscript, particularly when discussing "risk transmission pathways."

The review would benefit from a more critical comparison of previous studies. The authors should discuss differences in ecosystems, species, environmental conditions, and transfer pathways rather than mainly describing individual findings.

The authors should clearly distinguish the components supported by existing studies from those proposed by the authors. This is particularly important for the integrated framework presented in Figure 2.

The definitions and roles of EDI, THQ, RfD, and other risk indicators should be clarified.

Figures 1 and 2 should be checked for readability and for clearer distinctions among environmental factors, measured variables, transfer processes, and model components. Also, the titles of Figures 1 and 2 are quite long and should be shortened to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attached response letter for our point-by-point responses to Reviewer #5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately and thoroughly addressed all the issues raised. In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially revised, most notably through the addition of a dedicated Methods section addressing the six points raised by the reviewer, including the databases consulted, the search period and topics, geographical coverage, aquatic organisms considered, and data screening and extraction procedures. A PRISMA-based flow diagram has also been included to document the study selection process, which resulted in the inclusion of important sources. In addition, the various sections have been significantly improved, enhancing the manuscript's overall clarity, coherence, and structure. In my opinion, these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript, which now meets the standards required for publication.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments and implemented the requested changes.