Curcumin Mitigates Microplastic-Induced Damage in Livestock and Poultry: Mechanistic Insights and Strategies for Sustainable Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address the toxicity of micro/nanoplastics (MNPs) in livestock and poultry production and comprehensively summarize the protective effects of curcumin in the manuscript. The topic of this study is suitable for the "Veterinary Sciences" journal. The literature review is conducted within a systematic framework, and mechanistic explanations are presented in detail. Practical implications are provided. The topic is current and of significant importance for agriculture and food safety. The manuscript is a review and appears original enough to contribute to the literature.

-The topic selection is current and fills a significant gap in the literature. However, the criteria for the systematic search are specified, but summarizing the number of included studies and the selection (e.g., a PRISMA flow chart or table) would increase the transparency of the manuscript.

-Mechanistic explanations (Nrf2/ARE, NF-κB, gut-liver axis, ROS scavenging, etc.) are detailed and have strong literature support. The descriptive nature of the tables and figures (e.g., exposure routes, organ-based effects, nanoformulation developments) enhances the value of the study. However, the results and discussion sections are written in very long paragraphs. Subheadings and shorter paragraphs would be preferable for easier reader follow-up.

-The manuscript focuses on livestock and poultry and offers a unique contribution to agricultural production compared to human-centered studies. However, Dosage, bioavailability, and residual retention times are tabulated; however, more attention could be paid to how these findings translate into practical feeding recommendations (e.g., regulatory limitations as a feed additive, limitations in field applications).

-Although the manuscript strongly summarizes preclinical findings, a conclusion section should be included at the end of the manuscript. Also, the need for future research should be emphasized more clearly (e.g., "Current evidence is promising, but long-term trials in farm animals under field conditions are needed") in the conclusion section.

-A few recent studies from 2023–2025 were included, but the inclusion of current regulatory agency reports or field studies on nanoformulations and feed additives would be beneficial to enhance the article's effectiveness.

The article is generally well-written, comprehensive, and contributes to the literature. The revision suggestions are primarily aimed at improving the flow of the presentation and clarifying the application. Therefore, it can be published after minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You reviewed the mitigation of microplastic-induced damage in livestock and poultry by curcumin using a systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar with relevant terms. Your aim to summarize the mitigation effects of curcumin is interesting, and it may be relevant to the recent increase in the impact of MNPs on various organisms.

You discussed extensively the effect of BPA, DBA, and DEHP, and all these compounds are not micro or nano plastics, and only in very few places did you discuss the curcumin effect, for example, on osteolysis (Section 3.2.4).

I think you should focus on studies relevant to all the common MNPs and curcumin’s mitigation effect. Also, you need to discuss the biological accumulation and absorption of curcumin in various organs. 

Thank you and best wishes!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the article reads well. The problem is that there are several unrelated statements throughout the article, and there are several careless errors. Abstract- I do not understand the meaning of all those arrows when you indicate the %.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This manuscript addresses an important topic regarding the potential protective role of curcumin against MNP toxicity in livestock and poultry. The manuscript is well-structured and offers a comprehensive synthesis of preclinical evidence.

Abstract

Lines 12-32: The abstract is overloaded with numerical details as percentages, IC50 values, fold changes, which obscure the main message. As a reader, I found the abstract difficult to follow due to the excess of numbers. A more concise summary highlighting the novelty and significance of the review would improve readability.

Introduction

Lines 36-67: The introduction repeats similar concepts on MNP exposure pathways and environmental prevalence. In my opinion, it is necessary to condense this section and focusing more clearly on the specific gap addressed by this review as the lack of knowledge in livestock and poultry systems.

Methodology

Lines 111-118: The methodology mentions a systematic search but lacks details on the number of articles screened, excluded, and finally included.

Results & Discussion

Lines 120-207: The section on MNP sources is lengthy and partially redundant with the introduction. Moreover, the phrase “Error! Reference source not found.” indicates oversight, so I suggest revising this section to avoid repetition and correct missing references.

Lines 210-452: The organ-specific protective effects of curcumin are described with excessive detail, often repeating experimental protocols. This could be streamlined by summarizing key findings in comparative tables as model, dose, outcome, allowing the main text to focus on synthesis and interpretation. Check again the same phrase “Error! Reference source not found.”

Lines 453-484: The discussion of nanoformulations presents only positive aspects. A more balanced view is necessary, highlighting limitations such as cost, regulatory approval, potential toxicity of nanocarriers, and the challenge of translating these systems into livestock production.

Conclusions

Lines 486-523: The conclusion currently presents curcumin almost as a definitive solution to MNP toxicity. Since most evidence is still preclinical and no trials exist in food-producing animals, the conclusions should be more cautious. The conclusion section tends to overstate curcumin’s role; a more cautious framing would avoid potential misinterpretation by practitioners. A separate conclusion section is needed, distinct from the discussion. The discussion could close with a brief note on study limitations, while the conclusion should highlight future research needs, especially in vivo trials and residue monitoring. Finally, adding a short paragraph with practical recommendations for veterinarians and livestock producers would strengthen the applied value of the review.

Lines 524-527: The authors declare the use of AI-assisted writing tools, which is acceptable. However, the manuscript would benefit from careful revision to remove redundancy, simplify overly long and technical sentences, and create a more cohesive, human-centered narrative. The style sometimes gives the impression of a mechanical compilation, with excessive data reporting and limited synthesis, rather than a fully critical evaluation. The inclusion of highly specific data (IC50 = 3.2 μM, ↑57%, ↓64%) without proper context further reinforces this impression. In addition, some editorial inconsistencies remain, such as repeated phrases and reference errors. I strongly recommend a thorough revision to streamline the text, improve clarity and readability, and provide a more balanced, critical discussion of the evidence.

Tables: Figure (Supplementary files) and tables in the manuscript are not always integrated into the narrative. It would be useful to cross-reference them more explicitly in the text and highlight how they support the key messages.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the scientific comments raised during the previous review round, have been adequately addressed and the revised version shows clear improvement in structure, clarity, and critical discussion. However, the supplementary materials referenced throughout the manuscript as Supplemental Figure 2, Supplemental Tables 1-2 are not accessible or properly linked. These files are essential to validate the methodological transparency of the systematic search and should be uploaded as separate, accessible documents before publication. I recommend ensuring proper submission of all supplementary materials and cross-referenced within the main text, verification of reference integrity (there are still problems with citations "Error! Reference source not found") and perform a final language and style check to enhance narrative coherence and polishing.

Kind Regards