The lead and cadmium content in rice and risk to human health in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Xianliang Huang; Bo Zhao; Yanlei Wu; Mingtian Tan; Lisha Shen; Guirong Feng; Xiaoshan Yang; Shiqi Chen; Youming Xiong; En Zhang; Hongyu Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278686

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 14, 2022
6 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor PONE-D-22-16207Heavy metals in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Kindly revise according to the reviewers comments. Note from Staff Editor Hanna Landenmark: Please note that Reviewer 1 has submitted a review for the wrong manuscript, and thus this review should be disregarded. Please address only reviewer 2-4. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 5. We note that Figure 6 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 6 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments: Note from Staff Editor Hanna Landenmark: Please note that Reviewer 1 has submitted a review for the wrong manuscript, and thus this review should be disregarded. Please address only reviewer 2-4. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The presented manuscript entitled “Heavy Metal Concentrations in a Soil-Plant-Ruminant food Chain along a Terrestrial Soil Pollution Gradient: Health Risk Assessment” deals with the assessment of toxic metals concentrations in soil-plant-ruminant food chain along a terrestrial soil pollution gradient. In the present scenario, safe disposal of heavy metals from various sectors including domestic is one of the global challenges for sustainable development. This is interesting research that describes a hot topic. In this manuscript, a good effort has been done by the authors to explore the potential of metal in soil plant-ruminant food chain as well as terrestrial soil pollution gradient. In general, the topic is in line with the journal's scope. Overall, the manuscript has scientific merits and well structured. Hence, I recommend the manuscript for publication in Frontiers in Environmental Science. However, the following are the specific comments which need to be addressed: Abstract is written good but could you provide more informative results/data so outcomes may reflect the novelty of the paper. The abstract must be carefully prepared to attract readers to read the full text and then cite it in their future publications. Also, more quantitative information needs to be provided in the abstract. Provide numerical data. Define acronyms when they first appear; thereafter directly use them. Use SI units; follow the correct format (e.g., mg kg-1). Check through the entire paper to make sure it is defined at the first use. The researchers should revise the introduction section to include more information about the core topic, its importance and research direction. The authors should briefly discuss the purpose of the research and clearly mention their findings adopted in this study. I have one important concern about the novelty of this work. The originality/novelty of the paper should be clearly stated in the manuscript. There is no explanation about the importance of using the statistical analysis approach in the study Discussion is better described, but the authors should state each citation to its specific discovery. Clearly discuss what the previous studies that you are referring to are. What are the Research Gaps/Contributions? Conclusion: What is the "take-away-message" of the paper? What is the novelty of the paper? Conclusion is not showing any significant findings. In your conclusions, please discuss the implications of your research. Conclusions must go deeper, it would be more interesting if the authors focus more on the significance of their findings regarding the importance of the interrelationship between the obtained results and sustainable development/cleaner production in the sector context, and the barriers to do it, what would be the consequences, in the real world, in changing the observed situation, what would be the ways, in the real world, to change/improve the observed situation. The technical language of the manuscript is good. The few grammatically errors should be checked. The Table legends, figure captions, and foot notes need improvement. All legends, captions, and foot notes should have enough description for a reader to understand the figure without having to refer back to the main text of the manuscript. For citations and reference within the text, the author must follow guide for authors. The references must be also in the format of the journal. Reviewer #2: Authors have worked rigorously for this review and meta analysis, but few major revisions are required before acceptance of this manuscript. In addition to the revisions in attachments following changes needs to be done: - The final number of studies selected are very few for meta analysis and review. I think some parameters for selection should be modified for inclusion of more studies. Also, considering the amount of work done and number of studies published form China about Pb and Cd content in rice, the number of studies selected for this review are too low. - I would also suggest to expand the time of study to 20 year period (2000-2020). It would add a temporal dimension to the study also as authors could deduce results about chnage in Pb and Cd accumulaiton in rice over 20 years of time. Thus interesting trends can emerge from the same geographical areas over 20 years time. - I think addition of sources of these metals in the studies are very important and authors must add section for source apportionment of these two metals also, which should include the differecne sources mentioned by auhtors regarding these two metals. Check the attachments for further comments. Reviewer #3: Related with the manuscript entitled "Heavy metals in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis", I have to say that it brings nothing new. The paper was not built properly , especially without a useful and critical discussion. Reviewer #4: In general,l this is good risk assessment of Cd and Pb in the rice. Very much of public concern indeed. You only focused on Cd and Pb, so please revise your title of paper. However, in your calculation of THQ, is your C (concentrations of Cd and Pb) in wet weight basis? Be in mind that this THQ should be based on the cooked rice with water (not dried rice or grains). So, you need to know the water content of rice that we cooked by knowing the conversion factor to the wet basis (moisture content). Of course, some people prefer to put more water and some less water. This is sometimes debatable as well (do make the discussion as well). The THQ of metals is based the direct consumption orally (via the months). I hope you can understand my point well. Please check and confirm or re-calculate that THQ is based on the rice (with water during cooking), so, wet weight as I said. Thank you Good luck ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-16207_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278686.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2022 Author Response Dear editors and reviewers: Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Heavy metals in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis” (ID: PONE-D-22-16207). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. All suggestions and the reply to the comments are as follows: Editor: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: The manuscript has been revised according to PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response: I'm sorry I made a mistake and didn't explain it clearly. The grant numbers for these three awards are correct. In fact, both cstc2021jxjl130009 and cstc2018jscx-mszdX0122 are funded by Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau. The ‘Funding Information’ has been revised to: (1) Recipient: X.S.Y. Grant number: 2017YFC1602000, Funding Source: the National Key R&D Program of China. (2) Recipient: X.L.H. Grant number: cstc2021jxjl130009, Funding Source: Chongqing Performance Incentive Guidance Special Project of Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau. (3) Recipient: X.S.Y. Grant number: cstc2018jscx-mszdX0122, Funding Source: the Key demonstration project of Chongqing Technology Innovation and application demonstration project of Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China and Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: We wish to change our statement to "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. " 4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. Response: We wish to change our Data Availability Statement to "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files". 5. We note that Figure 6 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: Response: We replaced Figure 6 with Tables 8 and 9. 6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Response: Supporting information captions has been listed at the end of the manuscript. Supporting information S1 Fig. The sensitivity analysis of Pb (given named study was omitted). S2 Fig. The sensitivity analysis of Cd (given named study was omitted). Reviewer: 2 Authors have worked rigorously for this review and meta analysis, but few major revisions are required before acceptance of this manuscript. In addition to the revisions in attachments following changes needs to be done: 1. The final number of studies selected are very few for meta analysis and review. I think some parameters for selection should be modified for inclusion of more studies. Also, considering the amount of work done and number of studies published form China about Pb and Cd content in rice, the number of studies selected for this review are too low. Response: Indeed, there are many research reports on the content of lead and cadmium in rice in China. However, lots of them have been excluded, the reasons are as follows: Firstly, some of them were sampled in the markets, these samples may be produced in China or other countries, and the specific origin is unknown. The objective of our research is to analyze the rice produced in China, so, rice samples collected from markets were excluded. Secondly, many comparative studies are conducted in mining areas or polluted areas, which are not suitable for rice planting, just for some experimental researches, so they are not included. Thirdly, some studies published in Chinese rather than English, which are excluded in order to ensure the quality of included articles. Although the number of studies included is not very large, they involved a total of 6390 rice samples from several major rice-producing areas in China, the meta analysis and review could be carried out and support our research conclusions. 2. I would also suggest to expand the time of study to 20 year period (2000-2020). It would add a temporal dimension to the study also as authors could deduce results about change in Pb and Cd accumulation in rice over 20 years of time. Thus interesting trends can emerge from the same geographical areas over 20 years time. Response: We searched the literature from 2000 to 2010, which is much less than that from 2011 to 2021, and few can meet the inclusion criteria, may not be convincing in reflecting the trend of relevant regions. However, this is really a good suggestion. In future research, we can try to search the data information of other heavy metals between 2000 and 2020 to find if there are some interesting trends. 3. I think addition of sources of these metals in the studies are very important and authors must add section for source apportionment of these two metals also, which should include the differecne sources mentioned by auhtors regarding these two metals. Check the attachments for further comments. Response: We have revised to “Contamination of heavy metals is mainly caused by natural origination and anthropogenic activities, of which the latter one (include industries of mining, fertilizers, and pesticides) made predominant contribution, have led to the continuing accumulation of toxic heavy metals in the soil of rice paddies, from which the metals can enter rice.” The followings are raised by reviewer 2 in the attachments. 1. There are several other sources for heavy metal accumulation which must be mentioned here. Response: We have revised to “Contamination of heavy metals is mainly caused by natural origination and anthropogenic activities, of which the latter one (include industries of mining, fertilizers, and pesticides) made predominant contribution, have led to the continuing accumulation of toxic heavy metals in the soil of rice paddies, from which the metals can enter rice.” 2. Authors must mention the agency for whose limit is quoted. (Line 46) Response: The agency has been added and marked in the manuscript. 3. Objectives of the study must be mentioned in clear point wise manner. Response: Objectives of the study has been revised to “Therefore we aimed to 1) investigate, even via a meta-analysis of the existing literature, the presence of Pb and Cd in rice from many areas in China; and 2) assess the potential human health risks associated with long-term exposure.” 4. How were the ranges converted to SD? Explain. Response: When the sample size between 25 and 70, Range/4 is the best estimator for the standard deviation. The explanation has been added and marked in the manuscript. 5. Brief explanation of Combie evaluation tool must be given. Response: Included studies were graded in 7 aspects according to the Combie evaluation tool which is as follows: the study design was scientific and rigorous; the data collection method was reasonable; the response rate of participants was reported; the total representativeness of samples were favorable; the research objective and methods were reasonable; the power of the test was reported; the statistical method was correct. “Yes”, “no” and “have no idea” were respectively utilized to evaluate each item, which was successively given 1 point, 0 points, and 0.5 points. The total score was 7.0 points (6.0～7.0 points, 4.0～5.5 points, and 0～4.0 points were considered to high, medium and low quality respectively) The explanation has been added and marked in the manuscript. 6. In my assumption the number of studies selected are very few. Response: In order to ensure the quality of the included studies to meet the needs of our research objectives, most of the articles were excluded. Although the number of studies included is not very large, they involved a total of 6390 rice samples from several major rice-producing areas in China, the meta analysis and review could be carried out and support our research conclusions. 7. Why only the specific 10 year period was chosen and not more? If authors selected the 20 year period of 2000-2020 it would give a very nice temporal dimension to the above study. Response: We searched the literature from 2000 to 2010, which is much less than that from 2011 to 2021, and few can meet the inclusion criteria, may not be convincing in reflecting the trend of relevant regions. However, this is really a good suggestion. In future research, we can try to search the data information of other heavy metals between 2000 and 2020 to find if there are some interesting trends. Reviewer: 3 Related with the manuscript entitled "Heavy metals in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis", I have to say that it brings nothing new. The paper was not built properly , especially without a useful and critical discussion. Response: There were few reports on the analysis of lead and cadmium content in rice in China by means of systematic review and meta analysis. In addition, we collected articles published from January 2011 through October 2021 in English for analysis. It is rare to use so much data for analysis. Our findings suggest that rice consumption poses a health risk and more should be done to control heavy metal pollution of soils in rice paddies in China. We collected 10 years of literatures, analyzed a large number of data, and reached the above conclusions, which is rarely reported before. Reviewer: 4 1. In general,l this is good risk assessment of Cd and Pb in the rice. Very much of public concern indeed. You only focused on Cd and Pb, so please revise your title of paper. Response: We have revised the title of paper to “The lead and cadmium content in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. 2. However, in your calculation of THQ, is your C (concentrations of Cd and Pb) in wet weight basis? Be in mind that this THQ should be based on the cooked rice with water (not dried rice or grains). So, you need to know the water content of rice that we cooked by knowing the conversion factor to the wet basis (moisture content). Of course, some people prefer to put more water and some less water. This is sometimes debatable as well (do make the discussion as well). The THQ of metals is based the direct consumption orally (via the months). I hope you can understand my point well. Please check and confirm or re-calculate that THQ is based on the rice (with water during cooking), so, wet weight as I said. Response: Thank you for your reminder! The concentrations of Cd and Pb reported in the articles included in the data analysis are dry weight basis, and C in our study are dry weight basis. The THQ of metals is based the direct consumption orally, and FIR (the average daily rice intake in kg person−1 day–1) used in our calculation is also measured by dry weight, not after cooking. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278686.r002
22 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor The lead and cadmium content in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis PONE-D-22-16207R1 Dear Dr. Zhou, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278686.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor PONE-D-22-16207R1 The lead and cadmium content in rice and risk to human health in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis Dear Dr. Zhou: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sartaj Ahmad Bhat Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278686.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .