Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes

Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits,... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532" }, "headline": "Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes", "datePublished": "2023-05-23T12:25:06", "dateModified": "2024-03-12T10:43:55", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Pablo Djabayan-Djibeyan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "José G. Prato" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Cecilia Alejandra García Ríos" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Julio César Carrero" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "María Trelis" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Màrius Vicent Fuentes" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Background: Raw vegetables have been considered vehicles of enteroparasites. South American countries are among the most important exporters of fresh vegetables, including Ecuador, which has a tropical climate and soils rich in organic matter that allow it to harvest throughout the year for sale to different countries. The aim of the study was to assess the occurrence of the parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in an agricultural area of the Ecuadorian Andes. Methods: A cross-sectional field study was conducted with snowball sampling on 1,416 samples (516 fruits, 488 vegetables, and 412 leafy greens). Each sample were washed with water, and the resulting solution after removing the vegetables, was subjected to 24-hour sedimentation. The concentrated sediment underwent microscopic analysis. Results: The overall positivity for parasitic contamination was 63.4%, with leafy greens having the highest contamination rate (76.9%) (P<0.0001), surpassing vegetables (67.8%) and fruits (48.4%). Cabbage (100%), onions (84%), and strawberries (60.2%) emerged as the most contaminated within their respective groups. Protozoa were more prevalent (49.6%) than helminths (15.5%) (P<0.0001). Blastocystis sp. (33.5%) ranked highest, followed by Eimeria spp. (26.3%), Entamoeba spp. (10.3%), Giardia spp. (8.3%), Balantidium spp. (6.9%), Cryptosporidium spp. (6.6%), Cyclospora spp. (4.4%), Cystoisospora spp. (0.5%), Strongylida (15.5%), and Ascaris spp. (0.4%). Conclusion: The study reveals that vegetables and fruits for human consumption from this area of the Ecuadorian Andes are highly contaminated with various parasites, constituting a possible source of infection for humans and animals in this area, or in non-endemic areas where these products are marketed. The finding emphasizes the need for strict hygienic measures in agricultural crops, which will be properly achieved through the treatment of soil, manure and water used for cultivation." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532", "name": "Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy..." } } ] } Home Browse Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article González-Ramírez LC, Djabayan-Djibeyan P, Prato JG et al. Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4431-965X 1 , Pablo Djabayan-Djibeyan 2 , José G. Prato https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8381-404X 3 , [...] Cecilia Alejandra García Ríos 2,4 , Julio César Carrero https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1055-5774 5 , María Trelis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5977-3337 6,7 , Màrius Vicent Fuentes 6 Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4431-965X 1 , Pablo Djabayan-Djibeyan 2 , [...] José G. Prato https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8381-404X 3 , Cecilia Alejandra García Ríos 2,4 , Julio César Carrero https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1055-5774 5 , María Trelis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5977-3337 6,7 , Màrius Vicent Fuentes 6 PUBLISHED 12 Mar 2024 Author details Author details 1 Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 2 Grupo de Investigación "Salud Pública", Carrera de Medicina, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 3 Grupo de Investigación “Estudios Interdisciplinarios”, Ingeniería Ambiental, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 4 Facultad de Salud Pública, Escuela Superior Politecnica de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 5 Departamento de Inmunología, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico City, 04510, Mexico 6 Research Group "Parasites and Health", Departament de Farmàcia i Tecnologia Farmacèutica i Parasitologia, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de València, Burjassot/Valencia, Comunidad Valenciana, 46010, Spain 7 Joint Research Unit on Endocrinology, Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Universitat de València - Health Research Institute La Fe (IISLAFE), Valencia, Valencian Community, 46026, Spain Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Pablo Djabayan-Djibeyan Roles: Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing José G. Prato Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Cecilia Alejandra García Ríos Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization Julio César Carrero Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing María Trelis Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Màrius Vicent Fuentes Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway. This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway. Abstract Background : Raw vegetables have been considered vehicles of enteroparasites. South American countries are among the most important exporters of fresh vegetables, including Ecuador, which has a tropical climate and soils rich in organic matter that allow it to harvest throughout the year for sale to different countries. The aim of the study was to assess the occurrence of the parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in an agricultural area of the Ecuadorian Andes. Methods: A cross-sectional field study was conducted with snowball sampling on 1,416 samples (516 fruits, 488 vegetables, and 412 leafy greens). Each sample were washed with water, and the resulting solution after removing the vegetables, was subjected to 24-hour sedimentation. The concentrated sediment underwent microscopic analysis. Results : The overall positivity for parasitic contamination was 63.4%, with leafy greens having the highest contamination rate (76.9%) (P<0.0001), surpassing vegetables (67.8%) and fruits (48.4%). Cabbage (100%), onions (84%), and strawberries (60.2%) emerged as the most contaminated within their respective groups. Protozoa were more prevalent (49.6%) than helminths (15.5%) (P<0.0001). Blastocystis sp. (33.5%) ranked highest, followed by Eimeria spp. (26.3%), Entamoeba spp. (10.3%), Giardia spp. (8.3%), Balantidium spp. (6.9%), Cryptosporidium spp. (6.6%), Cyclospora spp. (4.4%), Cystoisospora spp. (0.5%), Strongylida (15.5%), and Ascaris spp. (0.4%). Conclusion : The study reveals that vegetables and fruits for human consumption from this area of the Ecuadorian Andes are highly contaminated with various parasites, constituting a possible source of infection for humans and animals in this area, or in non-endemic areas where these products are marketed. The finding emphasizes the need for strict hygienic measures in agricultural crops, which will be properly achieved through the treatment of soil, manure and water used for cultivation. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords agricultural production, food, transmission, parasites, fruits, vegetables, leafy greens Corresponding Author(s) Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez ( [email protected] ) José G. Prato ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding authors: Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez, José G. Prato Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was supported by Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo under Research Funds (FCS-006-2021). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 González-Ramírez LC et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: González-Ramírez LC, Djabayan-Djibeyan P, Prato JG et al. Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.2 ) First published: 23 May 2023, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.1 ) Latest published: 12 Mar 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The revised version of the manuscript incorporates the corrections suggested by the reviewers. The Introduction was expanded, incorporating current bibliographic references. The Discussion was synthesized, and current quotes that better explain the results were incorporated. In the new version of the article, an extensive grammar check is done, improving the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. The revised version of the manuscript incorporates the corrections suggested by the reviewers. The Introduction was expanded, incorporating current bibliographic references. The Discussion was synthesized, and current quotes that better explain the results were incorporated. In the new version of the article, an extensive grammar check is done, improving the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Zulbey Rivero See the authors' detailed response to the review by Papa Kofi Amissah-Reynolds See the authors' detailed response to the review by Alessandra Barlaam READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Incorporating vegetables, leafy greens, and fruits into human diet is essential to ensure vital nutrients crucial to maintaining health. However, these foods can also serve as vehicles for enteroparasites, representing a paradox within nutritional health practices ( Punsawad et al., 2019 ; Al Nahhas and Aboualchamat, 2020 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Faria et al., 2023 ). The role of vegetables in the spread of pathogens is notably substantial. The external surfaces of these foods can retain infectious stages of various parasites, thereby posing a risk of direct transmission to humans when consumed raw or poorly washed ( Mufida et al., 2022 ; Lucas et al., 2023 ; Moreno-Mesonero et al., 2023 ). The importation of fresh vegetables from endemic to non-endemic regions has contributed to the spread of parasites. Diarrhoea epidemics have been reported from the consumption of berries, tomatoes, peppers, onions, carrots, lettuces, cabbage, radishes and mixed-salad packages ( Dixon, 2016 ; Machado-Moreira et al., 2019 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Temesgen et al. 2022 ). Leafy greens are highlighted by the potential role of spinach, lettuce, cabbage, watercress, basil, mint, coriander, and parsley as vehicles for food-borne parasites ( Ahlinder et al., 2022 ; Lucas et al., 2023 ; Moreno-Mesonero et al., 2023 ). There is evidence that leafy green can carry and spread parasites as Cyclospora cayetanensis , Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis , Toxoplasma gondii , Entamoeba histolytica , Blastocystis sp., Cystoisospora belli , Balantidium coli , Dientamoeba fragilis , Echinococcus sp., Dipylidium caninum , Ascaris sp., Trichuris sp., and Nematode spp. Larvae ( Dixon, 2016 ; Caradonna et al., 2017 ; Karshima, 2018 ; Robertson, 2018 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 ; Yahia et al., 2023 ). The persistence and survival of parasites in soil ( Qorom, et al. 2023 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ), vegetables ( Falcone et al., 2023 ) and water ( Kubina et al. 2023 ), has been proven. According to these studies, Cryptosporidium survives in lamb’s lettuce for two months and its washing showed limited effectiveness in reducing parasite load and had no impact on the parasite’s survival. Furthermore, chlorination of the wash water failed to improve the efficiency of the disinfection process. The situation is aggravated by cases of parasite resistance to certain chemical and physical inactivating agents ( Ramos et al., 2013 ). This underlines the ability of parasites to persist and survive along the food chain, facilitating their transmission to humans, even far from the site of production ( Dixon, 2016 ; Caradonna et al., 2017 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Temesgen et al. 2022 ; Ahart et al., 2023 ). Fruits are also considered significant carriers of parasites because they are consumed raw and do not undergo disinfection treatments such as the use of vinegar ( Honório Santos et al., 2019 ). The study of berries is particularly important since their consumption has increased recently due to their high nutritional value, as a source of bioactive compounds and antioxidants ( Tefera et al., 2018 ; Barlaam et al., 2022 ; Lucas et al., 2023 ). Unfortunately, berries such as raspberries and strawberries can carry infective forms of pathogens due to their delicate and porous nature, facilitating the attachment and protection of parasites. Inappropriate practices in cultivation, harvesting and handling pose a significant risk to consumers ( Tefera et al., 2018 ; Temesgen et al., 2022 ). Recent molecular studies demonstrated the persistence in berries of parasites such as Cryptosporidium , Cyclospora , Giardia duodenalis , Entamoeba histolytica , Toxoplasma gondii , Acanthamoeba , Vermamoeba vermiformis , Blastocystis sp., and Echinococcus ( Marques et al., 2020 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Trelis et al., 2022 ; Temesgen et al., 2022 ; Moreno-Mesonero et al., 2023 ), highlighting their resistance to washing processes and disinfection ( Temesgen et al., 2022 ; Kubina et al., 2023 ). The presence of parasites in the vegetables is an indicator of the lack of adherence to good agricultural practices ( Lucas et al., 2023 ). The main risk factors for the transmission of parasites through vegetables include the soil contamination with excrement from defecation or direct fertilization ( Ercumen et al., 2017 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ) and the use of contaminated water for irrigation, pesticide dilution or equipment washing ( Efstratiou et al., 2017 ; Karshima, 2018 ; Tefera et al., 2018 ). Although parasites do not multiply in food, the transmission of infectious forms is closely linked to their resistance to survive in the environment attached to vegetables, as reported by studies carried out throughout Latin America: Argentina ( Falcone et al., 2023 ); Brazil ( Luz et al. 2017 ; Honório Santos et al., 2019 ; De Farias et al., 2021 ); Bolivia ( Rodríguez et al., 2015 ); Colombia ( Polo et al., 2016 ); Cuba ( Puig-Peña et al., 2013 ); Ecuador ( Bracho-Mora et al., 2022 ); Peru ( Pérez-Cordón et al., 2008 ; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019 ; Lucas et al., 2023 ); Mexico ( Chávez-Ruvalcaba et al., 2021 ); Venezuela ( Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013 ; Devera et al., 2021 ). South American countries are among the most important exporters of fresh vegetables. Ecuador has tropical climate and soils rich in organic matter that allow it to harvest fruits, vegetables, and grains throughout the year. According to data from the Agriculture and Livestock Ministry, during 2014-2018 period, Ecuador raised more than $3,500 million by exporting 6 million tons of fruits and vegetables (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería Ecuador, 2020). Unfortunately, Ecuador has serious health problems in rural Andean regions, especially those located at high altitudes, mostly inhabited by indigenous populations whose means of subsistence is agriculture, livestock and animal husbandry ( González-Ramírez et al., 2021 , 2022 ). Moreover, Ecuadorian farmers often do not use good agricultural practices due to the lack of training, confidence, or economic resources, which is detrimental to food quality production. Two local reports have shown high level of parasitic contamination in vegetables: up to 82.3% in lettuce from Manabí province ( Bracho-Mora et al., 2022 ) and up to 70.6% in fruits and vegetables of six rural communities in the parish of San Andrés, Chimborazo province ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ). Due to the alarming contamination data previously reported by our group, in this work we have evaluated the detailed parasitic contamination of all fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in the capital of San Andrés, an agricultural zone of the Ecuadorian Andes. Methods Study area The study area was the community of San Andrés, Guano canton, Chimborazo province of Ecuador, located at 3,900 meters above sea level. The local temperature ranges between 5-18 °C, and rainfall varies between 500-1,000 mm/year. There are two rainy periods, February to May and October to November; the remaining months are transitional with moderate rains. Evapotranspiration affects the drought of the soil, which originates from volcanic ashes of variable textures, most of which are shallow silty loam, with a pH of 4.5 to 6.5. There are loamy soils in the areas with the highest agricultural production, but they are affected by chemical fertilizers. There are also sandy soils with low fertility because they do not retain moisture and nutrients; the latter and the action of steep slopes make them susceptible to erosive processes; consequently, crops and sowing grass are not abundant. However, agricultural activity is 34.5%, and cattle breeding activity is 50.4%; these two are the main means of financial income for the local population ( PDOT San Andrés, 2015 ). Government records indicate that 47.9% of the rural population of Ecuador lives in poverty, with an average monthly family income of $84.05, and 27.5% living in extreme poverty, with an average income of $47.70. The province of Chimborazo has an illiteracy rate of 13.5%, and the community of San Andrés has an indigenous population of 36.9% ( INEC, 2020 ). Hence, their training is based on habits and customs acquired from their ancestors, which may contribute to as a lack of basic hygiene and sanitary measures. The most remote communities have built septic tanks, and the communities closest to the capital have sewers; however, both drain wastewater into rivers and streams ( PDOT San Andrés, 2015 ). Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain and 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. Sampling The total of 1,416 samples analyzed included 516 fruits of 8 types: Fragaria ananassa (strawberry), Rubus glaucus (blackberry), Physalis peruviana (uvilla), Prunus persica (peach), Citrus limon (lemon), Psidium guajava (guava), Ficus carica (fig), and Solanum lycopersicum (tomato); 488 vegetables of 9 types: Allium cepa var. rosum (red onions) and Allium cepa L (white onions), Solanum tuberosum (potato), Daucus carota (carrot), Raphanus sativus (radish), Beta vulgaris (beet), Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper), Capsicum frutescens (chili pepper), and Lupinus mutabilis (bean chochos) and 412 leafy greens of 8 types: Medicago sativa (alfalfa), Lactuca sativa (lettuce), Brassica oleracea (cabbage), Beta vulgaris (chard), Petroselinum crispum (parsley), Coriandrum sativum (cilantro), Apium graveolens (celery), and Nasturtium officinale (watercress). All samples were obtained from the owners’ fields and stored in hermetically sealed propylene bags. Each sample was labelled indicating the plant species name, origin, date, and time of collection. The samples were immediately transported in their containers with cooling gels to the Laboratorio de Investigación de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, to be processed within one hour of collection. Ethical considerations The sampling was carried out with the appropriate permission of the Cantonal and Parochial Decentralized Autonomous Governments. All farmers collected samples of their own crops (as they always do), knowing that the study benefits the community, without compromising the health of the population with respect to bioethical principles. Parasitological analysis The processing protocol for the parasitological analysis of all samples, previously described by Rivero de Rodríguez et al . (1998) , was utilized. For the processing of the samples, 75 g of vegetables, fruits or green leaves were taken and added to 500 mL of previously filtered and boiled water. The contents were stirred with the help of a magnetic stirrer for 1 hour, the remains of the vegetable were removed and the solution was left to stand for 24 hours. Subsequently, the solution was decanted and the first fraction was collected in 15 mL tubes to be subjected to centrifugation for 5 min at 800 xg. Once the concentrate or sediment was separated, the supernatant was discarded and the precipitate was reconstituted in 400 μL of saline (0.85%). Each sample was observed under a light microscope (Nikon E200) using 10x and 40x objectives. In addition, iodized solution and the ocular micrometer were used when necessary, for stain parasitic structures or to measure the dimensions for their recognition. Additionally, a smear was made with one drop from the pellet and prepared for acid-fast staining (using a modified Zielh-Neelsen technique) for coccidia oocyst detection and identification after measurement, mainly Crytosporidium and Cyclospora , and subsequent microscopic assessment (100×) ( García et al ., 1983 ). Statistical analysis The database made in Microsoft Excel was exported to SPSS Statistic 26.0 software (IBM, New York, NY, USA). The difference in parasitic contamination between the various categories of plant products and the predominant parasite type in each plant species were compared using Pearson’s chi-square test (χ 2 ) and Fisher’s exact test, when appropriate. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results When analyzing the different crop products, a total of 898 (63.4%) were contaminated by parasites. Noteworthy, every sample analyzed showed more than one associated parasite, i.e. 100% multiparasitism was detected. A statistically significant difference between the overall contamination rates, was observed with the leafy greens (76.9%) being more contaminated than vegetables (67.8%) and both, more contaminated than fruits (48.4%) ( P <0.0001). In total, 15 protozoa and 2 helminth nematodes were identified, with protozoa also showing a higher prevalence (49.6%) than nematodes (15.5%) ( P <0.0001). Blastocystis sp. was outstanding (33.5%) ( P <0.0001), showing central body, granular, and resistance forms, whereas dividing, globular, or amoeboid forms were not observed. Other protozoa identified include Eimeria spp. (26.3%), Entamoeba spp. (10.3%), Giardia spp. (8.3%) and Cryptosporidium spp. (6.6%). Regarding the nematodes, Strongylida was more frequent than Ascaris spp. ( P <0.0001) (see Table 1 ). Table 1. Distribution of parasites according to the plant type analysed. Parasites Fruits Vegetables Leafy Greens Total n=516 % IC n=488 % IC n=412 % IC n=1416 % IC Blastocystis sp. 193 37.4 (33.2-41.6) 134 27.5 (23.5-31.4) 148 35.9 (31.3-40.6) 475 33.5 (31.1-36) Entamoeba spp. 29 5.6 (3.6-7.6) 48 9.8 (7.2-12.5) 69 16.7 (13.1-20.4) 146 10.3 (8.7-11.9) E. coli 9 1.7 (0.6-2.9) 11 2.3 (0.9-3.6) 3 0.7 (0-1.6) 23 1.6 (1-2.3) E. hartmanni 2 0.4 (0-0.9) 2 0.4 (0-1) 1 0.2 (0-0.7) 5 0.4 (0-0.7) Endolimax nana 31 6 (4.0-8.1) 9 1.8 (0.7-3.0) 15 3.6 (1.8-5.5) 55 3.9 (2.9-4.9) Iodamoeba buetschlii 2 0.4 (0-0.9) 2 0.4 (0-1) 1 0.2 (0-0.7) 5 0.4 (0-0.7) Giardia spp. 26 5 (3.2-7) 40 8.2 (5.8-10.6) 52 12.6 (9.4-15.8) 118 8.3 (6.9-9.8) Chilomastix spp. 6 1.2 (0.3-2.1) 8 1.6 (0.5-2.8) 3 0.7 (0-1.6) 17 1.2 (0.6-1.8) Retortamonas spp. 0 0 0 1 0.2 (0-0.6) 0 0 0 1 0.1 (0-0.2) Enteromonas spp. 3 0.6 (0-1.3) 0 0 0 1 0.2 (0-0.7) 4 0.3 (0-0.6) Cryptosporidium spp. 39 7.6 (5.3-9.9) 30 6.1 (4.0-8.3) 24 5.8 (3.6-8.1) 93 6.6 (5.3-7.9) Cyclospora spp. 31 6 (4.0-8.1) 20 4.1 (2.3-5.9) 12 2.9 (1.3-4.5) 63 4.4 (3.4-5.5) Cystoisospora spp. 3 0.6 (0-1.2) 2 0.4 (0-1) 2 0.5 (0-1.2) 7 0.5 (0.1-0.9) Eimeria spp. 112 21.7 (18.1-25.3) 123 25.2 (21.4-29.1) 138 33.5 (28.9-38.1) 373 26.3 (24.0-28.6) Balantidium spp. 5 1 (0.1-1.8) 30 6.1 (4.0-8.3) 62 15 (11.6-18.5) 97 6.9 (5.5-8.2) Protozoa 220 42.6 (38.4-46.9) 230 47.1 (42.7-51.6) 253 61.4 (56.7-66.1) 703 49.6 (47-52.3) Ascaris spp. 0 0 0 3 0.6 (0-1.3) 2 0.5 (0-1.2) 5 0.4 (0-0.7) Strongylida 32 6.2 (4.1-8.3) 115 23.6 (20.4-28.0) 70 17 (13.4-20.6) 217 15.3 (13.7-17.4) Helminths 32 6.2 (4.1-8.3) 118 24.2 (20.4-28.0) 70 17 (13.4-20.6) 220 15.5 (13.7-17.4) Total 250 48.4 (44.1-52.7) 331 67.8 (63.7-71.9) 317 76.9 (72.8-81) 898 63.4 (60.9-65.9) When analyzing the percentages of parasites in the three groups of samples, the statistical analysis revealed a high prevalence in fruits of Blastocystis (37.4%) ( P =0.0018), Cryptosporidium (7.6%) ( P <0.0001), Cyclospora (6%) ( P <0.0001) and Endolimax nana (6%) ( P =0.0028). In contrast, vegetables were mostly contaminated by helminths (24.2%) ( P <0.0001), represented mainly Strongylida (23.6%) ( P <0.0001). Finally, the leafy greens showed high contamination with Eimeria (33.5%) ( P =0.0002), Entamoeba spp. (16.7%) ( P <0.0001), Balantidium (15.0%) ( P <0.0001) and Giardia (12.6%) ( P =0.0002). Overall, a total parasitic contamination of 76.9% ( P <0.0001) with 61.4% ( P <0.0001) being protozoa was obtained (see Table 1 ). Table 2 summarizes the results according to the type of fruit, the highest number of protozoa was found in strawberries (60.2%) ( P <0.0001), with Blastocystis sp. (59.2%) ( P <0.0001), E. nana (17.4%) ( P <0.0001) and Cyclospora spp. (14.3%) ( P =0.0011) the most frequent. In contrast, peaches were more often contaminated with helminths (30%) ( P <0.0001). Table 2. Distribution of parasites according to the fruit type analysed. Parasites Strawberry Blackberry Uvilla Peach Lemon Guava Fig Tomato Total n=98 % n=83 % n=56 % n=50 % n=56 % n=57 % n=50 % n=66 % n=516 % Blastocystis sp. 58 59.2 35 42.2 19 33.9 24 48 14 25 19 33.3 15 30 9 13.6 193 37.4 Entamoeba spp. 4 4.1 5 6 0 0 2 4 0 0 9 15.8 3 6 6 9.1 29 5.6 E. coli 4 4.1 4 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 9 1.7 E. hartmanni 0 0 1 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 2 0.4 Endolimax nana 17 17.3 6 7.2 0 0 3 6 1 1.8 3 5.3 0 0 1 1.5 31 6 Iodamoeba buetschlii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 0.4 Giardia spp. 10 10.2 4 4.8 1 1.8 1 2 1 1.8 1 1.8 2 4 6 9.1 26 5 Chilomastix spp. 0 0 3 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 1.5 6 1.2 Retortamonas spp. 3 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.6 Enteromonas spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cryptosporidium spp. 11 11.2 11 13.3 4 7.1 4 8 1 1.8 4 7 1 2 3 4.5 39 7.6 Cyclospora spp. 14 14.3 7 8.4 5 8.9 0 0 1 1.8 3 5.3 0 0 1 1.5 31 6 Cystoisospora spp. 1 1 1 1.2 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.6 Eimeria spp. 20 20.4 23 27.7 24 42.9 10 20 1 1.8 5 8.8 17 34 12 18.2 112 21.7 Balantidium spp. 3 3.1 0 0 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 5 1 Protozoa 59 60.2 46 55.4 24 42.9 16 32 3 5.4 20 35.1 23 46 29 43.9 220 42.6 Ascaris spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strongylida 0 0 0 0 9 16.1 15 30 5 8.9 0 0 1 2 2 3 32 6.2 Helminths 0 0 0 0 9 16.1 15 30 5 8.9 0 0 1 2 2 3 32 6.2 Total 59 60.2 46 55.4 32 57.1 31 62 7 12.5 20 35.1 24 48 31 47 250 48.4 Parasitic contamination in vegetables is detailed in Table 3 . The highest frequency of contamination was found in red (84%) and white (82.4%) onions, followed by chili pepper (78%) ( P <0.0001). It is important to highlight the level of contamination detected in other vegetables that are eaten raw such as carrot (66%), radish (72.1%) and pepper (44%). When compared vegetables for the type of parasites, a higher frequency of protozoa (47.1%) than helminths (24.2%) was observed ( P <0.0001). Table 3. Distribution of parasites according to the vegetable type analysed. Parasites Red onion White onion Potato Carrot Radish Beet Pepper Chili pepper Beans chocho Total n=50 % n=51 % n=52 % n=53 % n=61 % n=51 % n=50 % n=50 % n=70 % n=488 % Blastocystis sp. 28 56 16 31.4 11 21.2 12 22.6 22 36.1 9 17.6 6 12 14 28 16 22.9 134 27.5 Entamoeba spp. 3 6 1 2 6 11.5 6 11.3 8 13.1 13 25.5 1 2 7 14 3 4.3 48 9.8 E. coli 0 0 2 3.9 3 5.8 1 1.9 5 8.2 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2.3 E. hartmanni 0 0 1 2 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 Endolimax nana 0 0 4 7.8 1 1.9 2 3.8 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 4 0 0 9 1.8 Iodamoeba buetschlii 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0.0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 Giardia spp. 8 16 6 11.8 1 1.9 3 5.7 3 4.9 2 3.9 7 14 7 14 3 4.3 40 8.2 Chilomastix spp. 4 8 2 3.9 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 8 1.6 Retortamonas spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 Enteromonas spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cryptosporidium spp. 3 6 7 13.7 2 3.8 6 11.3 3 4.9 2 3.9 0 0 2 4 5 7.1 30 6.1 Cyclospora spp. 2 4 2 3.9 1 1.9 5 9.4 3 4.9 6 11.8 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 20 4.1 Cystoisospora spp. 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.4 Eimeria spp. 10 20 10 19.6 15 28.8 13 24.5 22 36.1 17 33.3 12 24 17 34 7 10 123 25.2 Balantidium spp. 1 2 3 5.9 3 5.8 4 7.5 7 11.5 6 11.8 1 2 3 6 2 2.9 30 6.1 Protozoa 24 48 28 54.9 27 51.9 25 47.2 33 54.1 28 54.9 19 38 27 54 19 27.1 230 47.1 Ascaris spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.9 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0.6 Strongylida 16 32 28 54.9 22 42.3 7 13.2 15 24.6 11 21.6 1 2 15 30 0 0 115 23.6 Helminths 16 32 28 54.9 22 42.3 7 13.2 15 24.6 13 25.5 2 4 15 30 0 0 118 24.2 Total 42 84 42 82.4 40 76.9 35 66.0 44 72.1 37 72.5 22 44 39 78 30 42.9 331 67.8 Regarding the parasitic contamination of leafy greens, parasites were found in almost each specimen analyzed of cabbage (100%), alfalfa (90.2%) and parsley (82.4%). Cabbage had high contamination with Eimeria (53.8%) (P <0.0001) and with Endolimax nana (13.5%) ( P =0.0002), whereas lettuce was mainly contaminated with Entamoeba spp. (36.2%) ( P <0.0001), and parsley with Blastocystis (56.9%) ( P =0.0071) ( Table 4 ). Table 4. Distribution of parasites according to the leafy green type analysed. Parasites Alfalfa Lettuce Cabbage Chard Parsley Coriander Celery Watercress Total n=51 % n=58 % n=52 % n=50 % n=51 % n=50 % n=50 % n=50 % n=412 % Blastocystis sp. 13 25.5 24 41.4 20 38.5 12 24 29 56.9 19 38 12 24 19 37.3 148 35.9 Entamoeba spp. 4 7.8 21 36.2 16 30.8 3 6 2 3.9 6 12 7 14 10 19.6 69 16.7 E. coli 0 0 1 1.7 1 1.9 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.7 E. hartmanni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0.2 Endolimax nana 5 9.8 0 0 7 13.5 0 0 2 3.9 1 2 0 0 0 0 15 3.6 Iodamoeba buetschlii 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 Giardia spp. 5 9.8 5 8.6 9 17.3 4 8 7 13.7 8 16 4 8 10 19.6 52 12.6 Chilomastix spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.7 Retortamonas spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enteromonas spp. 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 Cryptosporidium spp. 1 2 3 5.2 2 3.8 1 2 5 9.8 3 6 4 8 5 9.8 24 5.8 Cyclospora spp. 0 0 1 1.7 4 7.7 0 0 1 2 2 4 4 8 0 0 12 2.9 Cystoisospora spp. 0 0 0 0 1 1.9 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 Eimeria spp. 26 51 17 29.3 28 53.8 14 28 13 25.5 9 18 17 34 14 27.5 138 33.5 Balantidium spp. 7 13.7 8 13.8 11 21.2 5 10 5 9.8 8 16 9 18 9 17.6 62 15 Protozoa 33 64.7 37 63.8 45 86.5 23 46 33 64.7 25 50 30 60 27 52.9 253 61.4 Ascaris spp. 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0.5 Strongylida 13 25.5 11 19 11 21.2 6 12 8 15.7 6 12 9 18 6 12.0 70 17 Helminths 13 25.5 11 19 11 21.2 6 12 8 15.7 6 12 9 18 6 12.0 70 17 Total 46 90.2 43 74.1 52 100 30 60 42 82.4 31 62 39 78 34 66.7 317 76.9 The comparative analysis of parasitic contamination rates ( Table 5 ) showed higher parasites percentages in vegetables + leafy greens: total (72%) ( P <0.0001), protozoa (53.7%) ( P <0.0001) and helminths (20.9%) ( P <0.0001). A higher prevalence of Eimeria (29%) (P =0.0027), Entamoeba spp. (13%) ( P <0.0001), Giardia (10.2%) ( P =0.0007), and Balantidium (10.2%) ( P <0.0001) was found respect to the fruits. In contrast, higher percentages of Blastocystis (37.4%) ( P =0.0199) and Cyclospora (6%) ( P =0.0313) were found in fruits respect to vegetables. Table 5. Comparation of parasitic contamination between fruits, vegetables and leafy greens. Parasites Fruit Vegetables + Greens leafy n=516 % IC n=900 % IC Blastocystis sp. 193 37.4 (33.2-41.6) 282 31.3 (28.3-34.3) Entamoeba spp. 29 5.6 (3.6-7.6) 117 13 (10.8-15.2) E. coli 9 1.7 (0.6-2.9) 14 1.6 (0.8-2.4) E. hartmanni 2 0.4 (0-0.9) 3 0.3 (0-0.7) Endolimax nana 31 6 (4.0-8.1) 24 2.7 (1.6-3.8) Iodamoeba buetschlii 2 0.4 (0-0.9) 3 0.3 (0-0.7) Giardia spp. 26 5 (3.2-7.0) 92 10.2 (8.2-12.2) Chilomastix spp. 6 1.2 (0.3-2.1) 11 1.2 (0.5-1.9) Retortamonas spp. 0 0 0 1 0.1 (0-0.3) Enteromonas spp. 3 0.6 (0-1.3) 1 0.1 (0-0.3) Cryptosporidium spp. 39 7.6 (5.3-9.9) 54 6 (4.4-7.6) Cyclospora spp. 31 6 (4.0-8.1) 32 3.6 (2.4-4.8) Cystoisospora spp. 3 0.6 (0-1.2) 4 0.4 (0-.80) Eimeria spp. 112 21.7 (18.1-25.3) 261 29 (26.0-32.0) Balantidium spp. 5 1 (0.1-1.8) 92 10.2 (8.2-12.2) Protozoa 220 42.6 (38.4-46.9) 483 53.7 (50.4-57.0) Ascaris spp. 0 0 0 5 0.6 (0.1-1.1) Strongylida 32 6.2 (4.1-8.3) 185 20.6 (18.2-23.6) Helminths 32 6.2 (4.1-8.3) 188 20.9 (18.2-23.6) Total 250 48.4 (44.1-52.7) 648 72 (69.1-74.9) Finally, when parasitic contamination was compared between leafy greens (76.9%) and vegetables (67.8%), a statistically significant difference was found ( P =0.0024) (see Table 6 ), including the highest contamination of leafy greens with Blastocystis (35.9%) ( P =0.0064), Eimeria (33.5%) ( P =0.0063), Balantidium (15.1%) ( P <0.0001), Entamoeba spp. (16.8%) ( P =0.0021) and Giardia (12.6%) ( P =0.0290). In contrast, vegetables were found to be more contaminated by helminths than leafy greens (24.2%) ( P =0.0082), mainly represented by Strongylida (23.6%) ( P =0.0150). Table 6. Comparation of parasitic contamination between vegetables and leafy greens. Parasites Vegetables Leafy Greens Total Total n=488 % IC n=412 % IC Blastocystis sp. 134 27.5 (23.5-31.4) 148 35.9 (31.3-40.6) Entamoeba spp. 48 9.8 (7.2-12.5) 69 16.8 (13.1-20.4) E. coli 2 0.4 (0-1) 1 0.2 (0-0.7) E. hartmanni 11 2.3 (0.9-3.6) 3 0.7 (0-1.6) Endolimax nana 2 0.4 (0-1) 1 0.2 (0-0.7) Iodamoeba buetschlii 9 1.8 (0.7-3.0 15 3.6 (1.8-5.5) Giardia spp. 40 8.2 (5.8-10.6) 52 12.6 (9.4-15.8) Chilomastix spp. 8 1.6 (0.5-2.8) 3 0.7 (0-1.6) Retortamonas spp. 1 0.2 (0-0.6) 0 0 (0-0) Enteromonas spp. 0 0 (0-0) 1 0.2 (0-0.7) Cryptosporidium spp. 30 6.2 (4.0-8.3) 24 5.8 (3.6-8.1) Cyclospora spp. 20 4.1 (2.3-5.9) 12 2.9 (1.3-4.5) Cystoisospora spp. 2 0.4 (0-1) 2 0.5 (0-1.2) Eimeria spp. 123 25.2 (21.4-29.1) 138 33.5 (28.9-38.1) Balantidium spp. 30 6.2 (4.0-8.3) 62 15.1 (11.6-18.5) Protozoa 230 47.1 (42.7-51.6) 253 61.4 (56.7-66.1) Ascaris spp. 3 0.6 (0-1.3) 2 0.5 (0-1.2) Strongylida 115 23.6 (20.4-28) 70 17 (13.4-20.6) Helminths 118 24.2 (20.4-28) 70 17 (13.4-20.6) Total 331 67.8 (63.7-72) 317 76.9 (72.8-81.0) Discussion This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries ( Tefera et al., 2018 ; Marques et al., 2020 ; Barlaam et al., 2021 , 2022 ; Faria et al., 2023 ). Direct contact with human and animal excrements is a potential source of contamination of anthroponotic and zoonotic parasites for vegetables. It is also possible that free-living parasites (Strongylida) contaminate the crop products, being considered an insignificant finding in comparison with parasite prevalence’s reaching 97.3%. in humans ( González et al., 2022 ) and 90.3% in animals ( González et al., 2021 ). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ). Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall, more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ). In the present study, leafy greens were more contaminated (76.9%) than vegetables and fruits, probably since these maintain contact with the soil and organic fertilizers from the beginning as seedlings until they are fully grown, and external leaves allow protection for internal plant parts in contact with contaminated soil. The greater parasitic contamination of leafy greens has been explained by the irregularities of their leaves and the roughness of their surface that allows the adhesion of infectious parasitic forms that persist in the environment ( Tefera et al., 2018 ; Temesgen et al., 2022 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ). Vegetables were the second most contaminated products after leafy greens, surpassing fruits, which is explained by the greater contact they maintain with the soil. The rooted vegetables (tubercle) were found to be highly parasitized by nematodes (24.3%), possibly because they grew under the ground. Noteworthy, onions (54.9%), carrots (13.2%) and radishes (24.6%) are frequently consumed raw and can function as efficient vehicles for parasites. Evidence of these tubers exhibit significant rates of parasitic contamination has been previously reported elsewhere ( Puig-Peña et al. 2013 ; Yahia et al. 2023 ). Fruits growing on trees or bushes were found less contaminated than creeping fruits. It is possible that these fruits have been in direct contact with the irrigation water ( Esteban et al., 2002 ; González-Ramírez et al., 2020 ), organic fertilizers and the soil ( Dixon, 2016 ; Barlaam 2021 , 2022 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ). However, the roughness of its surface is also a condition that can also influence the contamination of blackberry and peach ( Tefera et al., 2018 ), the texture of its surface allows the adhesion of parasites dispersed by wind, insects or farmers’ hands ( Dixon, 2016 ; Machado-Moreira et al. 2019 ). Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution ( Daniels et al., 2016 ). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms ( Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020 ). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. ( González-Ramírez et al., 2021 ), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products ( González-Ramírez et al., 2021 , 2022 ). Contaminated water from canals and wells ( Esteban et al., 2002 ; González-Ramírez et al., 2020 ), spreads parasites and carries a high health risk, when is utilized for crop irrigation, supply animals, dilution of fertilizers and fungicides, washing machinery, equipment, and utensils work ( Dixon 2016 ). Rain and sprinkler irrigation transport microorganisms from soil to plants when drops splash ( Efstratiou et al., 2017 ). Besides, the wind lifts particles of dust from the ground that aid adherence of parasitic to the vegetables of trees or shrubs ( Machado-Moreira et al., 2019 ), which explains the finding of Strongylida on the woolly surface of peaches. Insects and animals’ action, must be considered ( González-Ramírez et al., 2021 , 2022 ). However, the greatest influence is exerted by the agricultural activities carried out by farmers, when handle vegetables without hygienic measures, during planting, harvesting, transporting, storage, and washing ( Dixon, 2016 ; Machado-Moreira et al., 2019 ). Parasitic contamination of vegetables harvested in this area could be one of the causes of the high prevalence in humans (98.2%), without ruling out the action of water contamination (57-100%), mechanical vectors (52.7%), and animals (90.3%) in these communities ( González-Ramírez et al., 2020 , 2021 , 2022 ). After evaluating the crop contamination in the area, we warn about the need to sanitize the products before consuming them raw, because the contamination detected in this Andean area can also occur in other countries where producers do not apply hygienic measures ( Falcone et al., 2023 ). These results suggest the need to integrate parasites to the list of contaminants that are managed in the microbiological criteria required by the Ecuadorian Technical Standard ( INEN, 2016 ). Monitoring only Escherichia coli in vegetables is not a good indicator to guarantee food safety, due low infectious doses of parasites constitute a risk ( Barlaam et al., 2022 ). It is advisable to consider the potential effects of productive activities on food security; these include identifying and minimizing contamination of soil, water, or any other agent used in production, and monitoring animal health so that it does not represent threats ( Tefera et al., 2018 ). Authorities must develop mitigation plans that involve hygiene education programs for producers and consumers. In addition, facilitate the implementation of more advanced technological procedures to improve the diagnosis of microorganisms in laboratories, as well as field routines to improve the quality and safety of these foods in accordance with standards ( Temesgen et al., 2022 ). In developing countries, where molecular analyzes cannot be done, due to their high cost and the difficulty in permission to transport samples to a molecular laboratory. The sedimentation technique, staining, and micrometric measurement allow the identification of parasites at low cost (it being essential that analysts are trained). We are aware of the importance of determining parasitic species by molecular methods, for epidemiological control and we recognize, the limitation of the present study in which the analyzes were carried out by microscopic diagnosis, although insufficient for specific identification, was relevant due to the percentage of parasite genera detected. The prevalence of our study (63.4%) has been one of the highest, when compared to those described in Ethiopia 54.4% (Bekele et al., 2017); Brazil 50.9% ( Luz et al. 2017 ); Ghana 57.5% ( Kudah et al., 2018 ); Thailand 35.1% ( Punsawad et al., 2019 ); Syria 34.4% ( Al Nahhas and Aboualchamat, 2020 ); Peru 45.3% ( Lucas et al., 2023 ); and Argentina 58.6% ( Falcone et al., 2023 ). The parasite detected are similar to those reported in Andean area of Peru ( Pérez-Cordón et al.,2008 ), with a greater number of protozoa than helminths. Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil ( Honório Santos et al., 2019 ), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli. These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 °C), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere ( Chammartin et al., 2013 ). Interestingly, in San Andrés, there were significant differences between contamination in leafy green types, which is consistent with the results that indicate highest-contaminated in lettuce, reaching rates of 83% Bolivia ( Rodríguez et al., 2015 ); 54.2% Ghana ( Kudah et al., 2018 ); 29.5% Syria ( Al Nahhas and Aboualchamat, 2020 ); 80% Brazil ( De Farias et al., 2021 ); 82.3% Ecuador ( Bracho-Mora et al., 2022 ); 64.7% Argentina ( Falcone et al., 2023 ); 23.8% Portugal ( Faria et al., 2023 ). Food-borne transmission of parasites is an emerging issue in countries around the world, although, verifying the transmission of parasites through food is not easy, there is a report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest in the United States, which found that, between 2004 and 2013, the consumption of fresh produce was associated with a total of 193,754 illnesses across 9,626 outbreaks. Of the total number of reported outbreaks, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were able to identify both the food source and the contaminant in fewer than 40 percent ( CSPI, 2015 ). Warning about contamination of unpasteurised apple juice, onions, salads, lettuce, basil, sandwiches, fruit salads, and raspberries with Giardia , Cryptosporidium , and Cyclospora ( Dixon, 2016 ). Outbreaks, associated with the consumption of berries, specifically noting Cyclospora and Trypanosoma , this latter one associated with the consumption of açaí berries or their beverages ( Tefera et al., 2018 ). Barlaam et al. (2021 , 2022 ) confirm the contamination of produces exported from endemic to non-endemic countries by detecting C. cayetanensis , E. histolytica , and Cryptosporidium in berries imported to Italy from Peru, indicating a serious risk from contaminated produce. Detection of foodborne parasites in produced has been reported in Latin American countries using the spontaneous sedimentation technique and optical microscopy. Contamination rates include: 77.78% vegetables in Venezuela ( Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013 ), 83% lettuces in Bolivia ( Rodríguez et al., 2015 ), 100% lettuces in Colombia ( Polo et al., 2016 ), 50.9% vegetables in Brazil ( Luz et al., 2017 ), 56.7% vegetables in Peru ( Benites Salcedo et al., 2019 ), 82.3% lettuces in Ecuador ( Bracho-Mora et al., 2022 ), 70.6% fruits-vegetables in Ecuador ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ), 45.3% lettuces in Peru ( Lucas et al., 2023 ), and 58.6% leafy vegetables in Argentina ( Falcone et al., 2023 ). In Europe, studies using molecular techniques have reported lower prevalences of parasites in fresh produce compared to Latin America. In Italia, Caradonna et al. (2017) detected G. duodenalis (0.6%), T. gondii (0.8%), Cryptosporidium spp. (0.9%), C. cayetanensis (1.3%), B. hominis (0.5%), and D. fragilis (0.2%) to overall contamination of 4.2% in salads. Barlaam et al. (2021 , 2022 ) identified G. duodenalis (4.6%), Entamoeba histolytica (1%), and Cryptosporidium spp. (5.1%) in berries and salad. E. multilocularis (1.39%) in salad. Temesgen et al. (2022) identified T. gondii (2.9%), C. cayetanensis (6.6%), and Cryptosporidium spp. (8.3%) in berries. On the contrary, in Spain, Trelis et al. (2022) demonstrated higher levels of contamination in green leafy vegetables, with G. duodenalis (23.3%) and Cryptosporidium spp. (7.8%), marketed in the city of Valencia. In the same city, Moreno-Mesonero et al. (2023) identified a greater variety of species than Trelis et al., in leafy greens and strawberries: Acanthamoeba (65.5%), T. gondii (37.2%), Vermamoeba vermiformis (17.3%), C. cayetanensis (12.7%), Cryptosporidium spp. (6.8%), Blastocystis sp. (1.8%), and Giardia sp. (1.7%). Similarly, in Portugal, Marques et al. (2020) have documented a contamination rate of 40% in fruits and vegetables with T. gondii. When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy ( Barlaam et al. 2021 , 2022 ), Spain ( Trelis et al., 2022 ); Portugal ( Marques et al., 2020 ), Norway ( Temesgen et al., 2022 ) and Sweden ( Ahlinder et al., 2022 ), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus , T. gondii , Toxocara, and Fasciola were not detected in our research ( Bouwknegt et al., 2018 ). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers’ fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination ( Lucas et al., 2023 ), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer ( Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020 ). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products ( González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ). In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables ( Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013 ; Rodríguez et al., 2015 ; Polo et al., 2016 ; Luz et al., 2017 ; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019 ; Bracho-Mora et al., 2022 ; González-Ramírez et al., 2022 ; Lucas et al., 2023 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people’s habits and prevent environmental pollution. The implementation of control measures in fresh produce preharvest and postharvest, as well as an adequate sanitary hygienic level of the producer, handler, and consumer, will be crucial to minimize the food transmission of protozoa and helminths. To control parasites at the time of cultivation and harvest, irrigation with properly treated water, monitoring the health and hygiene of agricultural workers, improving agricultural sanitation, and restricting access of livestock and other animals to crops and surface water bodies (building adequate drinking troughs) are needed. Additionally, proper construction and maintenance of septic tanks is important to prevent contamination by overflow ( Tefera et al., 2018 ). Unsafe agricultural practices are used very commonly by small farmers mainly in developing countries. To mitigate this problem, it is necessary to use treated water for irrigation, washing fresh produce, washing hands, and equipment. Good hygienic practices by farm workers involved in the cultivation, harvesting, and handling of produce are another important means of reducing the likelihood of contamination in endemic regions ( Trelis et al., 2022 ), to ensure the safety of products from Latin American countries, and are not excluded from international markets, when implementing import restrictions from endemic countries, as suggested ( Barlaam et al., 2021 ). The recommendation is to impart hygienic practices through health education targeting farmers, traders, and consumers ( Tefera et al., 2018 ; Trelis et al., 2022 ; Falcone et al., 2023 ). If programs are executed to guarantee sanitary control in the farms and the objectives of food security are achieved in production, exports would increase, translating to an increase in the economic income of the producing countries. Conclusion This study has highlighted significant parasitic contamination (63.4%), so much in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), underscoring the potential health risks associated with the consumption of these products in their raw form without adequate hygiene practices. It illustrates how such products can become vehicles for the transmission of enteroparasites to both humans and animals, regardless of whether the area is endemic or non-endemic, where these items are distributed. Consequently, this research underscores the imperative for stringent hygienic protocols in the cultivation and harvesting phases. Effective mitigation strategies include the treatment of soil, manure, and irrigation water utilised in the agricultural process, alongside the enforcement of thorough disinfection practices prior to consumption. Data availability Underlying data Figshare: Parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens harvested in an Andean agricultural area, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22313335.v2 ( González-Ramírez et al ., 2023 ). This project contains the following underlying data: • Data parasites fruits vegetables Ecuador.xlsx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Acknowledgements The authors give thanks to Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo by the for approval the Project (Diagnóstico de factores de riesgo asociados a enteroparasitosis, en población de 4 a 99 años, procedentes de la parroquia San Andrés, Guano, Chimborazo-Ecuador, periodo 2021-2023). Thanks to all farmers for their collaboration in providing vegetables samples from their farms. References Ahart L, Jacobson D, Marion R, et al. : Retrospective evaluation of an Integrated molecular-epidemiological approach to cyclosporiasis outbreak investigations - United States, 2021.Epidemiol. Infect.2023; 151 : e131. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ahlinder J, Svedberg AL, Nystedt A, et al. : Use of metagenomic microbial source tracking to investigate the source of a foodborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis.Food Waterborne Parasitol.2022; 26 : e00142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Al Nahhas S, Aboualchamat G: Investigation of parasitic contamination of salad vegetables sold by street vendors in city markets in Damascus, Syria. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2020; 21 : e00090. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Amissah-Reynolds P, Yar D, Gyamerah I, Apenteng O, et al. : Fresh Vegetables and Ready-to-eat Salads: Sources of Parasitic Zoonoses in Mampong-Ashanti, Ghana.European J. Nutr. Food Saf.2020; 12 : 47–55. Publisher Full Text Barlaam A, Sannella AR, Ferrari N, et al. : Ready-to-eat salads and berry fruits purchased in Italy contaminated by Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica.Int. J. Food Microbiol.2022; 370 : 109634. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Barlaam A, Temesgen TT, Tysnes KR, et al. : Contamination of fresh produce sold on the Italian market with Cyclospora cayetanensis and Echinococcus multilocularis.Food Microbiol.2021; 98 : 103792. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Benites Salcedo D, Castillo Valdivieso C, Jara CC: Contaminación parasítica de hortalizas de consumo humano expendidas en mercados de Trujillo, Perú.REBIOL.2019; 39 : 41–49. Reference Source Bouwknegt M, Devleesschauwer B, Graham H, et al. : Euro-FBP workshop participants. Prioritisation of food-borne parasites in Europe, 2016.Euro Surveill.2018 Mar; 23 (9): 17–00161. Publisher Full Text Bracho-Mora AM, Loor-Bravo EZ, Nevarez-Zevallos GR, et al. : Determinación de parásitos intestinales en Lactuca sativa expendidas en el mercado central de Portoviejo, Manabí-Ecuador.Kasmera.2022; 50 : e5036576. Publisher Full Text Caradonna T, Marangi M, Del Chierico F, et al. : Detection and prevalence of protozoan parasites in ready-to-eat packaged salads on sale in Italy. Food Microbiol. 2017; 67 : 67–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Cazorla-Perfetti DC, Morales Moreno P, Chirinos Acosta P: Evaluación parasitológica de cuatro especies vegetales utilizados en establecimientos de «comida rápida» en coro, Falcón, Venezuela. Rev. Venez. Cienc y Tecnol Aliment. 2013; 4 : 32–46. Reference Source Chammartin F, Scholte RG, Malone JB, et al. : Modelling the geographical distribution of soil-transmitted helminth infections in Bolivia. Parasit Vectors. 2013 May 25; 6 : 152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Chávez-Ruvalcaba F, Chávez-Ruvalcaba MI, Moran Santibañez K, et al. : Foodborne Parasitic Diseases in the Neotropics - A Review.Helminthologia.2021; 58 : 119–133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text CSPI: Fresh produce remains leading cause of outbreaks. 2015. Reference Source Daniels ME, Smith WA, Schmidt WP, et al. : Modeling Cryptosporidium and Giardia duodenalis in ground and surface water sources in rural India: Associations with latrines, livestock, damaged wells, and rainfall patterns. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016; 50 : 7498–7507. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text De Farias SF, Gomes DS, De Amorim Santos IG: Enteroparasitos em Alface (Lactuca Sativa L.) comercializada em uma feira livre de um Município AlagoanoDiversitas Journal.2021; 6 : 3882–3889. Publisher Full Text Devera RA, Martínez LRC, Sadek MAZ: Formas parasitarias de interés médico en muestras de lechugas comercializada en el municipio Caroní, estado Bolívar, Venezuela. Rev. Venez. Salud Public. 2021; 9 : 20–36. https://revistas.uclave.org/index.php/rvsp/article/view/3243 Dixon BR: Parasitic illnesses associated with the consumption of fresh produce - an emerging issue in developed countries. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2016; 8 : 104–109. Publisher Full Text Efstratiou A, Ongerth JE, Karanis P: Waterborne transmission of protozoan parasites: Review of worldwide outbreaks - An update 2011–2016. Water Res. 2017; 114 : 14–22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ercumen A, Pickering AJ, Kwong LH, et al. : Animal feces contribute to domestic fecal contamination: evidence from E. coli measured in water, hands, food, flies, and soil in Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017; 51 : 8725–8734. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Esteban G, González C, Bargues MD, et al. : High fascioliasis infection in children linked to a man-made irrigation zone in Peru. Trop. Med. Int. Health. 2002; 7 : 339–348. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Falcone AC, Zonta ML, Unzaga JM, et al. : Agricultural practices and intestinal parasites: A study of socio-environmental risk factors associated with leafy vegetable production in La Plata horticultural area, Argentina.Parasite Epidemiol. Control.2023; 23 : e00327. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Faria CP, Pereira A, Almeida D, et al. : Molecular investigation of ready-to-eat salads for Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in Portugal.Food Waterborne Parasitol.2023; 30 : e00190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text García L, Bruckner D, Brewer T, et al. : Techniques for the recovery and identification of Cryptosporidium oocysts from stool specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1983; 18 : 185–190. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text González-Ramírez, Carolina L, Prato J, et al. : Parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens harvested in an Andean agricultural area. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2023; 12 . Publisher Full Text González-Ramírez L, Falconí-Ontaneda F, Yaucén-Rodríguez M, et al. : Dispersión hídrica de enteroparásitos en una zona agropecuaria de gran altitud, en Los Andes ecuatorianos. Kasmera. 2020; 48 : e48231698. Publisher Full Text González-Ramírez LC, Robalino-Flores X, De la Torre E, et al. : Influence of Environmental Pollution and Living Conditions on Parasite Transmission among Indigenous Ecuadorians. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2022; 19 (11): 6901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text González-Ramírez LC, Vázquez CJ, Chimbaina MB, et al. : Ocurrence of enteroparasites with zoonotic potential in animals of the rural area of San Andres, Chimborazo, Ecuador. Vet. Parasitol.: Reg. Stud. Report. 2021; 26 : 100630. Publisher Full Text Honório Santos V, Pereira Borges JM, Silva Santos K, et al. : Study of the prevalence of helminths and protozoa in fruits marketed in street markets in a city in side of Bahia. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 2019; 6 : 262–268. Publisher Full Text INEC: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Ecuador. 2020; Reference Source INEN: NTE INEN 1529-8: Control microbiológico de los alimentos. detección y recuento de Escherichia coli presuntiva por la técnica del número más probable. Quito: Servicio Ecuatoriano de Normalización 2016:1–14. Reference Source Julien-Javaux F, Gérard C, Campagnoli M, et al. : Strategies for the safety management of fresh produce from farm to fork. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019; 27 : 145–152. Publisher Full Text Karshima SN: Parasites of importance for human health on edible fruits and vegetables in Nigeria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. Pathog. Glob. Health. 2018; 112 : 47–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kubina S, Costa D, Cazeaux C, et al. : Persistence and survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts on lamb’s lettuce leaves during plant growth and in washing conditions of minimally-processed salads.Int. J. Food Microbiol.2023; 388 : 110085. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Kudah C, Sovoe S, Baiden F: Parasitic contamination of commonly consumed vegetables in two markets in Ghana.Ghana Med. J.2018; 52 : 88–93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Lucas JR, Ramos D, Balcázar SS, et al. : The Presence of Potentially Pathogenic Protozoa in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Sold in Markets in the Central Peruvian Andes.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.2023; 20 : 943. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Luz JGG, Barbosa MV, de Carvalho AG , et al. : Contamination by intestinal parasites in vegetables marketed in an area of Jequitinhonha Valley, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev. Nutr. 2017; 30 : 127–136. Publisher Full Text Machado-Moreira B, Richards K, Brennan F, et al. : Microbial contamination of fresh produce: What, Where, and How? Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019; 18 : 1727–1750. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Marques CS, Sousa S, Castro A, et al. : Detection of Toxoplasma gondii oocysts in fresh vegetables and berry fruits.Parasit Vectors.2020; 13 : 180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería de Ecuador: Información Económica. Comercio Exterior 2020. 2020. Reference Source Moreno-Mesonero L, Soler L, Amorós I, et al. : Protozoan parasites and free-living amoebae contamination in organic leafy green vegetables and strawberries from Spain.Food Waterborne Parasitol.2023; 32 : e00200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mufida DC, Armiyanti Y, Putri ERM, et al. : Bacterial and parasitic contamination of raw vegetable: potential risk for food-borne diseases.Int. J. Public Health.2022; 11 : 1516–1524. Publisher Full Text Pérez-Cordón G, Rosales MJ, Valdez RA, et al. : Detection of water-borne and food-borne intestinal parasites of Trujillo, Peru. Rev. Peru Med. Exp. Salud Publica. 2008; 25 : 144–148. Reference Source PDOT San Andrés: Plan de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento Territorial de la Parroquia San Andrés. Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Parroquial Rural San Andrés, Ecuador. 2015:1–257. Reference Source Polo GA, Benavides CJ, Astaiza JM, et al. : Determinación de enteroparásitos en Lactuca sativa en fincas dedicadas a su producción en Pasto, Colombia.Biomédica.2016; 36 : 525–534. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Puig-Peña Y, Leyva-Castillo V, Rodríguez-Suárez A, et al. : Calidad microbiológica de las hortalizas y factores asociados a la contaminación en áreas de cultivo en La Habana. Rev. Habanera Ciencias Méd. 2013; 13 : 111–119. Reference Source Punsawad C, Phasuk N, Thongtup K, et al. : Prevalence of parasitic contamination of raw vegetables in Nakhon Si Thammarat province, southern Thailand. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19 : 34–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Qorom S, Abu-Sharar TM, Albdaiwi RN: Parasitic contamination of soil and vegetable crops irrigated with raw wastewater: A case study from Al-Far’a, Palestine.Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric.2023; 12 : 165178. Publisher Full Text Ramos B, Miller FA, Brandão TRS, et al. : Fresh fruits and vegetables - An overview on applied methodologies to improve its quality and safety. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013; 20 : 1–15. Publisher Full Text Rivero de Rodríguez Z, Fonseca R, Moreno Y, et al. : Detección de parásitos en lechugas distribuidas en mercados populares del municipio Maracaibo. Kasmera. 1998; 26 : 1–16. Reference Source Robertson LJ: Parasites in food: from a neglected position to an emerging issue. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2018; 86 : 71–113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rodríguez M, Zapata M, Solano M, et al. : Evaluación de la contaminación microbiológica de la lechuga (Lactuca sativa) en la cadena alimentaria, provincia de Quillacollo, Cochabamba. Bolivia. Gac. Med. Bol. 2015; 38 : 31–36. Reference Source Tefera T, Tysnes KR, Utaaker KS, et al. : Parasite contamination of berries: Risk, occurrence, and approaches for mitigation.Food Waterborne Parasitol.2018; 10 : 23–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Temesgen TT, Stigum VM, Robertson LJ: Surveillance of berries sold on the Norwegian market for parasite contamination using molecular methods.Food Microbiol.2022; 104 : 103980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Trelis M, Sáez-Durán S, Puchades P, et al. : Survey of the occurrence of Giardia duodenalis cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts in green leafy vegetables marketed in the city of Valencia (Spain). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022; 379 : 109847. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Yahia SH, Etewa SE, Al Hoot AA, et al. : Investigating the occurrence of soil-transmitted parasites contaminating soil, vegetables, and green fodder in the east of Nile Delta, Egypt.J. Parasitol. Res.2023; 2023 : ID 6300563. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 May 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 2 Grupo de Investigación "Salud Pública", Carrera de Medicina, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 3 Grupo de Investigación “Estudios Interdisciplinarios”, Ingeniería Ambiental, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 4 Facultad de Salud Pública, Escuela Superior Politecnica de Chimborazo, Riobamba, Chimborazo Province, 060103, Ecuador 5 Departamento de Inmunología, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico City, 04510, Mexico 6 Research Group "Parasites and Health", Departament de Farmàcia i Tecnologia Farmacèutica i Parasitologia, Facultat de Farmàcia, Universitat de València, Burjassot/Valencia, Comunidad Valenciana, 46010, Spain 7 Joint Research Unit on Endocrinology, Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Universitat de València - Health Research Institute La Fe (IISLAFE), Valencia, Valencian Community, 46026, Spain Luisa Carolina González-Ramírez Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Pablo Djabayan-Djibeyan Roles: Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing José G. Prato Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Cecilia Alejandra García Ríos Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Visualization Julio César Carrero Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing María Trelis Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Màrius Vicent Fuentes Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was supported by Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo under Research Funds (FCS-006-2021). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 12 Mar 2024, 12:532 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.2 version 1 Published: 23 May 2023, 12:532 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.1 Copyright © 2024 González-Ramírez LC et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article González-Ramírez LC, Djabayan-Djibeyan P, Prato JG et al. Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132957.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Mar 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rivero Z. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254884 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254884 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Apr 2024 Zulbey Rivero , Chair of Parasitology, Universidad Tecnica de Manabi, Portoviejo, Manabí Province, Ecuador Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254884 I agree with ... Continue reading READ ALL I agree with the corrections made. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rivero Z. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254884 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254884 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Barlaam A. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254887 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254887 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Mar 2024 Alessandra Barlaam , Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering (DAFNE), University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254887 The article has been significantly improved, therefore, in my opinion ... Continue reading READ ALL The article has been significantly improved, therefore, in my opinion it can be accepted for approved in the current form. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Parasitology; parasitic diseases; zoonoses; foodborne parasites; food safety; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Barlaam A. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254887 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254887 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 23 May 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rivero Z. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228641 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228641 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Jan 2024 Zulbey Rivero , Chair of Parasitology, Universidad Tecnica de Manabi, Portoviejo, Manabí Province, Ecuador Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228641 The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in ... Continue reading READ ALL The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results, however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis, you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Parasitology, Diagnostic Techniques I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rivero Z. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228641 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228641 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. ... Continue reading Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment: The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results; however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis , you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Response Observations made in the text Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain / 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. A separatory funnel was not used; it has been a translation error The reviewer is right. We apologize for the writing mistake. The allusion to a funnel has been deleted (see line 6 paragraph 8) It would be interesting if the results indicated whether, in some samples, more than one parasitic species was obtained from the studied vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Something akin to polyparasitism in humans. This is a very important observation of the reviewer as most samples already presented polyparasitism. We have now described this in our results as well as in the discussion section (please see lines ???? in the new version of the manuscript). Given that Blastocystis was the primary microorganism found, if the authors have the information, it would be important to indicate which morphotype was most frequently observed. The morphotype of Blastocystis identified in the samples is now indicated in the result section (please, see lines 9 and 10) I assume that leafy vegetables were combined to enable pairwise comparisons. If that is the case, it should be noted that, for statistical reasons, sample groups were combined The reviewer is right. We have now indicate that some groups were combined for statistical purpose. Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment: The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results; however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis , you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Response Observations made in the text Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain / 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. A separatory funnel was not used; it has been a translation error The reviewer is right. We apologize for the writing mistake. The allusion to a funnel has been deleted (see line 6 paragraph 8) It would be interesting if the results indicated whether, in some samples, more than one parasitic species was obtained from the studied vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Something akin to polyparasitism in humans. This is a very important observation of the reviewer as most samples already presented polyparasitism. We have now described this in our results as well as in the discussion section (please see lines ???? in the new version of the manuscript). Given that Blastocystis was the primary microorganism found, if the authors have the information, it would be important to indicate which morphotype was most frequently observed. The morphotype of Blastocystis identified in the samples is now indicated in the result section (please, see lines 9 and 10) I assume that leafy vegetables were combined to enable pairwise comparisons. If that is the case, it should be noted that, for statistical reasons, sample groups were combined The reviewer is right. We have now indicate that some groups were combined for statistical purpose. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. ... Continue reading Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment: The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results; however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis , you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Response Observations made in the text Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain / 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. A separatory funnel was not used; it has been a translation error The reviewer is right. We apologize for the writing mistake. The allusion to a funnel has been deleted (see line 6 paragraph 8) It would be interesting if the results indicated whether, in some samples, more than one parasitic species was obtained from the studied vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Something akin to polyparasitism in humans. This is a very important observation of the reviewer as most samples already presented polyparasitism. We have now described this in our results as well as in the discussion section (please see lines ???? in the new version of the manuscript). Given that Blastocystis was the primary microorganism found, if the authors have the information, it would be important to indicate which morphotype was most frequently observed. The morphotype of Blastocystis identified in the samples is now indicated in the result section (please, see lines 9 and 10) I assume that leafy vegetables were combined to enable pairwise comparisons. If that is the case, it should be noted that, for statistical reasons, sample groups were combined The reviewer is right. We have now indicate that some groups were combined for statistical purpose. Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment: The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results; however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis , you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Response Observations made in the text Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain / 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. A separatory funnel was not used; it has been a translation error The reviewer is right. We apologize for the writing mistake. The allusion to a funnel has been deleted (see line 6 paragraph 8) It would be interesting if the results indicated whether, in some samples, more than one parasitic species was obtained from the studied vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Something akin to polyparasitism in humans. This is a very important observation of the reviewer as most samples already presented polyparasitism. We have now described this in our results as well as in the discussion section (please see lines ???? in the new version of the manuscript). Given that Blastocystis was the primary microorganism found, if the authors have the information, it would be important to indicate which morphotype was most frequently observed. The morphotype of Blastocystis identified in the samples is now indicated in the result section (please, see lines 9 and 10) I assume that leafy vegetables were combined to enable pairwise comparisons. If that is the case, it should be noted that, for statistical reasons, sample groups were combined The reviewer is right. We have now indicate that some groups were combined for statistical purpose. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Barlaam A. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228648 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228648 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2024 Alessandra Barlaam , Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering (DAFNE), University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228648 The aim of the study was to assess the occurrence of the parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in Ecuador, one of the most important exporters of fresh vegetables. In total 63.4% of the samples were found ... Continue reading READ ALL The aim of the study was to assess the occurrence of the parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in Ecuador, one of the most important exporters of fresh vegetables. In total 63.4% of the samples were found positive for a variety of parasites which highlights the need to improve and look into the management of the products from farm to fork. Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods : “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Abstract, Results : The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of , and ; is confusing. Abstract, Conclusion : Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Introduction: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. When discussing import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: Barlaam et al. (2021 1 ); Temesgen et al. (2022 2 ); Barlaam et al. (2022 3 ). Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Tables: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018 4 ). The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al. , 2021; Barlaam et al. , 2022; Temesgen et al. , 2022; Marques et al. (2020 5 ); Faria et al. (2023 6 ). Please update. Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. References: In some parts of the manuscript as stated in the previous comments the references are rather dated. For many subjects the authors write about, in fact, they cite articles that are not among the most relevant and recent on the subject. I recommend doing another bibliographic research and going through the references again. English: The use of the English language is generally good, however, some misspellings, inaccuracies and errors in the sentence structure have been spotted throughout the text and a further revision is highly recommended. Taking everything into account this study has some limitations and the manuscript has some flaws, however, these data shed light on an important matter which is parasitic contamination of fresh produce in developing Countries which play a key role in our economy as exporters. This means that such issue is not limited to the Country in topic but potentially threatening for the rest of the world. For this reason, I think that it’s important to share data as limited as they may be on the subject and raise awareness on the issue. Therefore, in my opinion the manuscript can be indexed after the points raised above are clarified and a thorough revision of the manuscript is made according to the revisions above. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Barlaam A, Temesgen TT, Tysnes KR, Rinaldi L, et al.: Contamination of fresh produce sold on the Italian market with Cyclospora cayetanensis and Echinococcus multilocularis. Food Microbiol . 2021; 98 : 103792 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Temesgen TT, Stigum VM, Robertson LJ: Surveillance of berries sold on the Norwegian market for parasite contamination using molecular methods. Food Microbiol . 2022; 104 : 103980 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Barlaam A, Sannella AR, Ferrari N, Temesgen TT, et al.: Ready-to-eat salads and berry fruits purchased in Italy contaminated by Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica. Int J Food Microbiol . 2022; 370 : 109634 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Tefera T, Tysnes KR, Utaaker KS, Robertson LJ: Parasite contamination of berries: Risk, occurrence, and approaches for mitigation. Food Waterborne Parasitol . 2018; 10 : 23-38 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Marques CS, Sousa S, Castro A, da Costa JMC: Detection of Toxoplasma gondii oocysts in fresh vegetables and berry fruits. Parasit Vectors . 2020; 13 (1): 180 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Faria CP, Pereira A, Almeida D, Pinto M, et al.: Molecular investigation of ready-to-eat salads for Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in Portugal. Food Waterborne Parasitol . 2023; 30 : e00190 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Parasitology; parasitic diseases; zoonoses; foodborne parasites; food safety; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Barlaam A. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228648 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228648 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the ... Continue reading Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment 1: Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods: “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Response 1: We have done the change Comment 2: Abstract, Results: The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of, and; is confusing. Response 2: The English in the Abstract and Result sections has been revised and improved. Comment 3: Abstract, Conclusion: Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Response 3: The phrase has been deleted Comment 4: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. Response 4: Thank you very much for these observations. The introduction has been enriched as suggested and the role of vegetables and fruits as parasitic foodborne carriers is now highlighted (see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in the new paper version). Comment 5: When discussing the import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: • Barlaam et al. (20211); • Temesgen et al. (20222); • Barlaam et al. (20223). Response 5: They have been included as suggested (see paragraph 2 new version of paper). Comment 6: Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Response 6: 6.1. The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) The samples were collected a few years ago; however, the hygienic and sanitary practices in the area persist, and the prevalence of infection within the human populations remains constant (98.2%). No educational interventions have been implemented to enhance crop management hygiene. Additionally, indigenous communities do not readily alter their ancestral customs, suggesting that significant changes in these results are unlikely. 6.2. The methodology used for processing the fresh produce are quite old The washing and sedimentation technique used in our study (Rivero de Rodríguez et al., 1998) has been widely used, even today (Al Nahhas et al., 2020; Devera et al., 2021; Falcone et al., 2023; Lucas et al., 2023; Yahia et al., 2023; Asfaw et al., 2023; El Safadi et al., 2023). These parasitological techniques are very useful in low-resource countries, such as our case in Ecuador, since the addition of coagulant or flocculant reagents would increase the overall cost of the process. 6.3. The detection is also not quite in step with the times Optical microscopy remains the most used method in laboratories for the diagnosis of coproparasitoscopic. Its limitation has to do with the expertise of the laboratory technician to identify parasitic species. We have extensive experience in this type of diagnosis. On the other hand, we have no other diagnostic option due to the economic and logistical limitations of the area. 6.4. The occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. The identification of parasitic elements (eggs, larvae, cysts, oocysts) was conducted by an expert in parasitic microscopy, boasting 33 years of experience, utilizing the dimensions of the forms (using an ocular micrometer) and morphological characteristics (WHO, 2019). Given the wide variety of human, animal, and free-living parasites recoverable from plant matter, coupled with the limitations of microscopy for precise species identification, we have reported them generically (e.g., Strongylida, Ascaris spp.) without specifying species. 6.5. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). Undoubtedly, employing molecular methods (PCR) would yield more precise results and enable molecular epidemiology, contributing to addressing the issue of parasitic contamination. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these techniques was unfeasible in our study, due to budget constraints. The parasitological findings from this study have unveiled significant insights into the environmental health of crops in the Ecuadorian Andean region. 6.6. I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Molecular techniques were not used by lack of equipment/resources as mentioned above. Comment 7: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Response 7: In the protozoa section of the tables, we specify the frequency and percentage of contamination for fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens individually, rather than providing a cumulative count of protozoa. The same was done with the helminth section. This approach allows us to ascertain the prevalence of each category and facilitates meaningful comparisons between the two. Comment 8: Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. 8.1. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018). Response 8.1: Relevant literature, including the reference suggested, have been incorporated. Please, see lines 8 to Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023, in the new version of the manuscript. 8.2. The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al., 2021; Barlaam et al., 2022; Temesgen et al., 2022; Marques et al. (2020); Faria et al. (2023). Please update. Thank you for these observations. The paragraph has been modified in order to avoid confusion with the sense in which the term is used. In addition, the references suggested has been now included (Please, paragraph see 16 new version) Comment 9: Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. Response 9: We believe that with our results, we cannot conclude what occurs in other Latin American countries. Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment 1: Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods: “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Response 1: We have done the change Comment 2: Abstract, Results: The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of, and; is confusing. Response 2: The English in the Abstract and Result sections has been revised and improved. Comment 3: Abstract, Conclusion: Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Response 3: The phrase has been deleted Comment 4: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. Response 4: Thank you very much for these observations. The introduction has been enriched as suggested and the role of vegetables and fruits as parasitic foodborne carriers is now highlighted (see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in the new paper version). Comment 5: When discussing the import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: • Barlaam et al. (20211); • Temesgen et al. (20222); • Barlaam et al. (20223). Response 5: They have been included as suggested (see paragraph 2 new version of paper). Comment 6: Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Response 6: 6.1. The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) The samples were collected a few years ago; however, the hygienic and sanitary practices in the area persist, and the prevalence of infection within the human populations remains constant (98.2%). No educational interventions have been implemented to enhance crop management hygiene. Additionally, indigenous communities do not readily alter their ancestral customs, suggesting that significant changes in these results are unlikely. 6.2. The methodology used for processing the fresh produce are quite old The washing and sedimentation technique used in our study (Rivero de Rodríguez et al., 1998) has been widely used, even today (Al Nahhas et al., 2020; Devera et al., 2021; Falcone et al., 2023; Lucas et al., 2023; Yahia et al., 2023; Asfaw et al., 2023; El Safadi et al., 2023). These parasitological techniques are very useful in low-resource countries, such as our case in Ecuador, since the addition of coagulant or flocculant reagents would increase the overall cost of the process. 6.3. The detection is also not quite in step with the times Optical microscopy remains the most used method in laboratories for the diagnosis of coproparasitoscopic. Its limitation has to do with the expertise of the laboratory technician to identify parasitic species. We have extensive experience in this type of diagnosis. On the other hand, we have no other diagnostic option due to the economic and logistical limitations of the area. 6.4. The occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. The identification of parasitic elements (eggs, larvae, cysts, oocysts) was conducted by an expert in parasitic microscopy, boasting 33 years of experience, utilizing the dimensions of the forms (using an ocular micrometer) and morphological characteristics (WHO, 2019). Given the wide variety of human, animal, and free-living parasites recoverable from plant matter, coupled with the limitations of microscopy for precise species identification, we have reported them generically (e.g., Strongylida, Ascaris spp.) without specifying species. 6.5. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). Undoubtedly, employing molecular methods (PCR) would yield more precise results and enable molecular epidemiology, contributing to addressing the issue of parasitic contamination. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these techniques was unfeasible in our study, due to budget constraints. The parasitological findings from this study have unveiled significant insights into the environmental health of crops in the Ecuadorian Andean region. 6.6. I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Molecular techniques were not used by lack of equipment/resources as mentioned above. Comment 7: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Response 7: In the protozoa section of the tables, we specify the frequency and percentage of contamination for fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens individually, rather than providing a cumulative count of protozoa. The same was done with the helminth section. This approach allows us to ascertain the prevalence of each category and facilitates meaningful comparisons between the two. Comment 8: Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. 8.1. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018). Response 8.1: Relevant literature, including the reference suggested, have been incorporated. Please, see lines 8 to Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023, in the new version of the manuscript. 8.2. The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al., 2021; Barlaam et al., 2022; Temesgen et al., 2022; Marques et al. (2020); Faria et al. (2023). Please update. Thank you for these observations. The paragraph has been modified in order to avoid confusion with the sense in which the term is used. In addition, the references suggested has been now included (Please, paragraph see 16 new version) Comment 9: Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. Response 9: We believe that with our results, we cannot conclude what occurs in other Latin American countries. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the ... Continue reading Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment 1: Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods: “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Response 1: We have done the change Comment 2: Abstract, Results: The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of, and; is confusing. Response 2: The English in the Abstract and Result sections has been revised and improved. Comment 3: Abstract, Conclusion: Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Response 3: The phrase has been deleted Comment 4: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. Response 4: Thank you very much for these observations. The introduction has been enriched as suggested and the role of vegetables and fruits as parasitic foodborne carriers is now highlighted (see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in the new paper version). Comment 5: When discussing the import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: • Barlaam et al. (20211); • Temesgen et al. (20222); • Barlaam et al. (20223). Response 5: They have been included as suggested (see paragraph 2 new version of paper). Comment 6: Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Response 6: 6.1. The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) The samples were collected a few years ago; however, the hygienic and sanitary practices in the area persist, and the prevalence of infection within the human populations remains constant (98.2%). No educational interventions have been implemented to enhance crop management hygiene. Additionally, indigenous communities do not readily alter their ancestral customs, suggesting that significant changes in these results are unlikely. 6.2. The methodology used for processing the fresh produce are quite old The washing and sedimentation technique used in our study (Rivero de Rodríguez et al., 1998) has been widely used, even today (Al Nahhas et al., 2020; Devera et al., 2021; Falcone et al., 2023; Lucas et al., 2023; Yahia et al., 2023; Asfaw et al., 2023; El Safadi et al., 2023). These parasitological techniques are very useful in low-resource countries, such as our case in Ecuador, since the addition of coagulant or flocculant reagents would increase the overall cost of the process. 6.3. The detection is also not quite in step with the times Optical microscopy remains the most used method in laboratories for the diagnosis of coproparasitoscopic. Its limitation has to do with the expertise of the laboratory technician to identify parasitic species. We have extensive experience in this type of diagnosis. On the other hand, we have no other diagnostic option due to the economic and logistical limitations of the area. 6.4. The occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. The identification of parasitic elements (eggs, larvae, cysts, oocysts) was conducted by an expert in parasitic microscopy, boasting 33 years of experience, utilizing the dimensions of the forms (using an ocular micrometer) and morphological characteristics (WHO, 2019). Given the wide variety of human, animal, and free-living parasites recoverable from plant matter, coupled with the limitations of microscopy for precise species identification, we have reported them generically (e.g., Strongylida, Ascaris spp.) without specifying species. 6.5. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). Undoubtedly, employing molecular methods (PCR) would yield more precise results and enable molecular epidemiology, contributing to addressing the issue of parasitic contamination. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these techniques was unfeasible in our study, due to budget constraints. The parasitological findings from this study have unveiled significant insights into the environmental health of crops in the Ecuadorian Andean region. 6.6. I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Molecular techniques were not used by lack of equipment/resources as mentioned above. Comment 7: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Response 7: In the protozoa section of the tables, we specify the frequency and percentage of contamination for fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens individually, rather than providing a cumulative count of protozoa. The same was done with the helminth section. This approach allows us to ascertain the prevalence of each category and facilitates meaningful comparisons between the two. Comment 8: Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. 8.1. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018). Response 8.1: Relevant literature, including the reference suggested, have been incorporated. Please, see lines 8 to Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023, in the new version of the manuscript. 8.2. The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al., 2021; Barlaam et al., 2022; Temesgen et al., 2022; Marques et al. (2020); Faria et al. (2023). Please update. Thank you for these observations. The paragraph has been modified in order to avoid confusion with the sense in which the term is used. In addition, the references suggested has been now included (Please, paragraph see 16 new version) Comment 9: Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. Response 9: We believe that with our results, we cannot conclude what occurs in other Latin American countries. Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment 1: Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods: “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Response 1: We have done the change Comment 2: Abstract, Results: The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of, and; is confusing. Response 2: The English in the Abstract and Result sections has been revised and improved. Comment 3: Abstract, Conclusion: Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Response 3: The phrase has been deleted Comment 4: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. Response 4: Thank you very much for these observations. The introduction has been enriched as suggested and the role of vegetables and fruits as parasitic foodborne carriers is now highlighted (see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in the new paper version). Comment 5: When discussing the import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: • Barlaam et al. (20211); • Temesgen et al. (20222); • Barlaam et al. (20223). Response 5: They have been included as suggested (see paragraph 2 new version of paper). Comment 6: Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Response 6: 6.1. The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) The samples were collected a few years ago; however, the hygienic and sanitary practices in the area persist, and the prevalence of infection within the human populations remains constant (98.2%). No educational interventions have been implemented to enhance crop management hygiene. Additionally, indigenous communities do not readily alter their ancestral customs, suggesting that significant changes in these results are unlikely. 6.2. The methodology used for processing the fresh produce are quite old The washing and sedimentation technique used in our study (Rivero de Rodríguez et al., 1998) has been widely used, even today (Al Nahhas et al., 2020; Devera et al., 2021; Falcone et al., 2023; Lucas et al., 2023; Yahia et al., 2023; Asfaw et al., 2023; El Safadi et al., 2023). These parasitological techniques are very useful in low-resource countries, such as our case in Ecuador, since the addition of coagulant or flocculant reagents would increase the overall cost of the process. 6.3. The detection is also not quite in step with the times Optical microscopy remains the most used method in laboratories for the diagnosis of coproparasitoscopic. Its limitation has to do with the expertise of the laboratory technician to identify parasitic species. We have extensive experience in this type of diagnosis. On the other hand, we have no other diagnostic option due to the economic and logistical limitations of the area. 6.4. The occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. The identification of parasitic elements (eggs, larvae, cysts, oocysts) was conducted by an expert in parasitic microscopy, boasting 33 years of experience, utilizing the dimensions of the forms (using an ocular micrometer) and morphological characteristics (WHO, 2019). Given the wide variety of human, animal, and free-living parasites recoverable from plant matter, coupled with the limitations of microscopy for precise species identification, we have reported them generically (e.g., Strongylida, Ascaris spp.) without specifying species. 6.5. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). Undoubtedly, employing molecular methods (PCR) would yield more precise results and enable molecular epidemiology, contributing to addressing the issue of parasitic contamination. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these techniques was unfeasible in our study, due to budget constraints. The parasitological findings from this study have unveiled significant insights into the environmental health of crops in the Ecuadorian Andean region. 6.6. I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Molecular techniques were not used by lack of equipment/resources as mentioned above. Comment 7: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Response 7: In the protozoa section of the tables, we specify the frequency and percentage of contamination for fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens individually, rather than providing a cumulative count of protozoa. The same was done with the helminth section. This approach allows us to ascertain the prevalence of each category and facilitates meaningful comparisons between the two. Comment 8: Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. 8.1. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018). Response 8.1: Relevant literature, including the reference suggested, have been incorporated. Please, see lines 8 to Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023, in the new version of the manuscript. 8.2. The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al., 2021; Barlaam et al., 2022; Temesgen et al., 2022; Marques et al. (2020); Faria et al. (2023). Please update. Thank you for these observations. The paragraph has been modified in order to avoid confusion with the sense in which the term is used. In addition, the references suggested has been now included (Please, paragraph see 16 new version) Comment 9: Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. Response 9: We believe that with our results, we cannot conclude what occurs in other Latin American countries. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Amissah-Reynolds PK. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228642 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228642 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2024 Papa Kofi Amissah-Reynolds , Department of Biological Sciences Education, Faculty of Science Education,College of Agriculture Education, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Mampong, Ghana Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228642 Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. The conclusion ... Continue reading READ ALL Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? This article (Duedu et al. , 2014 1 ) could be useful. Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al. , 2020 2 ) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Duedu KO, Yarnie EA, Tetteh-Quarcoo PB, Attah SK, et al.: A comparative survey of the prevalence of human parasites found in fresh vegetables sold in supermarkets and open-aired markets in Accra, Ghana. BMC Res Notes . 2014; 7 : 836 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Amissah-Reynolds P, Yar D, Gyamerah I, Apenteng O, et al.: Fresh Vegetables and Ready-to-eat Salads: Sources of Parasitic Zoonoses in Mampong-Ashanti, Ghana. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety . 2020. 47-55 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Zoology, Parasitology, Zoonosis, One-Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Amissah-Reynolds PK. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228642 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228642 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. ... Continue reading Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: Comment 1: 1. The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. Response 1: The discussion has been revised, incorporating straightforward language and addressing all the reviewer's recommendations. Comment 2: The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Response 2: A comment regarding the occurrence of parasites in the samples examined has now been included in the conclusion section, as follows: This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries (Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022), this could be explained to the access of better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks and overall more preventive education and information on food handling (González et al., 2022). Comment 3: Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? Response 3: We value the recommendation to enhance the article's dynamism. While we acknowledge the appeal of diversifying presentation, we have opted for tables due to their capacity to encapsulate detailed information on parasitic contamination, which may not be effectively conveyed through figures alone. Comment 4: From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Response 4: Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Comment 5: Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Response 5: The paragraph was revised as suggested and now it can be read as follows: Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 6: Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Response 6: Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil (Honório Santos et al., 2019), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli . These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 ºC), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere (Chammartin et al., 2013) Comment 7: Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Response 7: When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy (Barlaam et al. 2021, 2022), Spain (Trelis et al., 2022); Portugal (Marques et al., 2020), Norway (Temesgen et al., 2022) and Sweden (Ahlinder et al., 2022), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus, T. gondii , Toxocara , and Fasciola were not detected in our research (Bouwknegt et al., 2018). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers' fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. Comment 8: Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? Response 8: The clarification has been made. suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 9: Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Response 9: In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables (Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2015; Polo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019; Bracho et al., 2022; González-Ramírez et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2023; Falcone et al., 2023), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people's habits and prevent environmental pollution. Comment 10: Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020) Response 10: It has been included. Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination (Lucas et al., 2023), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: Comment 1: 1. The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. Response 1: The discussion has been revised, incorporating straightforward language and addressing all the reviewer's recommendations. Comment 2: The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Response 2: A comment regarding the occurrence of parasites in the samples examined has now been included in the conclusion section, as follows: This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries (Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022), this could be explained to the access of better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks and overall more preventive education and information on food handling (González et al., 2022). Comment 3: Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? Response 3: We value the recommendation to enhance the article's dynamism. While we acknowledge the appeal of diversifying presentation, we have opted for tables due to their capacity to encapsulate detailed information on parasitic contamination, which may not be effectively conveyed through figures alone. Comment 4: From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Response 4: Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Comment 5: Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Response 5: The paragraph was revised as suggested and now it can be read as follows: Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 6: Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Response 6: Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil (Honório Santos et al., 2019), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli . These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 ºC), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere (Chammartin et al., 2013) Comment 7: Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Response 7: When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy (Barlaam et al. 2021, 2022), Spain (Trelis et al., 2022); Portugal (Marques et al., 2020), Norway (Temesgen et al., 2022) and Sweden (Ahlinder et al., 2022), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus, T. gondii , Toxocara , and Fasciola were not detected in our research (Bouwknegt et al., 2018). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers' fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. Comment 8: Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? Response 8: The clarification has been made. suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 9: Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Response 9: In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables (Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2015; Polo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019; Bracho et al., 2022; González-Ramírez et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2023; Falcone et al., 2023), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people's habits and prevent environmental pollution. Comment 10: Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020) Response 10: It has been included. Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination (Lucas et al., 2023), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ , Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador 13 Apr 2024 Author Response Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. ... Continue reading Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: Comment 1: 1. The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. Response 1: The discussion has been revised, incorporating straightforward language and addressing all the reviewer's recommendations. Comment 2: The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Response 2: A comment regarding the occurrence of parasites in the samples examined has now been included in the conclusion section, as follows: This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries (Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022), this could be explained to the access of better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks and overall more preventive education and information on food handling (González et al., 2022). Comment 3: Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? Response 3: We value the recommendation to enhance the article's dynamism. While we acknowledge the appeal of diversifying presentation, we have opted for tables due to their capacity to encapsulate detailed information on parasitic contamination, which may not be effectively conveyed through figures alone. Comment 4: From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Response 4: Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Comment 5: Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Response 5: The paragraph was revised as suggested and now it can be read as follows: Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 6: Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Response 6: Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil (Honório Santos et al., 2019), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli . These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 ºC), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere (Chammartin et al., 2013) Comment 7: Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Response 7: When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy (Barlaam et al. 2021, 2022), Spain (Trelis et al., 2022); Portugal (Marques et al., 2020), Norway (Temesgen et al., 2022) and Sweden (Ahlinder et al., 2022), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus, T. gondii , Toxocara , and Fasciola were not detected in our research (Bouwknegt et al., 2018). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers' fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. Comment 8: Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? Response 8: The clarification has been made. suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 9: Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Response 9: In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables (Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2015; Polo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019; Bracho et al., 2022; González-Ramírez et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2023; Falcone et al., 2023), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people's habits and prevent environmental pollution. Comment 10: Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020) Response 10: It has been included. Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination (Lucas et al., 2023), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: Comment 1: 1. The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. Response 1: The discussion has been revised, incorporating straightforward language and addressing all the reviewer's recommendations. Comment 2: The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Response 2: A comment regarding the occurrence of parasites in the samples examined has now been included in the conclusion section, as follows: This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries (Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022), this could be explained to the access of better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks and overall more preventive education and information on food handling (González et al., 2022). Comment 3: Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? Response 3: We value the recommendation to enhance the article's dynamism. While we acknowledge the appeal of diversifying presentation, we have opted for tables due to their capacity to encapsulate detailed information on parasitic contamination, which may not be effectively conveyed through figures alone. Comment 4: From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Response 4: Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Comment 5: Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Response 5: The paragraph was revised as suggested and now it can be read as follows: Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 6: Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Response 6: Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil (Honório Santos et al., 2019), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli . These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 ºC), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere (Chammartin et al., 2013) Comment 7: Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Response 7: When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy (Barlaam et al. 2021, 2022), Spain (Trelis et al., 2022); Portugal (Marques et al., 2020), Norway (Temesgen et al., 2022) and Sweden (Ahlinder et al., 2022), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus, T. gondii , Toxocara , and Fasciola were not detected in our research (Bouwknegt et al., 2018). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers' fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. Comment 8: Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? Response 8: The clarification has been made. suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 9: Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Response 9: In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables (Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2015; Polo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019; Bracho et al., 2022; González-Ramírez et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2023; Falcone et al., 2023), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people's habits and prevent environmental pollution. Comment 10: Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020) Response 10: It has been included. Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination (Lucas et al., 2023), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Al Nahhas S. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r221529 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-221529 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Dec 2023 Samar Al Nahhas , Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Science, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r221529 This study addresses an important knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of enteric parasites on fruits, vegetables and leafy green in an agricultural area of the Ecuadorian Andes. The study also indicated the necessity of dealing with these materials, which are ... Continue reading READ ALL This study addresses an important knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of enteric parasites on fruits, vegetables and leafy green in an agricultural area of the Ecuadorian Andes. The study also indicated the necessity of dealing with these materials, which are responsible for infection in humans and animals, by treating the soil as well as the water used in irrigation. I have previously reviewed this manuscript and gave my decision to accept it. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Parasitology, Protozoa, molecular diagnosis, infectious diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Al Nahhas S. Reviewer Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r221529 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-221529 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 May 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 12 Mar 24 read read Version 1 23 May 23 read read read read Samar Al Nahhas , Damascus University, Damascus, Syria Papa Kofi Amissah-Reynolds , Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Mampong, Ghana Alessandra Barlaam , University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Zulbey Rivero , Universidad Tecnica de Manabi, Portoviejo, Ecuador Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rivero Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Apr 2024 | for Version 2 Zulbey Rivero , Chair of Parasitology, Universidad Tecnica de Manabi, Portoviejo, Manabí Province, Ecuador 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rivero Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I agree with the corrections made. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rivero Z. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254884) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254884 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Barlaam A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Mar 2024 | for Version 2 Alessandra Barlaam , Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering (DAFNE), University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy 0 Views copyright © 2024 Barlaam A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article has been significantly improved, therefore, in my opinion it can be accepted for approved in the current form. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Parasitology; parasitic diseases; zoonoses; foodborne parasites; food safety; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Barlaam A. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.163126.r254887) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2#referee-response-254887 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rivero Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Jan 2024 | for Version 1 Zulbey Rivero , Chair of Parasitology, Universidad Tecnica de Manabi, Portoviejo, Manabí Province, Ecuador 0 Views copyright © 2024 Rivero Z. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results, however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis, you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Parasitology, Diagnostic Techniques I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ, Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador Revisor 4 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment: The article meets the objective proposed from the beginning and the introduction is brief but clear enough. The methodology is well described, but there is something that needs to be clarified and about which I am asking the authors in the comments placed as stickers in the PDF file. The most important findings are highlighted in the results; however it would be interesting if the authors could report which morphotypes of Blastocystis sp were detected in the samples evaluated. In addition, they must indicate if samples were found that showed contamination by more than one parasitic species in the vegetable or fruit analyzed. The discussion is fine, but depending on what you answer regarding polyparasitism and Blastocystis , you may have to add some of this to the discussion. Response Observations made in the text Investigation design A field study, cross-sectional, observational and descriptive, was carried out during 1 month of rain / 7 months of drought. The snowball sampling technique was applied, whereby a grower helped locate the nearest farm and so on. All types of products found were included in the sampling (1,416 samples in total); the inclusion criteria were that all agricultural products must come from San Andrés fields and those not cultivated in the community were excluded. A separatory funnel was not used; it has been a translation error The reviewer is right. We apologize for the writing mistake. The allusion to a funnel has been deleted (see line 6 paragraph 8) It would be interesting if the results indicated whether, in some samples, more than one parasitic species was obtained from the studied vegetables, lettuce, or fruit. Something akin to polyparasitism in humans. This is a very important observation of the reviewer as most samples already presented polyparasitism. We have now described this in our results as well as in the discussion section (please see lines ???? in the new version of the manuscript). Given that Blastocystis was the primary microorganism found, if the authors have the information, it would be important to indicate which morphotype was most frequently observed. The morphotype of Blastocystis identified in the samples is now indicated in the result section (please, see lines 9 and 10) I assume that leafy vegetables were combined to enable pairwise comparisons. If that is the case, it should be noted that, for statistical reasons, sample groups were combined The reviewer is right. We have now indicate that some groups were combined for statistical purpose. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Rivero Z. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228641) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228641 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Barlaam A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Jan 2024 | for Version 1 Alessandra Barlaam , Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering (DAFNE), University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy 0 Views copyright © 2024 Barlaam A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The aim of the study was to assess the occurrence of the parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens grown in Ecuador, one of the most important exporters of fresh vegetables. In total 63.4% of the samples were found positive for a variety of parasites which highlights the need to improve and look into the management of the products from farm to fork. Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods : “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Abstract, Results : The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of , and ; is confusing. Abstract, Conclusion : Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Introduction: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. When discussing import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: Barlaam et al. (2021 1 ); Temesgen et al. (2022 2 ); Barlaam et al. (2022 3 ). Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Tables: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018 4 ). The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al. , 2021; Barlaam et al. , 2022; Temesgen et al. , 2022; Marques et al. (2020 5 ); Faria et al. (2023 6 ). Please update. Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. References: In some parts of the manuscript as stated in the previous comments the references are rather dated. For many subjects the authors write about, in fact, they cite articles that are not among the most relevant and recent on the subject. I recommend doing another bibliographic research and going through the references again. English: The use of the English language is generally good, however, some misspellings, inaccuracies and errors in the sentence structure have been spotted throughout the text and a further revision is highly recommended. Taking everything into account this study has some limitations and the manuscript has some flaws, however, these data shed light on an important matter which is parasitic contamination of fresh produce in developing Countries which play a key role in our economy as exporters. This means that such issue is not limited to the Country in topic but potentially threatening for the rest of the world. For this reason, I think that it’s important to share data as limited as they may be on the subject and raise awareness on the issue. Therefore, in my opinion the manuscript can be indexed after the points raised above are clarified and a thorough revision of the manuscript is made according to the revisions above. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Barlaam A, Temesgen TT, Tysnes KR, Rinaldi L, et al.: Contamination of fresh produce sold on the Italian market with Cyclospora cayetanensis and Echinococcus multilocularis. Food Microbiol . 2021; 98 : 103792 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Temesgen TT, Stigum VM, Robertson LJ: Surveillance of berries sold on the Norwegian market for parasite contamination using molecular methods. Food Microbiol . 2022; 104 : 103980 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Barlaam A, Sannella AR, Ferrari N, Temesgen TT, et al.: Ready-to-eat salads and berry fruits purchased in Italy contaminated by Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia duodenalis, and Entamoeba histolytica. Int J Food Microbiol . 2022; 370 : 109634 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Tefera T, Tysnes KR, Utaaker KS, Robertson LJ: Parasite contamination of berries: Risk, occurrence, and approaches for mitigation. Food Waterborne Parasitol . 2018; 10 : 23-38 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 5. Marques CS, Sousa S, Castro A, da Costa JMC: Detection of Toxoplasma gondii oocysts in fresh vegetables and berry fruits. Parasit Vectors . 2020; 13 (1): 180 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Faria CP, Pereira A, Almeida D, Pinto M, et al.: Molecular investigation of ready-to-eat salads for Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in Portugal. Food Waterborne Parasitol . 2023; 30 : e00190 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Parasitology; parasitic diseases; zoonoses; foodborne parasites; food safety; I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ, Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador Revisor 3 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, and their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Comment 1: Abstract: In the Abstract, Methods: “Each sample were washed” should be replaced with “Each sample was washed”. Response 1: We have done the change Comment 2: Abstract, Results: The English language should be revised as the paragraph is not as clear as it should be. In addition, some repetitions occur (the most contaminated) and the use of, and; is confusing. Response 2: The English in the Abstract and Result sections has been revised and improved. Comment 3: Abstract, Conclusion: Delete “From these crops” given that it is a general concept regardless of the obtained results. Response 3: The phrase has been deleted Comment 4: Given the variety of fresh produce included in the study and the number of parasites detected, the introduction is too concise and should be enriched. In addition, the importance of leafy greens as vehicles of foodborne parasites is emphasized whereas the role vegetables and fruits, including berries (also analyzed in this study and for which relevant and recent publications are available) is completely overlooked. Response 4: Thank you very much for these observations. The introduction has been enriched as suggested and the role of vegetables and fruits as parasitic foodborne carriers is now highlighted (see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in the new paper version). Comment 5: When discussing the import of fresh produce from endemic countries and the spread of parasites to nonendemic ones the authors fail to include relevant and recent bibliography on the subject. There are, in fact, recent studies that show how fresh produce imported from countries endemic for certain parasites have been found contaminated in the importing country. These articles have been completely overlooked and should be included. I recommend: • Barlaam et al. (20211); • Temesgen et al. (20222); • Barlaam et al. (20223). Response 5: They have been included as suggested (see paragraph 2 new version of paper). Comment 6: Methods: The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) and so is the methodology used for processing the fresh produce. The detection is also not quite in step with the times. Specifically, in the present study, the occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Response 6: 6.1. The data are quite old (the samples were collected four years ago) The samples were collected a few years ago; however, the hygienic and sanitary practices in the area persist, and the prevalence of infection within the human populations remains constant (98.2%). No educational interventions have been implemented to enhance crop management hygiene. Additionally, indigenous communities do not readily alter their ancestral customs, suggesting that significant changes in these results are unlikely. 6.2. The methodology used for processing the fresh produce are quite old The washing and sedimentation technique used in our study (Rivero de Rodríguez et al., 1998) has been widely used, even today (Al Nahhas et al., 2020; Devera et al., 2021; Falcone et al., 2023; Lucas et al., 2023; Yahia et al., 2023; Asfaw et al., 2023; El Safadi et al., 2023). These parasitological techniques are very useful in low-resource countries, such as our case in Ecuador, since the addition of coagulant or flocculant reagents would increase the overall cost of the process. 6.3. The detection is also not quite in step with the times Optical microscopy remains the most used method in laboratories for the diagnosis of coproparasitoscopic. Its limitation has to do with the expertise of the laboratory technician to identify parasitic species. We have extensive experience in this type of diagnosis. On the other hand, we have no other diagnostic option due to the economic and logistical limitations of the area. 6.4. The occurrence of parasites in fresh produce was investigated by microscopy although it is not clear how the genera and species were verified. The identification of parasitic elements (eggs, larvae, cysts, oocysts) was conducted by an expert in parasitic microscopy, boasting 33 years of experience, utilizing the dimensions of the forms (using an ocular micrometer) and morphological characteristics (WHO, 2019). Given the wide variety of human, animal, and free-living parasites recoverable from plant matter, coupled with the limitations of microscopy for precise species identification, we have reported them generically (e.g., Strongylida, Ascaris spp.) without specifying species. 6.5. Nowadays, with molecular tools available it would be auspicable to use them not only to verify the microscopy results but also to gather more information on the detected parasites (pathogenicity, zoonotic relevance etc.). Undoubtedly, employing molecular methods (PCR) would yield more precise results and enable molecular epidemiology, contributing to addressing the issue of parasitic contamination. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these techniques was unfeasible in our study, due to budget constraints. The parasitological findings from this study have unveiled significant insights into the environmental health of crops in the Ecuadorian Andean region. 6.6. I would like to ask the authors whether the samples were not tested molecularly because of lack of equipment/resources or for different reasons. Molecular techniques were not used by lack of equipment/resources as mentioned above. Comment 7: In all the tables there is a line that refers to “Protozoa”. I don’t understand why given that the protozoa identified are listed individually. Please clarify. Abbraviations should be written in full at the bottom of the table (IC with a * that links the abbreviation and the extended form). Response 7: In the protozoa section of the tables, we specify the frequency and percentage of contamination for fruits, vegetables, and leafy greens individually, rather than providing a cumulative count of protozoa. The same was done with the helminth section. This approach allows us to ascertain the prevalence of each category and facilitates meaningful comparisons between the two. Comment 8: Discussions: The discussions are well organized and the key concepts regarding parasitic contamination of fresh produce are covered. 8.1. First paragraph: See comment in the Introduction section about the risk that these products represent for people living in non-endemic areas. Please cite relevant literature. When discussing contaminated berry products and the surface of such products is discussed, the following paper should be taken into consideration: Tefera et al. (2018). Response 8.1: Relevant literature, including the reference suggested, have been incorporated. Please, see lines 8 to Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023, in the new version of the manuscript. 8.2. The paragraph starting with “Food-borne transmission of protozoan parasites…” needs to be amended in order to clarify two different concepts: foodborne transmission of protozoan parasites and detection of foodborne parasites into fresh produce. When listing the cases in which parasitic contamination of fresh produce occurred, the authors do not use the most recent bibliography available. They include, in fact, older articles, but they overlook more recent publications on the subject (among others, Barlaam et al., 2021; Barlaam et al., 2022; Temesgen et al., 2022; Marques et al. (2020); Faria et al. (2023). Please update. Thank you for these observations. The paragraph has been modified in order to avoid confusion with the sense in which the term is used. In addition, the references suggested has been now included (Please, paragraph see 16 new version) Comment 9: Conclusion: It may start from three paragraph above (“In these tropical countries,..”) since they are very general concluding paragraphs. Response 9: We believe that with our results, we cannot conclude what occurs in other Latin American countries. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Barlaam A. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228648) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228648 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Amissah-Reynolds P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Jan 2024 | for Version 1 Papa Kofi Amissah-Reynolds , Department of Biological Sciences Education, Faculty of Science Education,College of Agriculture Education, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Mampong, Ghana 0 Views copyright © 2024 Amissah-Reynolds P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? This article (Duedu et al. , 2014 1 ) could be useful. Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al. , 2020 2 ) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Duedu KO, Yarnie EA, Tetteh-Quarcoo PB, Attah SK, et al.: A comparative survey of the prevalence of human parasites found in fresh vegetables sold in supermarkets and open-aired markets in Accra, Ghana. BMC Res Notes . 2014; 7 : 836 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Amissah-Reynolds P, Yar D, Gyamerah I, Apenteng O, et al.: Fresh Vegetables and Ready-to-eat Salads: Sources of Parasitic Zoonoses in Mampong-Ashanti, Ghana. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety . 2020. 47-55 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Zoology, Parasitology, Zoonosis, One-Health I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 13 Apr 2024 LUISA CAROLINA GONZALEZ, Grupo de Investigación "Análisis de Muestras Biológicas y Forenses", Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Riobamba, 060103, Ecuador Revisor 2 We thank the reviewer for the importance has given to our research, the time spent correcting the manuscript, their knowledge, experience, and willingness to improve the article. Generally, the manuscript is very good and relevant. However, the authors should consider the following: Comment 1: 1. The discussion can be revised as some aspects lack clarity and are difficult to read and/or understand. Response 1: The discussion has been revised, incorporating straightforward language and addressing all the reviewer's recommendations. Comment 2: The conclusion seems not to address the aim of the study. Comment on the occurrence of parasites in the conclusion. Response 2: A comment regarding the occurrence of parasites in the samples examined has now been included in the conclusion section, as follows: This study uncovers significant parasitic contamination in fruits (48.4%), vegetables (67.8%), and leafy greens (76.9%), from San Andrés a principal agricultural hub in the Ecuadorian Andes, attributed to poor hygiene practices in agriculture. The detection of multiple enteric parasites in these foods highlight the potential risk of transmitting infections if consumed without adequate sanitation. The local, national and international distribution of these foods, amplifies the risk of disseminating parasites to non-endemic regions, thereby increasing the likelihood of disease outbreaks as it was shown in studies on leafy greens and berries (Tefera et al., 2018; Marques et al., 2020; Barlaam et al., 2021, 2022; Faria et al., 2023). When comparing the results of vegetable contamination from the San Andres capital, with an overall prevalence of 63.4%, (fruits 48.4% and vegetables 67.8%), was lower than the detected in provinces located at high altitudes and more indigenous populated with overall prevalence of 70.6% (fruits 67.1% and vegetables 73.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022), this could be explained to the access of better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks and overall more preventive education and information on food handling (González et al., 2022). Comment 3: Apart from using tables, can the authors consider other ways of presenting the results? Response 3: We value the recommendation to enhance the article's dynamism. While we acknowledge the appeal of diversifying presentation, we have opted for tables due to their capacity to encapsulate detailed information on parasitic contamination, which may not be effectively conveyed through figures alone. Comment 4: From the discussion: Paragraph 3 (When constrasting ...) How does access to the urban area influence parasitic contamination? Response 4: Urban area used to have access to better methods of sanitation, cleaner restrooms with proper septic tanks, drinking water, and overall more preventive education and information on food handling than rural areas. This could explain why central town of San Andres showed lower percent of parasitic contamination in their vegetable products when compared to the contamination rate determined in products from rural provinces located at high altitudes (63.4% vs 70.6%) (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Comment 5: Paragraph 8 (Animal faeces ...) Consider revising this paragraph. It is not easy to understand some aspects of this paragraph. Response 5: The paragraph was revised as suggested and now it can be read as follows: Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 6: Paragraph 21 (Our results ...) How does altitude influence the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths? Can you provide a reference for this? Response 6: Our results differ from those obtained in Brazil (Honório Santos et al., 2019), with prevalence of 70% in fruits: guava (90%), lemon and apple (70%) and grape (50%). The highest prevalence in this study was of the helminths A. lumbricoides , Ancylostomids, Taenia spp., and E. vermicularis , followed by B. coli and E. coli . These differences might be due to the high altitude of San Andrés (3,020–6,310 m above sea) could affect the evolution of soil-transmitted helminths due to the extreme environmental conditions such as low temperatures (0–19 ºC), intense solar radiation and low rainfall (250 and 500 mm/year). In addition, these conditions affect the soil composition which is constituted by very thin layers of lithic materials of volcanic origin (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). Effect of altitude on helminths has been reported elsewhere (Chammartin et al., 2013) Comment 7: Paragraph 23 (Food-borne ...) Link the results from the developed countries you have stated to your work and explain any differences there may be. Response 7: When comparing findings from agricultural products from industrialized nations with our study in Ecuador, we obtained a higher prevalence and diversity of human and veterinary parasitic species. For example, in Italy (Barlaam et al. 2021, 2022), Spain (Trelis et al., 2022); Portugal (Marques et al., 2020), Norway (Temesgen et al., 2022) and Sweden (Ahlinder et al., 2022), coccidia were mainly identified. Notably, species prioritized in Europe such as Echinococcus, T. gondii , Toxocara , and Fasciola were not detected in our research (Bouwknegt et al., 2018). However, European studies used to be done on fruits and vegetables from supermarkets, which are pre-washed or disinfected prior to sale, in contrast to our agricultural products directly obtained from farmers' fields. This is a factor that likely influences the observed prevalence rates. Comment 8: Paragraph 24 (Information collected ...) What were the inadequate handling practices and insanitary conditions at the market? Response 8: The clarification has been made. suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). Comment 9: Paragraph 25 (In these tropical ...) Which tropical countries are you making reference to? Response 9: In Latin America there are the highest records of contamination in vegetables (Cazorla-Perfetti et al., 2013; Rodríguez et al., 2015; Polo et al., 2016; Luz et al., 2017; Benites Salcedo et al., 2019; Bracho et al., 2022; González-Ramírez et al., 2022; Lucas et al., 2023; Falcone et al., 2023), being countries endemic for parasites, from there they spread to other countries nonendemic, through fresh vegetables. Developing countries have not been able to control their parasites due to low socioeconomic and hygienic levels, and the inability to offer adequate health and education infrastructure that can change people's habits and prevent environmental pollution. Comment 10: Paragraphs 26 & 27 There are no references in these paragraphs. This article could be relevant to your work (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020) Response 10: It has been included. Animal feces are a nutrient-rich fertilizer for agricultural systems and offer a low-cost solution (Daniel et al., 2016). However, without prior treatment (composting, storage, chemical treatment, drying, fermentation), it is a vehicle for microorganisms (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). This risk factor was identified in the agricultural practice of San Andrés. (González-Ramírez et al., 2021), suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation near crops without handwashing by farmers due to a lack of portable toilets, irrigation of crops with contaminated water and persistent unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2021, 2022). The place sampling was identified as critical nodes for contamination (Lucas et al., 2023), this is linked to suboptimal crop management practices, including open defecation, the absence of handwashing due to a lack of portable toilets in the fields; and the use of fresh animal excrement as fertilizer (Amissah-Reynolds et al., 2020). Farmers neglect to sanitize work tools like shovels, picks, rakes, and wheelbarrows, facilitating the transfer of parasites between different crops. Furthermore, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions persist in the areas where they sell their products (González-Ramírez et al., 2022). View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Amissah-Reynolds PK. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r228642) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-228642 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Al Nahhas S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Dec 2023 | for Version 1 Samar Al Nahhas , Department of Animal Biology, Faculty of Science, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria 0 Views copyright © 2023 Al Nahhas S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study addresses an important knowledge gap regarding the prevalence of enteric parasites on fruits, vegetables and leafy green in an agricultural area of the Ecuadorian Andes. The study also indicated the necessity of dealing with these materials, which are responsible for infection in humans and animals, by treating the soil as well as the water used in irrigation. I have previously reviewed this manuscript and gave my decision to accept it. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Parasitology, Protozoa, molecular diagnosis, infectious diseases I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Al Nahhas S. Peer Review Report For: Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables and leafy greens in the Ecuadorian Andes [version 2; peer review: 4 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 12 :532 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145917.r221529) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v1#referee-response-221529 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Field study of parasitic contamination of...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('González-Ramírez LC et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532", templates : { twitter : "Field study of parasitic contamination of fruits, vegetables.... González-Ramírez LC et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/12-532/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/132957/163126") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "163126"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "221063": 0, "221062": 0, "221061": 0, "221064": 0, "221523": 0, "221521": 0, "221527": 0, "221531": 0, "221530": 0, "221529": 28, "221528": 0, "221533": 0, "221532": 0, "228643": 0, "228642": 42, "228641": 52, "228640": 0, "254887": 19, "228647": 0, "254886": 0, "228646": 0, "254885": 0, "228645": 0, "254884": 9, "228644": 0, "228649": 0, "228648": 43, "174710": 0, "174711": 0, "174708": 0, "174709": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "27444a3c-6be5-4e96-8f92-210cad2e5ffd"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });