Asbestos: Communicating the Health Issues Derived from Fibrous Minerals to Society

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

              Asbestos causes many respiratory diseases such as pleural plaque, asbestosis, lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. In this manuscript, Hernandez M et al summarize the asbestos’ toxicity. This manuscript is well-organized; however, following points should be clarified.

 

Major points

#1: In page 2 line 62-64 and page 4 line 126-128, authors describe that Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Cr, Ba, Pb and V are included in asbestos. Please check chemical formula of six asbestos.

 

#2: In figure 2, the translocation of asbestos fiber to pleura is not shown. Please refer it.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
              Asbestos causes many respiratory diseases such as pleural plaque, asbestosis, lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. In this manuscript, Hernandez M et al summarize the asbestos’ toxicity. This manuscript is well-organized; however, following points should be clarified.

 

Authors:

We are grateful to the reviewer for his/her opinion and reviews. I thank the Referee for the time spent during the review of the work.

 

Major points
#1: In page 2 line 62-64 and page 4 line 126-128, authors describe that Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Cr, Ba, Pb and V are included in asbestos. Please check chemical formula of six asbestos.

 

Authors: This concept is now better clarified in the text. The listed potentially toxic elements (PTEs) can be present in asbestos minerals as major elements (e.g., Fe in amosite) or as minor or trace elements.

For more details see for example:

Bloise, A., Ricchiuti, C., Punturo, R., & Pereira, D. (2020). Potentially toxic elements (PTEs) associated with asbestos chrysotile, tremolite and actinolite in the Calabria region (Italy). Chemical geology, 558, 119896.

#2: In figure 2, the translocation of asbestos fiber to pleura is not shown. Please refer it.

Authors: Ok done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper summarizes the many facets of asbestos and asbestos research, and unfortunately, many people around the world still suffer from asbestos-related diseases.  While this paper mentions the need for improved communication strategies for prevention to asbestos, this paper unfortunately does not include a scientifically rigorous study or meta-analysis of the topic of communication strategies.  Also, this paper does not have a clear purpose/hypothesis, lacks logical flow, and needs significant editing.  It is also unclear why the authors have chosen Italy and Spain as countries as illustrations for communication strategies.  Therefore, this reviewer suggests rejecting the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper needs significant editing of the language.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper summarizes the many facets of asbestos and asbestos research, and unfortunately, many people around the world still suffer from asbestos-related diseases.  While this paper mentions the need for improved communication strategies for prevention to asbestos, this paper unfortunately does not include a scientifically rigorous study or meta-analysis of the topic of communication strategies.  Also, this paper does not have a clear purpose/hypothesis, lacks logical flow, and needs significant editing.  It is also unclear why the authors have chosen Italy and Spain as countries as illustrations for communication strategies.  Therefore, this reviewer suggests rejecting the paper.

Authors: this is not a research paper, but a review. We used Italy and Spain because they are the working areas of authors and they have been working on the scientific characterization of ultramafic rocks for many years. We have included this explanation in the text and references on the ultramafic complexes justify also the decision. We have also extended the issue of communication strategies, including several recent references that support the need of this communication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language
This paper needs significant editing of the language.

Authors: The paper has been English-edited by mdpi editing services now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review about risk communication of asbestos risks is informative and cites appropriate references.  Overall, the manuscript is well-written.  However, it needs thorough editing for English usage.  I have a few comments on the organization of the manuscript below.  I would also like to note that the manuscript focuses on occupational exposures but says little about non-occupational exposure.  Can the authors include a short section on non-occupational exposures?  This could include the paragraphs on talc.

Specific Comments:

Line 19.  Change “technics” to techniques”.

Figure 1.  Is there any way to explain to the reader what to look for in the micrographs?  Can you point to the amphiboles and serpentine fibers?  Can you explain the difference between Cross Nichols and Parallel Nichols?

Table 1.  What do you mean by “peons”?  Is this an “activity” or a group of workers?

Section 3.1.  This is labeled “The Minerals,” and it begins with an interesting discussion of the minerology of asbestos.  However, it also includes exposure and health effect, which I suggest belong in a different section.

Line 195.  Define “OMS.”

Line 211.  Change “tabaquism” to “tobacco use”.

Lines 211-213.  Is there a reference for Washington University?

Lines 229-230.  When you say the “mean life” of asbestos, do you mean in the environment?

Section 3.4.  The section is labeled “Treatments,” but it focuses on exposure and prevention.

Line 261.  Change “stablished” to “established”.

Line 270.  Change “vigilante” to “vigilence.”

Line 278.  Change “post-exposition” to “post-exposure.”

Line 392.  Change “talk” to “talc.”

Lines 392-418.  Should the discussion of talc appear in the body of the manuscript, rather than saving it for the Discussion section?

Figure 7.  Can you include a step, or a branch, in the diagram to include non-occupational risks?  For example, workers may carry asbestos home on their clothing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs to be edited for English usage.  I pointed out a few examples in my specific comments.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This review about risk communication of asbestos risks is informative and cites appropriate references.  Overall, the manuscript is well-written.  However, it needs thorough editing for English usage.  I have a few comments on the organization of the manuscript below.  I would also like to note that the manuscript focuses on occupational exposures but says little about non-occupational exposure.  Can the authors include a short section on non-occupational exposures?  This could include the paragraphs on talc.

Authors: This requested note has been included, together with some references that support the importance of nonoccupational asbestos hazards.

Specific Comments:

Line 19.  Change “technics” to techniques”. Done

Figure 1.  Is there any way to explain to the reader what to look for in the micrographs?  Can you point to the amphiboles and serpentine fibers?  Can you explain the difference between Cross Nichols and Parallel Nichols?

Authors: Ok now, for better understanding, amphibole and serpentine are indicated in the figure 1.

Done. Description of the difference between Cross Nichols and Parallel Nichols, which are common subjects in Petrography, is not part of the scope of this paper. Whenever these images are included to describe minerals under the microscope, a distinction between the mode should be done, as well as the objectives used when capturing the image. However, if the editor finds a complete description should be included, we can refer and/or include a petrographic manual for the reader that is not familiar with mineralogy characterization.Minerals have been identified by petrographic microscope (PM),  also for Figure 6

Table 1.  What do you mean by “peons”?  Is this an “activity” or a group of workers?

Authors: We have changed the word for a better option.

Section 3.1.  This is labeled “The Minerals,” and it begins with an interesting discussion of the minerology of asbestos.  However, it also includes exposure and health effect, which I suggest belong in a different section.

Authors: Done. We have included another subsection, 3.2, to explain the sources of asbestos contamination.

Line 195.  Define “OMS.” Corrected

Line 211.  Change “tabaquism” to “tobacco use”. Corrected

Lines 211-213.  Is there a reference for Washington University? Link Included

Lines 229-230.  When you say the “mean life” of asbestos, do you mean in the environment?

Authors: The expression has been corrected. It should be “life cycle”

Section 3.4.  The section is labeled “Treatments,” but it focuses on exposure and prevention.

Authors: It was a mistake. Now it is corrected.

Line 261.  Change “stablished” to “established”. Corrected

Line 270.  Change “vigilante” to “vigilence.” Corrected

Line 278.  Change “post-exposition” to “post-exposure.” Corrected

Line 392.  Change “talk” to “talc.” Corrected

Lines 392-418.  Should the discussion of talc appear in the body of the manuscript, rather than saving it for the Discussion section?

Authors: We have included an introduction to the subject of talc in first sections. There are no conclusive works on the hazard related to talc, so we wanted to be cautious with this subject. But we have also added some references that are dealing with this important issue.

Figure 7.  Can you include a step, or a branch, in the diagram to include non-occupational risks?  For example, workers may carry asbestos home on their clothing.

Authors: Ok done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript needs to be edited for English usage.  I pointed out a few examples in my specific comments.

Authors: Thanks for the help. The paper has been English-edited by mdpi editing services now.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a lengthy review of asbestos and its health effects as well as potential communication strategies for the prevention of exposure.  Many reviews have been written on this topic, and it is unclear as to the need for another review.  The authors may want consider cutting out much of the information that is already known about asbestos and focus solely on communication strategies that have worked on environmental/occupational exposures, with asbestos as a potential case study.  This would make for a much more interesting review article.  As of right now, it is not clear on what the target audience is for this article as many countries (including Spain and Italy) have banned asbestos, and the health effects of asbestos are well-known.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my comments.  I have no additinal comments.