Combined Contaminant Levels from Local Harvested Food Items in the Norwegian–Finnish–Russian Border Region
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This publication described a comprehensive assessment of various contaminants in traditional food items in the border regions of Norway, Finland, and Russia, revealing the influence of both local and global pollution sources on food safety in the Arctic. The study identified key indicators for monitoring pollution and associated risks to human health, with a particular focus on mushrooms, inland fish, and reindeer. The article is well-written; however, there are some significant aspects that the authors need to address carefully before this manuscript can be considered for publication:
1) The study does not elaborate on the sampling methodology, such as the selection criteria for the species of berries, mushrooms, and game. This information is crucial to evaluate the representativeness of the samples and the validity of the conclusions drawn.
2) The communication of risk, especially regarding the consumption of reindeer meat containing dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, is not adequately addressed. The study should provide clearer guidance on the consumption of such food items, considering the lowered TWI for dioxins and dl-PCBs.
3) The conclusion suggests potential policy implications but falls short of offering concrete recommendations for policymakers. The study should translate its findings into actionable policy suggestions, such as updating food safety standards or strategies to improve environmental monitoring programs.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The publication requires an extensive editing of English language.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your time and possibility to revise our manuscript!
Please see our answers and clarifications to the comments received below.
1) The study does not elaborate on the sampling methodology, such as the selection criteria for the species of berries, mushrooms, and game. This information is crucial to evaluate the representativeness of the samples and the validity of the conclusions drawn.
Answer: we have selected food items and species that are most commonly harvested by local people. This is now updated in part 2.1, lines 111-114 and more details provided on samples and methodology. Information on species is in lines 93-97.
2) The communication of risk, especially regarding the consumption of reindeer meat containing dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, is not adequately addressed. The study should provide clearer guidance on the consumption of such food items, considering the lowered TWI for dioxins and dl-PCBs.
Answer: this risk evaluation is done by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety and results are given in reference Knutsen et.al. (26). We have added more clarification on this in the manuscript part 4.3.2, lines 662-672.
3) The conclusion suggests potential policy implications but falls short of offering concrete recommendations for policymakers. The study should translate its findings into actionable policy suggestions, such as updating food safety standards or strategies to improve environmental monitoring programs.
Answer: this was a pilot study to investigate possibilities and pinpoint the challenges for combined assessments for different types of contaminants. More research should be done before concrete recommendations can be given to policymakers.
 4) We have also paid attention to the English language quality, and made some amendments across the manuscript, while revising it.
 We hope that the provided answers and manuscript updates are sufficient for clarification of the points mentioned in the review report and are looking forward to publishing this interdisciplinary research.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anna Nalbandyan-Schwarz
On behalf of all co-authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
· The authors have done an excellent work but one point comes in mind that the data is quite old i.e. 2013-2015 and why it has not published it earlier.
· In the abstract, authors mentioned in the lines that they have studied the POPs of berries, mushroom, fish, birds, reindeer and moose but actually it has been studied only in fish and reindeer. There is no results related to the birds but it is mentioned in the abstract.
· In lines 107-108, the reference should be mentioned related to the method of sampling.
· In lines 119-120, please mention the methodology used for preparing the samples for further analysis in each food item.
· Please mention that after how many days the samples were analysed
· Lines 139-140, please mention the food items collected in Finland for analysis.
· In lines 155, 284, 292; the animal “game” has been used but it has never been mentioned in the material and methods. In Figure 2, the game has been used, however, in the material and methods, the reindeer was mentioned. So uniformity is needed.
· In lines 183-184, The 7 different barrier were used in the study but the data has been given only of 5 barriers in the figure 4
· In lines 185-187, The 10 different mushroom has been used in the experiment but the data has been given only of 6 mushrooms in the figure 5
· In Line 191, The 3 different types of fishes have been used but in figure 6, data has been given on 5 different fishes.
· There is no mention about the use of Moose and ptarmigan in the material and methods but data has been given in figure 7.
· Section 4.1 and 4.2 should be combined, it means the results should be discussed the maximum permissible limits of different counties along with the common trend of previous studies.
· The presentation of table 1 and other tables is not appropriate i.e. too lengthy. These tables should be reduced and delete the columns which are less important.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your time and possibility to revise our manuscript!
Please see our answers and clarifications to the comments received attached.
-  The authors have done an excellent work but one point comes in mind that the data is quite old i.e. 2013-2015 and why it has not published it earlier.
Answer: the funding for different analyses for this research was received in different time intervals.
-    In the abstract, authors mentioned in the lines that they have studied the POPs of berries, mushroom, fish, birds, reindeer and moose but actually it has been studied only in fish and reindeer. There is no results related to the birds but it is mentioned in the abstract.
Answer: Organochlorine compounds were analyzed in all collected food items (moose, reindeer, ptarmigan, fish, berries and mushrooms) in detectable levels, in the study in Finnish Lapland (ref. 10). Among them, levels of DDTs and PCBs were found to be highest in fish (Appendix B). The sumPCB7 were lower in fish from Finnish Lapland than the fish samples collected in the border region of Norway and Russia. We have updated this part in the manuscript part 3.3, lines 238-242.
-    In lines 107-108, the reference should be mentioned related to the method of sampling.
Answer: Sampling of berries, mushrooms, fish, ptarmigan, reindeer, and moose was done in a way to resemble local harvesting, and internal protocols were developed. We have updated part 2.1 and provided more clarification in lines 111-114 and 121-124.
-    In lines 119-120, please mention the methodology used for preparing the samples for further analysis in each food item.
Answer: we have updated this part with more details on sample preparation. After manuscript updates, this part is now on lines 128-132.
-          Please mention that after how many days the samples were analysed
Answer: all samples were analysed within 6 months to 1 year and stored under -20oC before analyses. We updated this part in the methodology – part 2.1, line 114.
-   Lines 139-140, please mention the food items collected in Finland for analysis.
Answer: part 2.2.3 is updated and types of food items from Finland mentioned in lines 149-150.
-   In lines 155, 284, 292; the animal “game” has been used but it has never been mentioned in the material and methods.  In Figure 2, the game has been used, however, in the material and methods, the reindeer was mentioned. So uniformity is needed.
Answer: we have clarified about game in the manuscript, line 169. Where we mention game, we mean reindeer, moose and ptarmigan – game animals (wild animals or birds hunted for animal products.
-   In lines 183-184, The 7 different barrier were used in the study but the data has been given only of 5 barriers in the figure 4
-  In lines 185-187, The 10 different mushroom has been used in the experiment but the data has been given only of 6 mushrooms in the figure5
-  In Line 191, 3 different types of fish have been used but in figure 6, data has been given on 5 different fishes.
Answer to questions about berries, mushrooms and fishes: we have updated part 2.1, lines 91-97, mentioning all collected species from berries, mushrooms and freshwater fish. In part 2.3 we have added that ‘A variety of species were collected and measured from each food item group, to screen the levels of contaminants (see part 2.1). However, not all species were analysed for all the pollutants. In the multivariate statistical analyses were included only those species where more than one pollutant group was analysed, lines 163-166.
- ’There is no mention about the use of Moose and ptarmigan in the material and methods, but data has been given in figure 7.
Answer: moose and ptarmigan are now specified in part 2.1, lines 91-93. As mentioned also above, in some places we refer to reindeer, moose and ptarmigan as games (clarified also in line 169).
-   Section 4.1 and 4.2 should be combined, it means the results should be discussed the maximum permissible limits of different counties along with the common trend of previous studies.
Answer: we have divided section 4. Discussion into three parts with a view to provide structured discussion around different aspects of contamination, contaminants and sources – part 1, investigation of relations between different groups of contaminants and identification of possible reference species for combined pollution assessment – part 2 and human health related aspects from consumption of contaminated food/combination of risks – part 3. Thus, we would like to keep this section in its current structure.
As for maximum permissible limits in different countries (or national limits), we were referring to those/presenting in part 2.4 Risk assessment, with relevant references and also table in Appendix C.
-  The presentation of table 1 and other tables is not appropriate i.e. too lengthy. These tables should be reduced and delete the columns which are less important.
Answer: here we became a bit unsure which table 1 is meant, as Table 1 in the manuscript is quite compact and understandable. In the case of Table A1 in Appendix A, it provides an overview of samples and species (with Latin names), collected in three countries, providing important details. Table B1 in Appendix B provides data, relevant to figures from statistical analyses as well as overview on all the specific contaminants that were analysed from different groups of contaminants. It could be seen as a bit long, but it consists of 4 separate parts with data for berries, mushrooms, fish and game.
We hope that the provided answers and manuscript updates are sufficient for clarification of the points mentioned in the review report and are looking forward to publishing this interdisciplinary research.
Thank you one more time for your detailed revision of our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anna Nalbandyan-Schwarz
On behalf of all co-authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study is very interesting for the identification and quantification of combined effects of different contaminants on the potential risk to humans resulting from exposure through food.
My recommendation is for publication.
Please insert an appropriate reference in line 506.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for revision of our manuscript and positive feedback!
Comment: please insert an appropriate reference in line 506.
Answer: we have added another reference – Backhaus, 2023 to complement the reference from Socianu et. al 2022, following your advice.
We are looking forward to publishing this interdisciplinary research.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anna Nalbandyan-Schwarz
On behalf of all co-authors
