Mercury Content in Impacted Wisdom Teeth from Patients of the Legnica–Głogów Copper Area—An In Vitro Pilot Study
, Amadeusz Kuźniarski 3, Marzena Styczyńska 4, Dorota Diakowska 5, Tomasz Gedrange 6, Sylwia Klimas 2, Tomasz Gębarowski 7 and Marzena Dominiak 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the results of studying “Mercury content in impacted third molars from residents of the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area - an in vitro pilot study, A research has been conducted that includes the quantification of mercury in impacted third molars from Legnica-Głogów Copper Area residents to emphasize the effects of environmental pollution on the human body. This manuscript has various sections including Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. After reviewing this manuscript carefully, this manuscript is written well. Literature review is relevant. Analytical methods are fine for reliability of the data but there are some changing/suggestions required before publishing in worthy journal
LOD and LOQ value should also be mentioned in section “Examination of mercury content in the samples
In Discussion section, some paragraphs showed the toxicity of other toxic metals instead of mercury. Author should focus on mercury so this section should rewrite
Finally, authors would read the manuscript throughout to typographical errors in the revised manuscript
Overall, paper can be accepted after a minor-moderate revision
Author Response
Dear Referee,
We would like to express our sincerest gratitude for your efforts put into criticizing the manuscript. We have taken into account all raised question here follows the detailed answers. Moreover, all changes we have made to the original manuscript, are marked in the red colour in the text.
The manuscript presents the results of studying “Mercury content in impacted third molars from residents of the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area - an in vitro pilot study, A research has been conducted that includes the quantification of mercury in impacted third molars from Legnica-Głogów Copper Area residents to emphasize the effects of environmental pollution on the human body. This manuscript has various sections including Introduction, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. After reviewing this manuscript carefully, this manuscript is written well. Literature review is relevant. Analytical methods are fine for reliability of the data but there are some changing/suggestions required before publishing in worthy journal.
LOD and LOQ value should also be mentioned in section “Examination of mercury content in the samples".
Answer: Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been revised. According to the specification provided by the manufacturer of the mercury analyzer, the limit of quantification (LOQ), defined as the smallest amount or lowest concentration of a substance that can be quantified using a given analytical procedure with the assumed accuracy and precision, is: 0.0005 mg/kg for a sample of approximately 100 mg (0.05 ng Hg). The upper limit of the instrument range is 5 mg/kg, which for a 100 mg sample is equivalent to 500 ng Hg in the sample. Higher concentrations can be determined provided that the weight is reduced so as not to exceed 500 ng Hg per sample.
In Discussion section, some paragraphs showed the toxicity of other toxic metals instead of mercury. Author should focus on mercury so this section should rewrite.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been revised. We rearranged the Discussion section. In the introductory part, we wanted to emphasize the influence of toxic metals, including mercury, on the functioning of the human body. We also presented the sources of heavy metal detoxification. The main part of the discussion is a review of publications on mercury, however, the authors often studied the content of other toxic metals in conjunction with mercury. Hence the frequent references to other metals.
Finally, authors would read the manuscript throughout to typographical errors in the revised manuscript
Answer: Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been revised. Typographical errors have been corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript Mercury content in impacted wisdom teeth from patients of the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area - an in-vitro pilot study aimed to determine the amount of mercury found in third molars that were removed from individuals living in the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area, to detect variations in mercury content in teeth among different groups of patients, as well as to evaluate the connection between the quantity of mercury found in the extracted third molars and the level of Vitamin D detected in the capillary blood.
The theme is timely, but the study lacks robust analyzes to support its findings. Furthermore, little information is provided about patients in the control group.
Careful textual revision is required as it contains typographical errors.
The abstract needs to include the results on the relationship with vitamin D as it is one of the objectives of the study.
To provide quantitative results in the abstract, regarding Hg concentrations.
Indicate the source of the figures in the introduction? Were they made by the authors themselves? Inform!
Paragraph 72-82 on study location is misplaced in this place. The authors need to include after the approach on environmental pollution, contextualizing it as an interesting place for a case study.
The study lacks robust statistical analysis to assess risk factors. Avoid using this terminology as the statistical test employed has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it is mandatory to remove the information on "statistical trend" from Table 3. This biases the study. A multi-level Poisson regression analysis could be performed to investigate associated factors. This regression has few assumptions and will give robustness to the results. The available categorical data fits well with Poisson regression.
Figure 3 and Table 2 provide redundant information. Please choose one of them.
Limitations section is poor. Authors may perform a statistical test to calculate sample power. Even with the sample size of the study, it is possible to carry out more robust statistical tests to reach more correct conclusions. Please do not mislead readers. Statistics proved that there were no differences between the two studied groups. The way the authors wrote lead to results that do not exist. Only with more precise information from the "control group" (very little explored in the study) and with a robust statistical analysis of the associated factors, it will be possible to draw conclusions.
Careful textual revision is required as it contains typographical errors.
Author Response
Dear Referee,
We would like to express our sincerest gratitude for your efforts put into criticizing the manuscript. We have taken into account all raised question here follows the detailed answers. Moreover, all changes we have made to the original manuscript, are marked in the red colour in the text.
The manuscript Mercury content in impacted wisdom teeth from patients of the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area - an in-vitro pilot study aimed to determine the amount of mercury found in third molars that were removed from individuals living in the Legnica-Głogów Copper Area, to detect variations in mercury content in teeth among different groups of patients, as well as to evaluate the connection between the quantity of mercury found in the extracted third molars and the level of Vitamin D detected in the capillary blood.
The theme is timely, but the study lacks robust analyzes to support its findings. Furthermore, little information is provided about patients in the control group.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised. Additional information regarding the control group has been included with further elaboration.
Careful textual revision is required as it contains typographical errors.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised. Typographical errors have been corrected.
The abstract needs to include the results on the relationship with vitamin D as it is one of the objectives of the study to provide quantitative results in the abstract, regarding Hg concentrations.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised.
Indicate the source of the figures in the introduction? Were they made by the authors themselves? Inform!
Answer: Thank you for the comment. All figures are original and they were created by the authors with a use of BioRender.com. The information has been provided in the acknowledgements.
Paragraph 72-82 on study location is misplaced in this place. The authors need to include after the approach on environmental pollution, contextualizing it as an interesting place for a case study.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The introduction has been rearranged.
The study lacks robust statistical analysis to assess risk factors. Avoid using this terminology as the statistical test employed has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it is mandatory to remove the information on "statistical trend" from Table 3. This biases the study. A multi-level Poisson regression analysis could be performed to investigate associated factors. This regression has few assumptions and will give robustness to the results. The available categorical data fits well with Poisson regression.
Answer: Thank you very much for Your comments regarding the selection of the appropriate statistical analysis. We used the Poisson multivariable regression technique to identify predictors that could influence Hg accumulation in third molars, and the results are shown in the Results section. The new analysis showed that the earlier results marked as a “trend to statistical significance” were in fact statistically significant. This allowed the estimation of the parameters that influence the concentration of Hg in the teeth of the study groups.
Figure 3 and Table 2 provide redundant information. Please choose one of them.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised.
Limitations section is poor. Authors may perform a statistical test to calculate sample power. Even with the sample size of the study, it is possible to carry out more robust statistical tests to reach more correct conclusions. Please do not mislead readers. Statistics proved that there were no differences between the two studied groups. The way the authors wrote lead to results that do not exist. Only with more precise information from the "control group" (very little explored in the study) and with a robust statistical analysis of the associated factors, it will be possible to draw conclusions.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised. We conducted a test power analysis for Hg concentrations, which showed that the test power=0.65, so it was too lower. Therefore in the limitations of the study, we added information about the low number of cases in the study. It was associated with the collection of samples during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the title of the article we informed that the research is a pilot study and further studies on a larger number of cases are necessary to determine the predictors of Hg accumulation in the teeth.
Careful textual revision is required as it contains typographical errors.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been revised. Typographical errors have been corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My suggestions were accepted and I believe that the manuscript can be accepted.
