Quantitative Assessment of Microbial Contamination and Patterns of Public Behaviour with Used Toothbrushes: Implications of Storage and Replacement

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Comments: The subheading “Introduction” has been introduced under Abstract.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments: The Discussion section establishes that toothbrushes may act as a source of cross-contamination/infection by quantifying a wide range of environmental microorganisms present on used toothbrushes. It also assesses the effect of different lifestyle variables of donors and storage environments on toothbrush contamination. Relevant literature has been cited to support the discussion. Identifying the relationship between environmental factors, toothbrush contamination and impact of lifestyle variables will help to minimise and control microbial loads. The limitation of this study is also properly addressed.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       Words like “MacConkey”, “Pseudomonas” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

·       In the last sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Results, the name of these two microorganisms: “Serratia liquifaciens” and “Enterobacter cloacae” were repeated. Hence, the duplicates should be removed.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This study investigates the nature and level of microbial contamination of used toothbrushes by conducting microbiological examination of 103 used toothbrushes. It not only examines the environmental microbial contamination of used toothbrushes but also compares the impact on microbial load with lifestyle variables of toothbrush users such as the age and gender of users, use of toothbrush caps, use of mouthwash, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, antibiotic use, toothpaste brand, diet, frequency of toothbrush uses and age of toothbrush. The results revealed the presence of a broad range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative environmental microorganisms on used toothbrushes. Based on the findings and previous reports, this study states that microbial loads on toothbrushes are fully established during the first three months of use and do not increase further. Education regarding toothbrush age, brushing frequency and storage is required to improve public awareness. The study is limited as the presence of oral microbes and strict anaerobes were not investigated.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team