All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for addressing the reviewers' comments!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The current version of the manuscript has improved significantly and is now well-structured and comprehensive. The authors have adequately addressed all the queries and concerns I previously raised and have provided sufficient and necessary information throughout the revised manuscript.
I have only one remaining suggestion: please include appropriate references for the Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AST) methodology in the Methods section to enhance clarity and reproducibility.
Overall, I commend the authors for their thorough revisions and believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication pending the minor suggestion above.
Thank you. I have checked the edited version of the manuscript and compared it with the first draft. It seems that the author has implemented most of the suggestions and corrections. I think the paper is now acceptable for publication.
The manuscript is now clear and well-organized. I have reviewed the edited version and compared it with the original draft. The author has addressed most of the suggested revisions
Acceptable
Thank you
Please address the reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
In this study, the authors investigated bacterial contaminants on banknotes and coins using MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry and determined antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) in selected isolates. While the manuscript presents interesting data, several areas require clarification and improvement before further consideration.
1. The authors should specify the criteria for selecting the 150 banknotes and coins used in the study.
2. Additional samples from other sources, such as vegetable and grocery stores, should be included to provide more comprehensive insights into the prevalence of medically important bacterial pathogens.
3. I recommend using phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) instead of TSB to resuspend the swab.
4. Bacterial identification should be performed directly from the plates used for colony counting to enhance the accuracy of results.
5. The authors reported a higher contamination rate on banknotes than on coins, possibly due to differences in size or surface area. However, the comparison between banknotes and coins may not be justified. Instead, a comparison of contamination levels across different collection sites for both banknotes and coins would be more informative.
6. The study focuses solely on bacterial contamination. The authors should also examine fungal pathogens to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
7. Based on the results, the variation among bacterial contaminants appears minimal. Further clarification is needed to support this conclusion.
8. References should be included throughout the methodology section, and detailed information about the database used for bacterial identification should be provided.
The experimental design requires improvement.
Validity of the findings looks good to me
NA
The paper is well-designed and written. However, there are some typos and suggestions were made.
Well designated, but needs referencing, see the attached file
Acceptable
Please find the comments on the attached file
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.