Evaluation of Adsorbent’s Efficiency by Using Biomarker Approaches in Farm Animals: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Evaluation of adsorbent’s efficiency by using biomarker approaches in farm animals: A systematic review" presents a detailed review of the most important scientific papers in the period from 2001-2022 that deals with the topic of the use of mycotoxins and their metabolites as biomarkers to assess the effectiveness of the application of adsorbents to mitigate mycotoxin concentrations in farm animals.
The manuscript is well written, the concept is very good, and it is well organized. The methodology is clearly described, and the discussion is profoundly and critically written. The table is clear, systematic, and detailed, and
That being said, there are some minor changes that need to be done.
1. Names of molds (on genus level) should be written in italic (Aspergillus, Penicillium, etc.)
2. Numbers in mycotoxin abbreviations and in their names should all be uninformed. In the abstract there is "aflatoxin B1", and in the manuscript is "aflatoxin B1" or "AFB1".
3. "in vivo" (rows 77 and 83) and "in vitro" (row 109) should be written in italic.
4. in row 240 it says: "..α-zearalenol e β-zearalenol,..". Please check this because I'm not sure what "e" means.
5. in row 258 it says: "..case is the study by Vasíljecic´..", however, the author's surname is Vasiljević.
6. in row 288 it says: "..regulation n 386/2009..". Please check, as I'm not sure what "n" should stand for.
7. in row 321 it says: "However, some patters were visible and independent of the type of adsorbent." Please check this sentence, as I don't fully understand what you want to say, what does "patters" mean? Or maybe is just a typo?
Author Response
Please see the report in attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review the use of italics in scientific names throughout the text.
Lines 28-29: There are few references for this statement, for example, there are many more works with mycotoxin contamination in Dairy products, grapes and wine, peanuts and nuts, dried fruits, and coffee than in relation to soybeans or even sorghum, review the bibliography and add.
The article is presented as a systematic review. I particularly don't like this review model, because, in fact, this type of work seems to be a meta-analysis without statistical support, that is, a simple comparison. The problem is that many studies, by the nature of their variables, are incomparable, and this publication model forces a false symmetry.
The data retrieved by the authors are valid, however, I believe that they would be better used if the text were reformulated for a traditional review model. For this, more recent reports should be prioritized, and authors should seek a common focus for all studies so that comparisons make sense and for the discussion to be more comprehensive, critical, and contributory to the field of study.
More pragmatically, deepen the discussion by focusing on what is comparable across studies; prioritize more recent studies (last 5 years), and if possible, remove all material and methods, that is, transform it into a traditional review.
I believe that such changes are easily applicable.
Therefore, my recommendation is to accept after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the report in attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
