Open Access Biomedical Publisher Using Post Publication Peer Review
Paper is acceptable for publicaton.
Working as an Lecturer in Microbiology from 1993 with an equal research experience. I have authored 5 books in the subject.
The article by Ansingkar and Kulkarni describes the detection of endophytic human pathogens in many types of produce. Studies of pathogen prevalence in human food are very important and should be performed as a strategy of detection of contamination and protection of the population against the spread of disease. However, there are two major issues with the manuscript at hand that need to be considered.
The first issue is that sample collection was not extensive. It is unclear from the manuscript if all samples were taken from a single place. In order to support the notion that contamination is an important issue (and most likely it is), the authors should have taken samples from multiple locations as a survey of the widespread appearance of human endophytic pathogens in produce in their area of study.
Second, the levels of contamination are not well documented. In order to understand how heavy the contamination was, the authors need to report the weight of the samples, the volume of water in which the samples were homogenized and the volume plated. Although Table 2 provides a comparative analysis of microbial colonization in different samples, it is not clear how heavily contaminated the samples were. In fact, it is entirely possible that the volume of water used may have caused over-dilution of the samples, resulting in false-negative results.
Third, the manuscript would benefit from proofreading from a native English speaker, as there are several grammatical mistakes throughout the text.
I am a microbiologist with 14+ years of experience.
I think that the topic is important. I am missing data to a certain extend. There are really only two Tables and Table 1 is not necessary. If Table 2 indicates the number of bacteria found, we don't need another Table that expresses that there were bacteria found. Also, I am not sure what CFU/ml mean. It would have been more meaningful to express the data in CFU/g of original vegetable. Overall, the entire Results and Discussion section contains maybe 2 or 3 sentences of results, the rest is a literature review. If there is this much literature out there already, what is new really?
The language needs improvement.
Enumeration of bacteria on meat
Critic and suggested corrections
“Maximum contamination was observed in leafy vegetables like spinach and coriander. While in Carrot, onion and radish pathogens were not observed. The potential internalization of pathogens in fresh produce is a concern of food safety agencies and it enlightens on the chances of epidemic outbreaks.
2st sentence: ……….increased over the last decade
4rd sentence:……… identified as potential sources of infections
6th and 7th sentences: ………These includes: poor quality water for irrigation, manure, handling by workers etc. 2. Regardless of the sources of contamination in the field, the pathogens find ways to survive and reproduce on the surface of fresh farm produce and……
…….is safe to survive as they cannot be washed……..
The following vegetables were taken as samples for this study; brinjal, carrot, cauliflower, chili, coriander, lady finger, onion, radish, ridge gourd and spinach (Photographs of some of these vegetables could enhance the paper) Surface sterilization of the vegetables was carried out using 70% alcohol and 50C chilled water3. These surface sterilized produce samples were chopped aseptically into small pieces and washed with sterile distilled water. This wash water was further analysed and evaluated for the existence of endophytic bacterial pathogens.
Enumeration of endophytic salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli O157:H7 was carried out adopting standard plate count method using selective media viz. Bismuth sulphite agar and sorbitol Macconkey agar [Plates of the results from the above experiments will enrich the paper; in the text or as appendices) respectively. The colonies developed on the media were detected by examining the colony, morphological and biochemical characters4.
……..among others1 ………..
………chilled water3 ……….
Results, Analysis and Discussions:
Precise and to the point, however the citation using the Author et al; (Year) eg:
Format can be adhered to or Information and the superscript of the number format eg, ………chilled water3 ……….
Conclusion: It is quite okay.
The paper needs some minor corrections by the author to make it perfect, otherwise it is a very enriching document as it talks about the foods that we consume almost on day to day basis.
Research scientist on microbial sciences sepecially on Pathogenic organisms and their modes of transmission with a view of trying to control their menace to mankind. I research alot on infectious diseases.
Satisfactory Article. Diction needs to be improved.
The work done relates to specific area, however it is of value in terms of awareness in society for using hygenic habits.Such type of work is done with other produces, as is evident from references. The authors should check the article before publication to make it suitable in terms of spellings, repeatition of words etc. The illustration no. 1 is not self explainatory. Photos could have increased understanding the problem. Overall work is satisfactory.
The research workers send the article using scientific language. They should have an understanding of the scientific writting.They should contact supervisor before submitting for publication.
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution License