We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Evaluation Reports for TEBT-2025-0015 | Zimmerman et al.
Summary
This publication presents evaluation reports for a protocol designed to systematically map the literature on micro- and nanoplastic migration from food contact materials into food. Reviewers generally viewed the proposed methodology as a significant and useful update of prior work, providing a foundation for future assessments of microplastic exposure from food packaging and containers.
Evaluation reports for "An update on micro- and nanoplastics in foods from plastic food contact articles: Protocol for a systematic evidence map" (Zimmerman et al. 2025). This manuscript presents a protocol for a complex and challenging mapping of the literature about the migration of micro- and nanoplastic particles from food contact materials into foodstuffs. This is a significant update of prior work by the authors, will be a useful resource for other researchers, and forms the basis for follow-up work to assess microplastic exposures from food contact materials. Comments from editorial triage related to ensuring the study goals were aligned with a mapping methodology; reconsidering the structure and processes for search, screening, study appraisal, and data analysis in the study, with regard to study goals and meeting the anticipated needs of the target users of the evidence map; and revision of the coding strategy and some other detailed elements of the methodology to ensure the evidence map can deliver the planned objectives. The authors comprehensively revised their manuscript, which was then peer-reviewed. Two of the three reviewers responded positively to the manuscript. One reviewer did not, but they did not explain their view that the proposed methodology is not a sufficient update of the previous work. Since the editor and two reviewers view the manuscript as a significant update on a prior approach, and that peer-review and publication of the protocol is an important part of ensuring the utility and validity of the update to the evidence, we recommended minor revisions instead of following the dissenting reviewer’s recommendation to reject the manuscript. The authors completed these minor revisions, and we are therefore pleased to accept the manuscript for publication. Finally we note that, as a journal, and notwithstanding the authors’ arguments about ensuring appropriate use, we would prefer if the dataset from this work could ultimately be made publicly available by default rather than available on request.