Risk Assessment of Metals in Black Fungus and Culture Substrates Based on Monte Carlo Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The annotated review of the manuscript (APPLSCI-2736865) can be found in the file in PDF format.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- There is a need for a quick review of the language throughout the manuscript. There is a sentence written in a language other than standard English.

- Check presentation of measurement units. Standardize by the International System of Units.

- Check the scientific nomenclature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, these points are very critical to the improvement of the article. We have revised the article, the following is responses.

• We have corrected the format of all units including the abstract
• We have re-edited the keywords
• We have rechecked the spelling of all the words
• We have regulated the scientific names of all species
• We have added clarification to the questions you raised in the article
• In this paper, we discuss the feasibility of the model
• We unified the versions of the software
• We removed the unrecognizable symbols
• We made some changes to the edges of the form
• We simplified the results section
• We have updated the image
• We separated the discussion from the conclusion

Finally, thank you again for your comments and wish you a happy New Year.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors presented the study about the contents of Pb, Cr, CD, and based on Monte Carlo simulation, a non-parametric probability assessment system for heavy metals content in black fungus. The study proved that the residual amounts of As, Pb, Cd and Cr in black fungus were in the order of Cr > Pb > As > Cd. In addition, this study found that dietary exposure risk of heavy metals ingested by dried black fungus in Chinese minors and adults is basically safe and raw materials can cause heavy metal accumulation in black fungus, mainly from sawdust, followed by rice bran and wheat bran. Unfortunately, despite the high quality of the research presented in the publication, the manuscript contains a number of inaccuracies and editorial errors that need to be clarified and corrected before it can be published. Changes and suggestions are described in the attached PDF file.

 

Best regards

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, these points are very critical to the improvement of the article. We have revised the article, the following is responses.

• We have corrected the format of all units including the abstract
• We have rechecked the spelling of all the words
• We have explained the question you raised.
• We have revised the expression of elements
• We have added information about ICP-MS
• We have explained the abbreviations
• We added italics to some sections
• We updated some references

Finally, thank you again for your comments and wish you a happy New Year.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Please add the brand and model of the analytical instrument ICP-MS.

Regarding arsenic, this study only has data on total arsenic. Is there any detection data on inorganic arsenic? In other words, what is the ratio of organic arsenic to inorganic arsenic in the arsenic detection value of fungus products?

Similarly, for chromium (Cr), is there any testing data for trivalent chromium (Cr³⁺) and hexavalent chromium (Cr⁶⁺)?

What proportion of trivalent chromium accounts for total chromium?

This study uses the daily reference dose (RfD) of heavy metals set by China as a toxicological indicator. Have they been compared with data from international organizations (such as WHO or Codex)?

The numbers and descriptions of the abscissa and ordinate of Figure 1 are too small and must be improved.

There should be a space between all data and units in this manuscript. For example, in line 19, 0.06-3.41mg/kg should be adjusted to 0.06-3.41 mg/kg.

Table 1. What is the reference basis for Classification standard for heavy metal pollution?

 

 

Other:

Discussion and conclusions should be written separately.

 

Line 190, should be As

Chinese characters appear in Table 4, please correct them.

 

What is the full name of MRL in this article? It should be explained clearly.

Line 109, what is the full name of MRLS?

 

There are multiple unit expressions in this article, such as maximum/minimum value, maximum residual amount, MRL value, average residue, and it is recommended to integrate them into consistency.

 

MRL, such as Maximum Residue Limits or Maximum Residue Level, is not suitable for expressing the concentration of heavy metals.

 

Please refer to the instructions below:

Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)：

The traces pesticides leave in treated products or those left by veterinary drugs in animals are called "residues".

 

Pesticide residues：

A maximum residue limit (MRL) is the highest level of a pesticide residue that is legally tolerated in or on food or feed when pesticides are applied correctly in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice.

 

Veterinary drug residues：

The maximum residue limit (MRL) is the maximum concentration of residue legally tolerated in a food product obtained from an animal that has received a veterinary medicine.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, these points are very critical to the improvement of the article. We have revised the article, the following is responses.

• We have added information about ICP-MS
• Studies on different forms of heavy metals have not been reflected in this study for the time being. Your suggestions are very important and we will add them in future studies.
• The standards and methods cited in this study are based on those provided by relevant Chinese authorities, which are similar to or more stringent than international standards
• We have added Spaces in all positions
• The reference standards for heavy metal pollution come from documents provided by relevant Chinese authorities
• We separated the discussion from the conclusion
• We have unified the text in the table
• We have explained the abbreviations

Finally, thank you again for your comments and wish you a happy New Year.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Not applicable.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.