Dear Dr. Baguma,

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 May 14 2025 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.

• 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,

Vinaya Satyawan Tari, Post doctoral fellow, (M.Sc., B.Ed., 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The Uganda National Association of Community and Occupational Health (UNACOH), with 710 funding support from Dialogos, a Danish Non-Government Organization supported by Danish 711 Government conducted a study in Buhweju, Kassanda and Busia districts under the Free Your 712 Mine project (FYM 2025) to assess effects of mercury-free gold processing on the incomes 713 and livelihoods of artisanal and small-scale gold miners and stakeholders in Buhweju, Busia 714 and Kassanda districts in Uganda.”

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:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1-3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note that Figure 1-3 includes an image of a participant.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Article is well structured, well written and technically sound. Authors should simply check again for any minor grammatical errors and correct them. e.g. line 337 and 338 (change 'its' to it; 'so' into to).

Reviewer #2: The manuscript comes out as an advocacy for the use Borax in gold processing, without much justification. Borax itself has not been described/ defined and there does not appear to be any significant technical references on the efficacy of Borax. There is clearly limited uptake of Borax with artisanal miners in the study preferring the use of mercury in gold processing, instead. One quoted statistic says that in a field demonstration, Borax recovered 40% more gold than mercury, but the experiment itself is not properly described. More examples of properly set-up experimentations, or of actual mine recovery statistics may help lend more objectivity to the study. It appears the stakeholders are saying that mercury is a faster and cheaper way of gold recovery than mercury. However, even in the discussion, the authors hold on to a 'truth' that Borax use is 'less time-consuming'.

The tone of the manuscript throughout should refrain from obvious biases and be more objective; the authors should let the data speak for themselves.

Although generally well-written, the manuscript has some typographic errors (e.g. P in sample size calculation is applied as 12%, but stated as 50% in the list of variables) and repetitiveness (e.g. in the Discussion) which need to be rectified throughout.

Reviewer #3: General Comment:

This study represents a substantial mixed-methods effort addressing a globally significant issue: the use of mercury by artisanal gold miners—a metal highly toxic to both human health and the environment.

However, the manuscript requires a thorough revision of the presentation of results and a structural reworking of the article to make it clearer and more accessible to readers.

The stated objective of the article is to “assess the impact of borax utilization in gold processing on the income and livelihoods of miners and stakeholders in Buhweju, Busia and Kassanda districts in Uganda where the Free Your Mine project is being implemented.”

However, the content of the article suggests that it primarily evaluates the barriers and facilitators to borax use within this population. Therefore, we recommend that the objective be reformulated to more accurately reflect the actual focus of the study.

Additionally, terminology should be used consistently throughout the manuscript:

• borax should be written in lowercase;

• Abbreviations should not be defined multiple times.

________________________________________

Introduction:

• Clearly present, based on the literature, the benefits and drawbacks of using borax.

• The "Free Your Mine" project needs to be better explained: objectives, context, and implementation sites.

• The data from Ghana, mentioned later in the article, would be more appropriately integrated into the discussion section, where they can help contextualize the findings.

________________________________________

Methods:

• Add a map to indicate the inclusion areas.

• Specify the number of participants per site.

• Indicate how many participants were trained in mercury-free techniques.

• Review the mathematical formulas:

o The “P” used does not refer to the prevalence as claimed.

o It would be preferable to clearly explain the calculation in plain language.

• Provide more context on ASGM (artisanal and small-scale gold mining) in Uganda: are these activities legal or not?

• Lines 173–176: it is unclear whether the KIIs involved 12 groups or 5.

• Define what is meant by "youth mining groups."

• The sampling method needs to be explained more clearly.

• Line 205: specify whether the qualitative questionnaires were structured or semi-structured, and include the questionnaire in an appendix.

________________________________________

Results:

• Lines 266–269 should be removed.

• The denominators used for ratio calculations must be clearly presented. Since some questions were conditional, readers need to follow how the calculations were made.

• Table 4 should show the sample size in each category.

• All table titles should be placed above the tables.

• Clearly separate descriptive data from the quantitative and qualitative components. For instance, the profile of focus group participants is unclear.

• Line 296: 21.7% does not constitute a “notable majority.”

• Line 299: 1.9% of participants use borax for gold extraction — which equates to only 3 individuals? Clarify the distinction between purification and extraction, since the key issue is replacing mercury in the extraction process.

o How were participants categorized as borax users or not with such a low number? This represents a major bias in the study.

o Hence the need to reformulate the study objective accordingly.

• A flow chart should be added, showing:

o Number of participants trained vs. untrained;

o Their behavior in terms of borax use vs. mercury or other methods.

• Assess whether borax use varies depending on the location (e.g., proximity to the Free Your Mine project site).

• Data on borax or mercury use should be accompanied by a time frame/unit (cf. Line 301, Table 3, Line 390, Table 8...).

• Present monetary amounts in Ugandan shillings with USD equivalents.

• Line 322: the interpretation provided does not match the content of the referenced table, which is titled “Likelihood of continuing to use mercury after learning about gravity/borax method.”

• Barriers to borax use are not presented in the results section, despite being a central takeaway of the study. They are only discussed later, which is a limitation.

• Line 364: the table does not match the title.

• Line 366: check for possible errors in the standard deviation (SD).

• Line 388: the phrase “accepted that” is unclear — please rephrase.

• Line 392: clarify what other methods (besides mercury or borax) are being referred to.

• Table 8: if a respondent used mercury more than 12 years ago, should they still be counted as a current user?

________________________________________

Discussion:

• Start with a brief summary of the main findings, before discussing them.

• Clearly present the limitations of the study.

• Discuss the results in relation to the regional context and existing literature.

• The literature-based benefit-risk analysis of borax should be placed in the introduction, not in the discussion.

• Compare your findings with those from other countries, such as Ghana.

• Line 435: not clearly worded — rephrase.

• Lines 441–442: these elements should appear in the introduction.

• Lines 462–464: same comment.

• Lines 475–495: limited relevance — this section could be condensed to two sentences.

• Lines 558–562: it is uncertain whether these conclusions are fully supported by the results.

• Line 572: clarify what is meant by "acetylen gas", or remove the reference.

Finally, the article should clearly discuss the barriers to borax adoption, as well as measures to engage communities in transitioning to mercury-free gold mining.

Is the main issue access to borax, water availability, lack of training, or time required for processing? These points should be clarified.

________________________________________

Conclusion:

The article would benefit greatly from a clear reorganization, removal of redundancies, and better alignment between the stated objectives and the results actually presented.

**********

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: Yes:  Antony Mamuse

Reviewer #3: 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.

Dear Dr. Baguma,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 2025 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.

• 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,

Vinaya Satyawan Tari, Post doctoral fellow, (M.Sc., B.Ed., Ph.D.)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Dear Dr. Baguma,

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 Jul 25 2025 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.

• 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,

Vinaya Satyawan Tari, Post doctoral fellow, (M.Sc., B.Ed., Ph.D.)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Although in the summary table of responses, the authors indicate that they have adequately responded to concerns raised earlier, I have not been able to verify that the authors have actually:

1. Defined borax and explained its use and adequately corroborated its efficacy

2. Provided details of a specific experiment which supposedly showed that borax is 40% more efficient than mercury in gold recovery.

3. Adequately replaced advocacy with objectivity throughout the 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 #2: Yes:  Antony Mamuse

**********

[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.

Utilization of borax and its impact on the income and the livelihood of miners and other stakeholders: A case of Uganda.

PONE-D-25-08547R3

Dear Dr. Baguma,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Vinaya Satyawan Tari, Post doctoral fellow, (M.Sc., B.Ed., Ph.D.)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The authors have explained what borax is and pointed to a study which specifically assessed the efficiency of borax vs mercury in gold ore processing. The borax advocacy tone has been largely rectified.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Antony Mamuse

**********