Nivalenol Mycotoxin Concerns in Foods: An Overview on Occurrence, Impact on Human and Animal Health and Its Detection and Management Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I carefully read the manuscript entitled “Nivalenol Mycotoxin Concerns in Foods: An Overview on Occurrence, Impact on Human and Animal Health and its Detection and Management Strategies”. The authors have well developed the various points and described them in a very exhaustive way. In addition, the topic is of interest and is in line with the journal’s aim. I recommended the publication of the present review, after checking some minor typos/mistakes.

 I suggest a check of the English, especially with regard to the typos or the use of plural/singular form: e.g. in the abstract ‘fungi’ instead of ‘fungus’; title of paragraph 2 ‘major sources’ instead of ‘major source’; check the dot (page 5, line 101) after the abbreviations reported in the legend of Table 2;

 

 I suggest to rephrase the first sentence of introduction;

 

 Legend of Table 2: find a way to avoid to repeat the meaning of the abbreviation more times in order to shorten it. Moreover, ‘ToF’ instead of ‘TOF’; e.g. ‘MALDI-ToF’;

 

 Try to enhance Figures resolution. Moreover, try to improve the content of Figure 3;

 

 Check reference number 75. It is not in line with the journal’s guidelines.

 

Author Response

PFA

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is very well written and organized.

For the reviewer with experience in the research  it was  very interesting to read this article. As the researchers working with the  chromatographic methods for the analysis of multi-class mycotoxins of Fusarium varieties, NIV is a common companion of  DON and  other  Type B trichothecenes. The results of several recent studies have indicated even higher or comparable levels of  NIV compared to that of  DON raising concerns of this mycotoxin.

Then Introduction part is brief and maybe formally it should be corrected by adding  the information of the main aspects of providing this  overview. It is already mentioned in the abstract, but   maybe  some notes , taking into account several recently published  studies on  reviewing  DON, NIV and  other Type B trichothecenes in  cereals and their  products.

The  tittle of the section 2 maybe   should be  rechecked as  it indicate not "major source", but the main used  instrumental methods  used  for mycotoxin analysis (the reviewer did not check them all, but it would be interesting to mention how many of them were  single methods or most of them were used for multi-mycotoxin analysis).

It would be also  maybe recommended to provide some discussion of the  results of Table 1.   

It is not clear in what order the results are grouped as there are rather different matrices grouped. Msaybe it could be interesting to show  table for nonprocessed  cerals and processed ones, including   slod matices and  beer. There are different types and factors.

As well, many of the  methods are still  not so commonly used,  such as GC-MS methods, compared to  HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS methods with different  detection  modes and     MS resolution capacities.

The  limitations for mycotoxins in feed  are different, maybe there should be more attention related to non processed and processed cereals. 

It seems that random seasons,  origins and procession factors may  have impact on the  results. Maybe  it  should be also discussed  more deeply within the presentation of this table.

However, maybe it would be recommended to start after Introduction with the section of NIV chemistry and biosynthesis , followed by the Environmental factors on  the NIV production (fungi species, microclimate conditions).

Thus the section 2. and Table 1 seems to fit better after these sections within the discussion of the methods of analysis. 

But this is just a suggestion and is up to the authors.

Some suggestions of minor changes may include:

- Line 6: Fusarium in Italics  (the same Line 68 and check elsewhere in the text)

- Line  64: overview the tittle of the  Section 2

-  Line:74:  Īn various food and worldwide"- rephrase as it is more attributed to cereal (e.g., grain) based products and non-processed  cereals.

Maybe  the section of masked NIV sholud be replaced as a seperate section with also small table indicating the occurence data.

Also it would be recommended to place the mitigation methods including the reduction in  processed foods after these sections with added also information on the other methods of treatment. There should be also a seperate discussion for non-processed  cereals and  the  cereal based  foodstuffs.

These ae also recommendations.

In general this is an excelent  review and it should be  published.

It  has also  important discussion for the  exposure evaluation based on the recent  data and techniques that will be very  improtant for  the researchers wanting to evaluate their  data with some calculation aproaches in order to estimate the  occurence rate and effects on the consumers of  NIV and DON rich products.

 

 

Author Response

PFA

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf