Thursday, November 1 0, 2 016 at 8 :53:17 A M Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Your Submission 16-­‐123
Date: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:29:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: The Journal of Parasitology (sent by [email protected]
<[email protected]>)
To:
Lindsay, David
CC: [email protected]
Ref.: Ms. No. 16-­‐123 Dear Dr. Lindsay,
Your manuscript FlotaUon of Toxocara canis eggs in commercial bleach and effects of bleach treatment Umes on
larval development in these eggs. has been reviewed and accepted for publicaUon in Journal of Parasitology. It has
been determined, however, that a major revision is necessary.
This is a potenUally interesUng contribuUon but there are some methodological problems, for example, there are no
quanUtaUve comparisons of eggs that embryonated in each treatment group relaUve to the control. In addiUon, the
discussion is superficial. For example, there is no explanaUon proposed for the accelerated rate of embryonaUon
seen in bleach-­‐treated eggs. A brief discussion of possible reasons is appropriate for unexpected results. Accept, major revision needed ATTACHMENTS REGARDING FIGURES, MARKED MANUSCRIPT, AND REVIEWERS COMMENTS(IN SOME CASES) CAN BE
FOUND BY FOLLOWING THESE INSTRUCTIONS: Please log in to your home page. Click on "Submissions needing revision". The next window that opens will
show your manuscript, click on "AcUon Links" and then 'View Aiachments". Please consult the reviewers' and associate editor's comments (below) for more informaUon.
When you have completed your revision, please enter your login name and password at
hip://jparasitology.edmgr.com/ and follow the links to upload your new files or click on the link below. Please submit
your revision by 11/09/2017.
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE COSTS THAT ARE THE AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITY:
Page charges and redactory fees
The first 3 pages of each published manuscript are without charge. The charge for pages in excess of 3 are $45
per published page for arUcles with at least 1 author who is a member, and $75 per published page for arUcles with
no authors who are members. Nonmembers intending to publish in the Journal of Parasitology are encouraged to
become members of the Society. The current annual dues are $95.00 (students $20.00 online; $35.00 print copy;
$50.00 print and online).
Authors are allowed up to 5 alteraUons free of charge. Each subsequent alteraUon costs $5.00. Authors are
reminded that added or removed characters may necessitate other correcUons.
Plates not intended for color prinUng should be submiied in back and white or half tones. For color plates,
authors should provide appropriate instrucUons as to whether they should be reproduced in color in the on-­‐line
version only, or both the on-­‐line and printed versions. Please note that the cost of a color plate is $500 for printed
copy, and $75 for an online version only, and is the responsibility of the authors. Charges are subject to change
without noUce.
Charges to make arUcles open access are $750.00 for ASP members and $1,000.00 for nonmembers. Journal
Page 1 of 3
Charges to make arUcles open access are $750.00 for ASP members and $1,000.00 for nonmembers. Journal
arUcles are posted at The Journal of Parasitology website (www.journalofparasitology.org) and BioOne
(www.bioone.org). Authors who opt for open access do not pay regular page charges.
There are also charges for figure replacements and changes to tables.
Any of these charges are subject to change without noUce.
Sincerely, Michael V. K. Sukhdeo
Editor
Journal of Parasitology
P.S. To submit a revision, go to hip://www.edmgr.com/jparasitology and log in as an Author. You will see a menu
item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐ ASSOCIATE EDITOR'S COMMENTS: This is an interesUng paper, one which will have an impact on laboratories working
with this parasite. A responsive reviewer has idenUfied some areas in which improvement is possible, and I urge the
authors to give them careful consideraUon when preparing a revised version of this manuscript. I do not believe it
will be too difficult to accomplish the required changes, and I thank the authors for submipng their work to The
Journal of Parasitology.
Reviewer #1: This short communicaUon presents the results of a study with the major aim of invesUgaUng the effect
of 100% bleach exposure on the embryonaUon of Toxocara canis eggs. Toxocariasis is an important zoonosis and the
efficacy of recommended disinfecUon soluUons should be confirmed to ensure that transmission does not occur. The
topic of this manuscript is therefore very relevant from a public health standpoint. However, there are issues in the
manuscript that must be addressed before it will be acceptable for publicaUon in the Journal of Parasitology:
* Lines 39-­‐41 -­‐ This statement is misleading; these are esUmates of total pet dogs and cats in the US. Only a
porUon of these animals are infected, not all as the sentence implies.
* Line 120 -­‐ "Effect of treatment Ume on exposure to 100% bleach" should be changed to something along the
lines of "effect of exposure Ume to 100% bleach on egg viability/larval development".
* Lines 123-­‐124 -­‐ Please express centrifugal force in g instead of rpm.
* Line 136 -­‐ Please clarify what PI means. If this is post-­‐incubaUon, does it refer to incubaUon with bleach? I'm
unclear on what the "appropriate Ume PI" is.
* Line 145-­‐147 -­‐ Can the authors elaborate on why this flask had fewer eggs when all flasks received the
equivalent of 1 g of feces? Did eggs deteriorate awer long-­‐term exposure to bleach (as observed by Verocai et al
2010), or were they simply harder to find because they were floaUng on top of the bleach soluUon rather than resUng
on the floor of the flask (where the authors presumably focused the microscope when looking for eggs)?
* Lines 153-­‐155 -­‐ Please confirm if the lack of embryos/larvae observed prior to day 16 PI was due to suspected
developmental delay or due to an inability to find sufficient eggs to examine in the flask. Was an equal number of
eggs examined per bleach treatment Ume? Is any data available on the percentage of eggs that embryonated in each
treatment group relaUve to the control? Without this comparison, it cannot be concluded that bleach exposure did
not affect larval development.
* Lines 159-­‐160 -­‐ Contaminated fur has been suggested as a potenUal means of transmission but should not be
considered a MAJOR route of infecUon for people due to the large amount of fur that must be ingested. See
Overgaauw et al, 2009, ZoonoUc parasites in fecal samples and fur from dogs and cats in The Netherlands, Vet
Parasitol 163: 115-­‐122.
* Lines 179-­‐181 -­‐ The faster embryonaUon Ume for bleach-­‐exposed eggs compared to control eggs is interesUng
and should be briefly discussed. Could the bleach have made the egg shell more permeable, allowing for improved
oxygenaUon? Can the authors propose alternate explanaUons for this observaUon?
* General comment: The authors may also want to include in their discussion the commercial availability of
concentrated bleach (e.g. 8% sodium hypochlorite) and whether this soluUon may be more effecUve against T. canis
embryonaUon.
Page 2 of 3
* Minor grammaUcal errors are found throughout the manuscript and should be corrected.
Page 3 of 3