Occurrence and Regulatory Evaluation of Contaminants in Tattoo Inks
, Pascal Hindelang 2, Stephan G. Walch 2 and Birgit Gutsche 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a review work dedicated to the presence of organic and inorganic contaminants in tattoo inks. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript needs to be extensively revised before being considered for publicization.
The abstract should highlight the novelty of the work and present the main outcomes, including the range of concentrations reported in the tattoo inks.
Methods: Why only 2 databases were used to perform the literature search? Authors should indicate the period of search considered rather than the months where the search was made. Also, the eligibility criteria should be presented. Something should be said about the total number of studies considered in the revision. What geographic areas are covered?
The section on results lacks support with the literature in the tables and in the text. It is organized with too many and very short subsections. The results should be presented in a concise way, e.g., the organic contaminants determined in the tattoo inks are presented by the color of the ink while for the inorganic contaminants, the information is organized by metal, identifying the ink that presented the highest concentration. Moreover, this literature review would benefit if some data treatments were done, e.g., to compare the levels of organic/inorganic contaminants between the different inks.
Lines 363-364: IARC classifies substances into groups 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; please clarify and revise the information presented.
Consider revising the manuscript for typos and/or grammatical errors (e.g., lines 95, 181, 190, etc.).
The text of the manuscript can be improved.
Author Response
The manuscript presents a review work dedicated to the presence of organic and inorganic contaminants in tattoo inks. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript needs to be extensively revised before being considered for publicization.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the review of our paper. As requested below, we have extensively revised the manuscript, and hope that it is now acceptable for publication.
The abstract should highlight the novelty of the work and present the main outcomes, including the range of concentrations reported in the tattoo inks.
RESPONSE: The abstract was edited to comply with the suggested changes.
Methods: Why only 2 databases were used to perform the literature search? Authors should indicate the period of search considered rather than the months where the search was made. Also, the eligibility criteria should be presented. Something should be said about the total number of studies considered in the revision. What geographic areas are covered?
RESPONSE: Only 2 databases were used, because they seemed to have the most diverse publications, because most of the findings through other databases yielded the same publications, which were already used or did not fit the eligibility criteria. All other suggested changes were incorporated into the review.
The section on results lacks support with the literature in the tables and in the text. It is organized with too many and very short subsections. The results should be presented in a concise way, e.g., the organic contaminants determined in the tattoo inks are presented by the color of the ink while for the inorganic contaminants, the information is organized by metal, identifying the ink that presented the highest concentration. Moreover, this literature review would benefit if some data treatments were done, e.g., to compare the levels of organic/inorganic contaminants between the different inks.
RESPONSE: The qualitative and quantitative measured contaminants were put into one table. The table with the inorganic contaminants was changed to better align with the first table.
Lines 363-364: IARC classifies substances into groups 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; please clarify and revise the information presented.
RESPONSE: This typo was corrected.
Consider revising the manuscript for typos and/or grammatical errors (e.g., lines 95, 181, 190, etc.).
RESPONSE: the typos were corrected. Thank you!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text of the manuscript can be improved.
RESPONSE: The text was carefully revised for language.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is a meta-analysis of contaminants (inorganic/organic) in tattoo inks. The authors have done a comprehensive review of the literature and provided information on contaminant levels in ink and potential health impacts to humans because of exposure.
As far a review, the paper is well-written and easy to read - the authors should be lauded for this. It also cites many references so I assume the authors have captured much of the relevant literature.
I do not have much in the way of comments other than to say that the authors can make the paper more readable the authors could consider merging the quantitative and qualitative sections together as right now there is some repetition when I read it.
Author Response
The manuscript is a meta-analysis of contaminants (inorganic/organic) in tattoo inks. The authors have done a comprehensive review of the literature and provided information on contaminant levels in ink and potential health impacts to humans because of exposure.
As far a review, the paper is well-written and easy to read - the authors should be lauded for this. It also cites many references so I assume the authors have captured much of the relevant literature.
RESPONSE: Thank you for the assessment of our paper!
I do not have much in the way of comments other than to say that the authors can make the paper more readable the authors could consider merging the quantitative and qualitative sections together as right now there is some repetition when I read it.
RESPONSE: The quantitative and qualitative sections were merged.
