Detection of bisphenol A in thermal paper receipts and assessment of human exposure: A case study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Lucy Semerjian; Najla Alawadhi; Khulud Nazer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283675

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 21, 2022
23 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim, Editor PONE-D-22-29094 Detection of Bisphenol A in Thermal Paper Receipts and Assessment of Human Exposure: A Case Study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Semerjian, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 05 2023 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, Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The authors gratefully acknowledge the inputs from Amna AlKaabi and Haya Alami throughout the project. Special thanks to University of Sharjah Research Institute for Medical and Health Sciences, namely Dr. M. Harb Semreen, Badriah Ebrahim, Muath Khairi, and Yusur Almusleh for their assistance with the laboratory facilities, sample extraction and analysis procedures. This research was thankfully funded by Office of Dean, College of Health Science at University of Sharjah." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This research was thankfully funded by Office of Dean, College of Health Science at University of Sharjah. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: Yes 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: No ****** 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: Dear author, abstract is vague, please rewrite to be clear for readers. introduction is too long number of paper is insufficient. tables unclear, specially table 3 discussion must be supported by extra references. with best regards, Reviewer #2: The conclusion should be more specific. It should only contain the important findings. The discussion section can include the comments made in the conclusion. It would enrich the study if the study participants' health problems attributable to BPA toxicity were investigated. There are a few grammatical/typographical mistakes. Reviewer #3: The paper presents the results of studies Detection of Bisphenol A in Thermal Paper Receipts and Assessment of Human Exposure: A Case Study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. The issue raised in the paper is important and the manuscript falls within the scope of plos one. The paper would be of interest to the readers of the journal; however, I recommend this paper undergo major revisions. The results are quite interesting but still the flaws are needed to be addressed. Introduction is too short and simple and written in very simple and unscientific way I think that at the end of the abstract should be inserted a brief conclusion to help readers in getting a better understanding of what is the significance of this study. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made? Quantitative information should be provided in the abstract. According to many studies that have been done, it is better to compare the results of this study with other studies in the results section; this could be accompanied by adding a table at the end of the results to make the comparison easier and to determine the superiority of this study. Any final polishing of manuscript should be completed prior to submission and it is strongly recommended to check the text by professional language editing services to make respective grammar corrections, especially when English is not the Authors’ native language. Reviewer #4: PONE-D-22-29094 Generally, the manuscript should be checked by official English proofread or native. Abstract I suggest to add “occupational exposure” as keyword Add information about number of respondent and human sampling method in abstract. Introduction In line 45 – 46, PVC food packaging stretch films, and dental sealants, thermal paper is… change with “PVC food packaging stretch films, and dental sealants, thermal paper are…” Add citation in statement in line 45 – 46. Why thermal paper is included in the major source of BPA. Add citation in statement in line 46 – 47 Explain about health effects from BPA exposure in general. Are there any epidemiological studies related BPA exposure from skin to human health problems? Materials and methods I suggest to display sampling area map in the manuscript Why only 30 samples of thermal paper analyzed? There are 3 constant value for k and AF. can you describe what are for? Result and discussion Please change table’s format according to PLOS one format Conclusion and recommendation I think your suggestion of sanitizers and lotion application should be reduce is not accepted. Because it will contradict with other regulation related COVID 19 transmission prevention. ****** 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: Yes: Waleed K. Abdulsahib Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Davoud Balarak 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r001
Revision 1
7 Feb 2023 Author Response REVIEWER 1: Comment 1: Abstract is vague, please rewrite to be clear for readers Response 1: The abstract has been revised for further clarification and to incorporate also Comment 2 raised by Reviewer 3 below Comment 2: Introduction is too long Response 2: To find a balance between this comment and comment 1 raised by Reviewer 3 who expressed that Introduction is “too short”, we have revised the Introduction to read more scientifically and shortened few sentences as applicable. Thanks for your valuable comments. Comment 3: Number of paper is insufficient Response 3: The study area is Sharjah City (Population 1.275 million (2019)) and number of receipt samples was selected based on literature review and typical number of samples used in similar global studies. For example, 40 sampling location were selected by Khatun et al., 2022 in Dhaka, Bangladesh, 12 samples were collected in duplicates in New Delhi, India (ToxicsLink, 2012), 44 samples were collected from various regions in Belgium by Geens et al., 2012. All such locations have population counts much higher than Sharjah City thus authors adopted similar numbers of thermal paper samples in the current study. Comment 4: Tables unclear, specially Table 3 Response 4: All Tables have been revised to comply by journal’s format and read clearer Comment 5: Discussion must be supported by extra references Response 5: Initially, discussion of results were done in comparison to findings from similar research conducted worldwide where the receipts were specifically collected from supermarkets, restaurants, ATMs and others to be comparable to the sources of thermal receipts in the current study. Additional discussion and references are now included and tabulated (Table 1 and 2) to expand and address the reviewer’s comment. REVIEWER 2: Comment 1: The conclusion should be more specific. It should only contain the important findings. The discussion section can include the comments made in the conclusion. Response 1: The Conclusion section was revised to include specifically recorded findings. Additional comments and recommendations are moved to the Results and Discussion section as suggested by Reviewer. Thank you for your valuable comments. Comment 2: It would enrich the study if the study participants' health problems attributable to BPA toxicity were investigated Response 2: The authors agree that investigation of health impacts attributable to BPA are important yet the proposed aspect is out of scope of the current study as the study aims at investigating BPA levels in thermal receipts circulating in Sharjah City, UAE and conducting related risk assessments. Thus, human monitoring was not included in this study as it is subject to ethical approvals and securing relevant consents which are on the authors’ research agenda. We thank the reviewer on the valuable comment. Comment 3: There are a few grammatical/typographical mistakes Response 3: The manuscript was revised with best efforts to eliminate grammatical/typographical mistakes, where applicable. REVIEWER 3: The paper presents the results of studies Detection of Bisphenol A in Thermal Paper Receipts and Assessment of Human Exposure: A Case Study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. The issue raised in the paper is important and the manuscript falls within the scope of PLOS one. The paper would be of interest to the readers of the journal; however, I recommend this paper undergo major revisions. The results are quite interesting but still the flaws are needed to be addressed. Comment 1: Introduction is too short and simple and written in very simple and unscientific way Response 1: This comment, although in contradiction with Reviewer 1 Comment 2, was addressed by revising the Introduction to read more scientifically and shortened few sentences as applicable Comment 2: I think that at the end of the abstract should be inserted a brief conclusion to help readers in getting a better understanding of what is the significance of this study. Quantitative information should be provided in the abstract. Response 2: Quantitative information such as BPA levels, exceedances, and estimated daily intakes were made sure to be included in the abstract, and the “Abstract” section was concluded by a phrase highlighting the significance of the current study Comment 3: According to many studies that have been done, it is better to compare the results of this study with other studies in the results section; this could be accompanied by adding a table at the end of the results to make the comparison easier and to determine the superiority of this study. Response 3: Initially, discussion of results were done in comparison to findings from similar research conducted worldwide where the receipts were specifically collected from supermarkets, restaurants, ATMs and others to be comparable to the sources of thermal receipts in the current study. Additional discussion and references are now included and tabulated (Table 1 and 2) to expand and address the reviewer’s comment. Thank you for your valued comment. Comment 4: Any final polishing of manuscript should be completed prior to submission and it is strongly recommended to check the text by professional language editing services to make respective grammar corrections, especially when English is not the Authors' native language. Response 4: The manuscript was revised with best efforts to eliminate grammatical/typographical mistakes, where applicable. REVIEWER 4: Comment 1: I suggest to add "occupational exposure" as keyword; add information about number of respondent and human sampling method in abstract. Response 1: “Occupational exposure” is added as a keyword. Human sampling was out of the scope of the current study which primarily aims at investigating BPA levels in thermal receipts circulating in Sharjah City, UAE and assessing related risks rather than investigating human subjects and conducting surveys. Thank you for your valuable comment Comment 2: In line 45 - 46, PVC food packaging stretch films, and dental sealants, thermal paper is... change with "PVC food packaging stretch films, and dental sealants, thermal paper are..." Response 2: Sentence (now line 54) corrected as suggested, thank you. Comment 3: Add citation in statement in line 45 - 46. Why thermal paper is included in the major source of BPA. Response 3: Citation included (now in line 54) as suggested Comment 4: Add citation in statement in line 46 – 47. Explain about health effects from BPA exposure in general. Are there any epidemiological studies related BPA exposure from skin to human health problems? Response 4: Additional citations are included as suggested. Health effects from BPA exposure are also discussed in now line 51. Thank you for your valuable comment Comment 5: I suggest to display sampling area map in the manuscript. Why only 30 samples of thermal paper analyzed? Response 5: The study area is Sharjah City (Population 1.275 million (2019)) and number of receipt samples was selected randomly based on literature review and typical number of samples used in similar global studies. For example, 40 sampling location were selected by Khatun et al., 2022 in Dhaka, Bengladesh, 12 samples were collected in duplicates in New Delhi, India (ToxicsLink, 2012), 44 samples were collected from various regions in Belgium by Geens et al., 2012. All such locations have population counts much higher than Sharjah City so authors adopted similar numbers of thermal paper samples in the current study. It is noteworthy to mention that higher number of samples would have been desired yet incur higher laboratory efforts and costs. Thank you for the valuable comment Comment 6: There are 3 constant value for k and AF. can you describe what are for? Response 6: Constant values for k and AF were selected from the extensive literature review conducted throughout the study. The authors made efforts to investigate all possible reported values for k, paper-to-skin transfer coefficients of BPA and all reported absorption fractions of BPA by skin (AF) as reported by Bernier and Vanderberg (2017) for a comprehensive risk assessment covering various scenarios. Comment 7: Please change table's format according to PLOS one format Response 7: Noted with thanks, all Tables have been revised to comply by journal’s format. Comment 8: I think your suggestion of sanitizers and lotion application should be reduced is not accepted. Because it will contradict with other regulation related COVID 19 transmission prevention. Response 8: Noted with thanks, the revised recommendation calls occupationally exposed persons to wear gloves, especially with sanitizers and lotion application during COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce exposure to BPA from thermal papers. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r002
28 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim, Editor PONE-D-22-29094R1Detection of Bisphenol A in Thermal Paper Receipts and Assessment of Human Exposure: A Case Study from Sharjah, United Arab EmiratesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Semerjian, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 2023 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, Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The reviewers comments are well addressed. However, it is preferable to keep the conclusion and recommendation separate. Reviewer #3: Thanks for your correct revision, and the quality of the paper has been improved greatly so that it is adequate to publish in journal. Reviewer #4: please to explain about 3 numbers of k (paper-to-skin transfer coefficient) and AF (absorption factor) that you display on table 3 - 7 ? why there are 3 numbers? what are they for? Is the number differentiated based on the age of the respondent or otherwise? you can add the information on the text or in table. TDI is Tolerable Daily Intake not Tolerable day intake (please review the text). ********** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r003
Revision 2
8 Mar 2023 Author Response Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: No response/comments received. Reviewer #2: Comment: The reviewers’ comments are well addressed. However, it is preferable to keep the conclusion and recommendation separate. Response: Thank you, as suggested the “Conclusions” have been separated from the “Recommendations” in the revised version Reviewer #3: Comment: Thanks for your correct revision, and the quality of the paper has been improved greatly so that it is adequate to publish in journal. Response: Thank you for your positive response Reviewer #4: Comment: please to explain about 3 numbers of k (paper-to-skin transfer coefficient) and AF (absorption factor) that you display on table 3 - 7 ? why there are 3 numbers? what are they for? Is the number differentiated based on the age of the respondent or otherwise? you can add the information on the text or in table. Response: Thank you. Further explanations for both k and AF, namely as below, were added in-text to the “Materials and Methods: BPA exposure assessment” section (p. 8, Lines 167-186, and 172-175 in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes). For k values: Reported k values varied as conducted extractability experiments exhibited varying coefficients based on skin conditions being dry, wet, or very greasy. For AF values: A wide range of absorption factors have been reported in previous studies as they are calculated from different experimental systems: 2.3–8.6% from skin explants, and 27% from live hands after application of BPA Comment: TDI is Tolerable Daily Intake not Tolerable day intake (please review the text). Response: The text has been reviewed, the phrase now reading Tolerable Daily Intake (p. 14, Line 253 in Revised Manuscript with Track Changes) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r004
14 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim, Editor Detection of Bisphenol A in Thermal Paper Receipts and Assessment of Human Exposure: A Case Study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates PONE-D-22-29094R2 Dear Dr. Semerjian, 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, Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r005
Formally Accepted
20 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim, Editor PONE-D-22-29094R2 Detection of bisphenol A in thermal paper receipts and assessment of human exposure: A case study from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Dear Dr. Semerjian: 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. Yasmina Abd‐Elhakim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283675.r006

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 .