PONE-D-23-21136Internal radiation exposure from 137Cs and its association with the dietary habits of residents from areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Ukraine: 2016–2018PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hayashida,

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 Sep 10 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,

Tim A. Mousseau

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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. 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.

Additional Editor comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.  This really is an important topic, not just for Ukraine and Belarus, but also for other parts of the world dealing with environmental contaminants in the food chain.   After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit and will be acceptable for publication following a few minor changes. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please carefully review the two reviewers' comments and make appropriate revisions to your manuscript. The main issues include greater detail concerning the whole body counting system used and the possible role of alpha emitters that are rarely measured but could be important. Please provide a comprehensive description of the WBC system. As for alpha emitters, I am not sure how much information really exists for Chernobyl populations but please  try to address this question if possible. 

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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 authors have conducted a large-scale survey of internal radiation exposure among the inhabitants of a regional city (Zhytomyr) in Ukraine. I generally agree with the content of the manuscript, but I am convinced that the manuscript would be better if the points listed below were revised. I look forward to your consideration of the modifications.

1.

The Abstract only presents qualitative research methods, results and conclusions. At the very least, the years of investigation and the key conclusions should be "quantitatively" described.

2.

I have some questions about the detectable limits. The WBC used in the study is described as a type with a 7.6 cm (3-inch, i think) NaI detector, Aloka, but it maybe probably a chair type. If this is the case, please indicate specifically how the detection limit (or MDA) of 270 Bq/body was calculated, using the 3sigma or Currie's method.

3.

Supplemental information indicates that there is individual with extremely high radioactivity levels of 237 Bq/kg (29 years old, see attaached image file). Statistics are important, but discussing this individual case is crucial to understanding the reality of the exposure. I would like to know the reasons why authors did not mentioned about this case.

4.

L150 modify "0.0025 msv/y/Bq/kg" to "0.0025 mSv/y/Bq/kg"

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Internal radiation exposure from 137Cs and its association with the dietary habits of residents from areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Ukraine: 2016–2018" is interested, well written and presents part of the problem connected to radiation from the Chernobyl accident.

Such screening studies are important, especially when internal exposure, both ingestion and inhalation, is the main source of effective dose. However, the authors have focused on beta emitters only. In the first few days iodine was the biggest problem, indeed; but during the accident extremely high amount s of other nuclides were released, including alpha-emitters which ionize the body in much bigger level. Thus, the information about iodine or Cs-134 (Introduction) seems to be less important. In my opinion the authors must add the information about alpha emitters. At the moment the amount of Cs-137 is two times smaller, while most of alpha emitters are still present in the environment in unchanged quantity. It is hard to measure them but they cause the highest ionizing effect in the body.

Anyway, the studies were well planned and organized, the analysed group is quite impressive, the analysis to the foodstuff types (the main sources of Cs-137) was done and presented clearly. The figures should be improved, their quality is insufficient. After small remarks the manuscript is worth publishing in PLOS One.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Internal radiation exposure from 137Cs and its association with the dietary habits of residents from areas affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Ukraine: 2016–2018

PONE-D-23-21136R1

Dear Dr. Hayashida,

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. Congratulations, and thank you for submitting this important study to PLoS ONE.

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,

Tim A. Mousseau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: