Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Sep 9;20(9):e0331546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331546

Microbial quality assessment of Niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) oil in Gondar city: A laboratory-based cross-sectional study

Lamrot Yohannes 1,*, Tsegaye Adane Birhan 1, Mastewal Endalew 1, Jember Azanaw 1, Fasika Weldegebrel 1
Editor: Charles Odilichukwu R Okpala2
PMCID: PMC12419661  PMID: 40924682

Abstract

Foodborne diseases pose a significant public health challenge worldwide. The increasing availability of edible oils in the market, combined with Ethiopia’s lack of stringent quality control and regulatory oversight, raises concerns about their safety. This inadequacy in regulation may contribute to microbial contamination, leading to potential public health risks. A laboratory-based cross-sectional study was conducted from May to July 2021. Twelve samples of Niger seed oil (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) were collected using a universal sampling technique. In the microbiology laboratory, the samples were aseptically examined for bacterial and fungal contamination using standard microbiological methods and procedures. The collected data were entered and analyzed using Stata Version 14. Mean values and standard deviations were computed, and the results were presented in text and tables. Microbial analysis of the 12 Niger seed oil (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) samples revealed varying levels of bacterial, mold, and coliform contamination. The identified bacterial species included Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, while Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus, and Aspergillus fumigatus were the predominant fungal isolates. The total aerobic bacterial count ranged from 1.3 × 103 to 9.2 × 104 cfu/ml, with the highest recorded mold count reaching 4 × 10⁵ cfu/ml. Additionally, both total and fecal coliform isolates were detected in the samples. The presence of these microorganisms suggests that the oil processing, production, handling, and storage systems lack proper hygienic handling practices. This finding highlights the urgent need for stringent hygiene measures, enhanced quality control protocols, and strict adherence to food safety regulations throughout the production and distribution processes.

Background

Foodborne illnesses pose a significant global public health concern. Vegetable oils are widely consumed by billions of individuals across all age groups. Ideally, edible vegetable oil should be free from harmful microbes, toxic substances, and suspended particles [1,2]. Niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini), also known as noug, is an oilseed crop native to Ethiopia. It accounts for slightly over 25% of the country’s total oilseed production, primarily cultivated in the highlands of Oromia and Amhara. These regions play a crucial role in global Niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) production, with Ethiopia, India, and Myanmar being the leading producers [35].

Niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) is rich in edible oil (40%), protein (20%), and various fatty acids, including linoleic acid (75%–80%), palmitic and stearic acids (7%–8%), and oleic acid (5%–8%) [6,7]. Studies suggest that consuming dietary fats and oils high in linoleic acid may help prevent cardiovascular conditions [8]. Its applications range from culinary uses to medicinal remedies for skin conditions, as well as green manure for soil enhancement. Additionally, it is utilized in the production of soap, paints, lubricants, and illuminants [911].

Seed-borne diseases, such as Aspergillus Niger, A. flavus, Penicillium sp., Alternaria alternata, Rhizoctonia solani, and R. bataticola, have posed significant challenges in India. Similarly, in Ethiopia, Orobanche minor and Dodder have emerged as serious threats in Niger-producing provinces such as Gojam, Gondar, Shoa, and Wellega [4,12,13]. In many developing countries, including Ethiopia, elevated bacterial and fungal contamination levels in vegetable oils are a prevalent concern. This issue is primarily attributed to unsanitary and inadequate hygiene practices during oil ingredient preparation, production, and storage [14]. Such microbial contamination has the potential to cause various illnesses, some of which may lead to severe health complications or even fatalities [15,16].

The edible oil industry operates in various stages, such as plant planting, seed storage, transportation, production, processing, oil storage, and transportation. Security issues at any stage, such as theft, contamination, or improper handling, can adversely affect the quality of the oil product [17]. There are primarily two methods used for extracting oil from seeds on an industrial scale: solvent extraction, which utilizes n-hexane or petroleum ether as the extraction solvent, with a higher temperature affecting the oil’s quality [18], and mechanical oil extraction, which results in a lower oil yield and operates at mild temperatures, ensuring process safety and maintaining product quality [19]. In Ethiopia, the food processing industries are currently facing challenges related to the quality of their products [2022].

In Ethiopia, the projected total production of Niger seed for the marketing year 2020/21 was expected to reach 705,000 metric tons [1]. At the national level, the majority of Niger seed oil available on the market is obtained through mechanical extraction and an informal, small-scale marketing system. Oil produced at smallholder farms is marketed without quality control measures, and hygienic control of oils is not usually conducted on a routine basis. However, this informal marketing system poses a challenge to ensuring oil quality control in urban and non-urban areas [21]. Therefore, in Ethiopia, the production and consumption of Niger seed oils often take place under unsatisfactory conditions. To protect consumers from unhygienic oil consumption, addition of extraneous substance and exposure to pathogenic organisms such kind of study is very crucial. However, no study, to our knowledge, has examined the microbial quality of Niger seed oils. Limited information exists about Niger seed oil’s physicochemical quality [2325]. Our primary objective was to evaluate the microbial quality of Niger seed oil (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini, focusing on (1) bacteriological and (2) fungal contamination. Additionally, we investigated coliforms to provide valuable insights into the oil’s quality. A deeper comprehension of the microbial quality of edible oils will facilitate intervention and quality control efforts. Furthermore, it will incentivize food processing industries, regulatory bodies, and stakeholders to prioritize the enhancement of edible oil quality from the outset.

Materials and methods

Study design and period

From May to July 2021, a laboratory-based cross-sectional study design was carried out.

Study area

The study was conducted in Gondar City, where the edible oil market comprises a significant number of wholesalers and producers. According to data obtained from the Gondar City Trade and Industry Bureau, there are 76 wholesalers of edible oil in the city. Among them, 22 wholesalers supply both imported and locally produced vegetable oil, 43 deal exclusively in locally produced oil, and 11 operate as both edible oil producers and sellers, serving the population of Gondar and its surrounding areas (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study area map showing the location of Gondar Town.

Fig 1

Sample source and study samples

The study’s sample source was all Niger seed oils (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) available in the market in Gondar City, and the study samples were obtained from oils registered with the Gondar Trade and Industry Bureau and the Ethiopian Food and Drug Administration Authority.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This study comprised Niger seed oils that were licensed and registered by the Ethiopian Food and Drug Administration Authority (EFDA) and the Gondar Trade and Industry Bureau and that were sold in the Gondar market. Excluded from consideration were oils with poorly readable labels, missing manufacturing and expiration dates, and improper labeling.

Sample size and sampling technique

The current study used a universal sampling technique, which included all 12 brands of Niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) oil samples that were available in the city’s market. The eight locations from which the samples were acquired were Kebele (smallest administrative unit, essentially a neighborhood or village) 7, 8, 9, 18, 11, 10, 15, and 20.

Materials

A bio-safety hood, an autoclave, an incubator, a refrigerator (RT34M3723S8/HL/2017 model), and a microscope (CX21FS1 model) were used during the microbiological analysis.

Sampling procedure

Twelve Niger seed oil samples were aseptically collected by three Environmental Health professionals from eight locations in Gondar City using 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks and 250 ml of pre-packaged edible oil. Care was taken to prevent air exposure and contamination of the flasks before and during sample collection. The samples were then promptly transported to the laboratory in an icebox maintained at 4°C. Upon arrival, they were stored in a refrigerator until microbial analysis was performed. Polysorbate 20 was added to enhance emulsification during sample suspension preparation, and all samples were analyzed within 24 hours of collection [26].

Microbial analysis of oil samples

For the analysis, five distinct growth media were prepared. Nutrient agar, potato dextrose agar (for molds), mannitol salt agar (for Staphylococcus aureus), and MacConkey agar (for bacterial isolation) were each dissolved in one liter of distilled water. Additionally, membrane lauryl sulfate broth was prepared for the isolation of total and fecal coliform bacteria. Each medium was sterilized via autoclaving at 121°C and 15 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure for 15 min.

All essential laboratory equipment, including Petri dishes and volumetric flasks, underwent thorough sterilization. To facilitate the growth of bacteria, coliforms, and molds, buffered peptone water was prepared for the serial dilution process. The incubator temperature was carefully adjusted to a range of 28°C to 37°C to support optimal microbial growth.

Aerobic plate count

Aerobic Plate Count/APC/ at 30oC/48 hours: Approximately 25 milliliters of oil samples were mixed with 225 milliliters of sterile buffered peptone water. Five- to 6-fold serial dilutions were prepared. Plate Count Agar (PCA) was inoculated with 1 ml aliquots of each dilution using the pour plate method. The plates were incubated at 30°C for 72 hours. After incubation, plates containing 25–300 colonies were selected for colony counting. The results were expressed as colony-forming units (cfu) per milliliter [27].

Isolation of bacteria

From each sample, 1 ml of edible oil was transferred into 9 milliliters of sterile saline solution and thoroughly homogenized. The homogenized samples were then serially diluted up to six times. After dilution, 100 µl (0.1 ml) of the serially diluted oil samples were plated onto pre-prepared MacConkey Agar (MAC) and Mannitol Salt Agar (MSA) plates. The plates were incubated at 37°C for 24–48 hours. Each dilution was plated in duplicate. After incubation, plates containing 25–250 colonies were selected for colony counting. The results were reported as colony-forming units (cfu) per milliliter [28].

Isolation of fungi

Each edible oil sample (1 ml, ml) was diluted in 9 milliliters of 0.9% sterile saline solution and thoroughly homogenized. After homogenization, the samples were serially diluted up to six times and plated in duplicate on potato dextrose agar (PDA) using 100 µl (0.1 ml) aliquots. The plates were incubated at 28°C for five to seven days. Each dilution was plated in duplicate. After incubation, colonies ranging from 10 to 35 were enumerated, and the results were expressed as colony-forming units (cfu) per milliliter [27].

Enumeration, isolation, and identification of total and fecal coliforms

For the analysis of total and fecal coliforms, 1 ml (ml) of each oil sample was diluted in 100 milliliters of sterilized distilled water and filtered through a Millipore membrane filter (45 µm) using a vacuum pump. A membrane lauryl sulfate medium was placed inside an absorbent pad. The membrane-filtered samples were then placed on the membrane lauryl sulfate medium in an aluminum Petri dish. The total and fecal coliform counts were determined by incubating the plates at 37°C for total coliforms and 44°C for fecal coliforms for 18–24 hours. After incubation, yellow colonies were counted as coliforms in both cases. The microbial load (cfu/ml) was calculated using the following formula [29]:

N (for bacteria and fungi) = number of colonies/volumes of oil sample added on a plate*dilution factor*number of plates

Fecal Coliform = (number of colonies/volumes filtered) *100
Total Coli form = (number of fluorescent colonies + number of blue colonies and nonfluorescent colonies)/volume of sample filtered*100

Microbial identification was conducted using standard methods described in the medical laboratory manual, microbiological standards, and basic medical microbiology literature [30,31]. The types of bacteria, coliforms, and fungal species were identified based on established protocols.

Identification of isolates

Cultural (macroscopic) characterization of bacterial and fungal isolates.

Five isolates were obtained from each young culture, and 0.1 milliliters (ml) of each isolate was extracted. The extracted samples were then spread onto a nutrient agar medium and incubated at 37°C for three days. After the incubation period, the bacterial isolates were identified based on colony morphology, including variations in size, color, and form. The observations were systematically recorded. For macroscopic identification, a standard mycological identification method was employed, considering the appearance and cultural characteristics of the bacterial and fungal isolates (H. L. J. I. g. o. i. f. Barnett, 1960; [32]).

Microscopic characterization for bacterial and fungal isolates

Gram stain for bacteria.

Five bacterial isolates from a young culture were heat-fixed on slides and subjected to Gram staining. Cells were stained with crystal violet for 1 min, rinsed, treated with Gram’s iodine for 1 min, rinsed twice (a gentle water spray, then 30 seconds in alcohol), and counterstained with safranin for 1 min. After blotting dry, slides were examined under a 1000x oil-immersion microscope (Olympus CX21FS1). Bacterial morphology and Gram reaction guided identification, supplemented by biochemical characterization per Bergey’s Manual [32].

Microscopic identification of fungi using lactophenol blue staining

A fungal culture sample was mounted on a clean slide, stained with lactophenol blue, and covered with a coverslip. Microscopic examination was performed under a light microscope. Identification was based on hyphal and conidiophore features, referencing Enemuor and colleagues [33] and Barnett and Hunter [34].

Biochemical characterization of bacterial isolates

After Gram staining, the isolated bacteria underwent several biochemical tests, including the triple sugar iron (TSI) test, citrate utilization test, urease test, motility test, and carbohydrate fermentation test (starch hydrolysis test). These tests were conducted following the protocols described by [35,36].

Data processing, management, and analysis

The raw data was coded and transferred to Microsoft Excel 2016, then exported to STATA for further analysis. To ensure accuracy, consistency, and completeness, data cleaning was performed to identify and correct any missing values or variables. The mean and standard deviation were computed, and results were presented using text and tables.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The faculty’s Institutional Review Board examined and approved this work. Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional review board of the Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar. A permission letter was also obtained from the Gondar Trade and Industry office. Written informed consent was taken after explaining the purpose of the study. Confidentiality of the information was maintained thoroughly by excluding names as identification in the data and keeping their privacy during data collection, and also individual results were kept secure.

Result

Enumerative value of microbes in the oil

In the current study, the highest enumeration value on MSA was 9.7 × 104 cfu/ml, while the highest fecal and total coliform counts were 4 cfu/ml and 1,350 cfu/ml, respectively, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Colony count from Niger seed oil samples in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

No Name of Oil Total aerobic bacterial count (cfu/ml) Microbial load on MSA (cfu/ml) Microbial load on MAC (cfu/ml) Microbial load on PDA (cfu/ml) Fecal coli form (cfu/ml) Total Coli form (cfu/ml)
1 T1 1.34 × 103 2 × 104 7 × 104 1 × 104 0 109
2 L 9.2 × 104 1.42 × 102 2.21 × 102 2 × 104 2 1,350
3 Y 9.1 × 104 0 6 × 104 0 0 135
4 K1 1.16 × 103 9.7 × 104 1.6 × 103 4 × 105 0 72
5 D 1.76 × 103 2.5 × 103 3 × 104 1 × 104 0 252
6 Z 9.2 × 104 9 × 104 1.32 × 102 1 × 104 0 18
7 K2 7.5 × 104 1.1 × 103 4 × 104 3 × 104 0 63
8 M 8.3 × 103 3 × 104 3.3 × 103 0 4 21
9 N 3.5 × 104 3.2 × 103 1.89 × 104 3 × 104 0 26
10 F 2.1 × 103 0 0 4 × 103 2 173
11 A 1.23 × 103 1.5 × 102 3.4 × 102 2 × 105 0 79
12 T2 4.5 × 103 6 1.5 × 102 1 × 104 3 312

Niger seed oil samples were examined, revealing a varying number of bacteria, coliforms, and/or molds. Table 2 indicates that the highest aerobic mesophilic bacterial count recorded in the examined edible oil samples was 9.2 × 104 cfu/ml, with a mean count of 3.4 × 104 ± 4 × 104 cfu/ml. Additionally, the mean total coliform count was 2.1 × 102 ± 3.5 × 102 cfu/ml (Table 2).

Table 2. Statistical results of different microbes of examined Niger seed oil samples in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

Type of test/organisms Minimum Maximum Mean ±Standard error Minimum Maximum Mean ±SD (standard deviation)
Total aerobic mesophilic bacterial plate count at 37°C/48 hours 1.3 × 103 9.2 × 104 3.4 × 104 4 × 104
Microbial load at 22°C/7days in PDA media A 4 × 105 6 × 104 1.1 × 105
Microbial load in MSA media A 9.7 × 104 2.4 × 104 3.2 × 104
Microbial load in MAC media A 7 × 104 2.1 × 104 2.4 × 104
Total coliforms 18 1,350 2.1 × 102 3.5 × 102
Fecal coliforms A 4 1 1.5

A - absent.

Isolation and morphological characterization of isolated bacteria and fungi

Based on the macroscopic characteristics of the bacterial isolates, the A1–A5 isolates from MSA media appeared as round/cocci, yellowish colonies and were relatively small in size. The B1–B5 isolates from MAC media formed flat, smooth, colorless, and medium-sized colonies, whereas the C1–C5 isolates from MAC media exhibited mucoid, pink, and relatively small-sized colonies (Table 3).

Table 3. Colonial, morphological characteristics of the isolated bacteria in Niger seed oil samples collected in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

Characteristics of isolated bacteria Isolate A1-A5 from MSA Isolate B1-B5 from MAC Isolate C1-C5 from MAC
Colony color Yellowish Colorless Pink
Colony shape Round Flat and smooth Mucoid
Colony size Small Medium Small

Regarding fungal morphological characterization, the five initial fungal isolates (A1–A5) obtained from PDA media displayed large, black, powdery colonies, along with septate hyphae and elongated conidiophores. Subsequently, genus identification was performed, as outlined in Table 4.

Table 4. Cultural and morphological characteristics of the fungi iolates in Niger seed oil samples in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

Morphological Characteristics Isolate A1-A5 on PDA Isolate B1-B5 on PDA Isolate C1-C5 on PDA
Cultural characteristic Big and Yellow to green colonies Big and Black powdery growth Relatively big and Dark green to gray
Microscopic
Morphology
Characteristic
Conidiophores vary in length, spiny and rough septate Septate hyphae, long conidiophores Septate hyphae, short or long conidiophores
Identification under
Genus
Aspergillus flavus Aspergillus niger Aspergillus fumigatus

Following the Gram reaction test, the A1–A5 and C1–C5 isolates were Gram-negative, while the B1–B5 isolates were Gram-positive. After conducting biochemical characterization, the bacteria present in the oil samples were identified at the genus level as Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae (Table 5).

Table 5. Biochemical characterization of isolated bacteria in Niger seed oil samples in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

Medias Isolate A1-A5 on MAC Isolate B1-B5 on MAC Isolate C1-C5 on MSA
Gram stain Gram reaction test -ve +ve -ve
Cell structure Rod-shaped Round/ cocci Rod-shaped
Biochemical test Tsi +ve -ve -ve
Gas production +ve -ve +ve
Citrate test +ve +ve +ve
Urease test -ve +ve +ve
Motility test +ve -ve -ve
Starch hydrolase test -ve -ve -ve
Catalase test +ve +ve +ve
Oxidase test +ve -ve -ve
Identification under Genus Pseudomonas aeruginosa Staphylococcus aureus Klebsiella pneumoniae

(+): Positive, (-): Negative.

The microorganisms identified in the oil samples included three bacterial species, three mold species, and total and fecal coliform isolates (Table 6).

Table 6. Microorganisms isolated from the Niger seed oil samples in Gondar City, Northwest, Ethiopia (N = 12), 2021.

Bacteria Mold Coliform
Staphylococcus aureus Aspergillus niger Total coliform
Klebsiella pneumonia Aspergillus flavus Fecal coliform
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Aspergillus fumigatus

Discussion

The quality of edible oil is ensured when manufacturing equipment, production processes, and sanitary and environmental hygiene conditions are properly maintained during processing, packaging, storage, and handling [37]. The current study assessed the microbial quality of Niger seed oils in Ethiopia. The total aerobic mesophilic bacterial plate count ranged from 1.3 × 103 to 9.2 × 104 cfu/ml. The highest mold count recorded in Niger seed oil samples was 4 × 10⁵ cfu/ml. Total and fecal coliforms were also detected, with minimum and maximum values ranging from 4 to 1,350 cfu/ml, respectively.

In our survey, the total aerobic bacterial plate count had a minimum value of 1.3 × 103 cfu/ml and a maximum value of 9.2 × 104 cfu/ml, which is lower than the standard set by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) and the the Codex Alimentarius standard [38]. These standards specify a limit of 10⁵ cfu/ml for aerobic mesophilic bacteria or total heterotrophic bacteria [39]. The values recorded in our study are also lower than those reported in a study conducted in Cameroon on crude palm oil, which had a maximum of 36.41 × 104 cfu/ml and a minimum of 17.14 × 104 cfu/ml [40]. However, they are slightly higher than findings from Gondar Town, where the aerobic plate count was 4.95 × 103 ± 2.76 × 103 cfu/ml [41] and a study conducted in Addis Ababa, which reported a mean count of 2.61 × 104 ± 1.47 × 104 cfu/ml [41]. Our findings are consistent with those of a Nigerian study, which reported a mean count ranging from 1.61 × 104 to 9.4 × 104 cfu/ml [39]. The observed differences in microbial counts may be attributed to variations in the types of seeds used in this study compared to previous research, which focused on oils such as olive and palm. Additionally, differences in production processes, processing methods, and storage conditions for both seeds and oils, as well as exposure to heat during marketing, may contribute to these variations. Generally, aerobic mesophilic organisms are known to cause food spoilage, including the deterioration of edible oils. Specifically, certain microorganisms produce lipase enzymes, which play a significant role in the degradation of edible oils, as suggested by [42,43].

In addition, the presence of Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was confirmed in MSA and MAC media in the oil samples, with the highest count reaching 9 × 104 cfu/ml and mean values of 3.2 × 104 cfu/ml and 2.4 × 104 cfu/ml, respectively. Bacterial contamination can accelerate oil deterioration, leading to off-flavors, rancidity, and textural changes. This reduces shelf life and overall product quality, ultimately impacting consumer satisfaction and marketability.

These bacteria are known pathogens that can cause foodborne illnesses when ingested. Staphylococcus aureus is a primary cause of food poisoning, particularly in foods that require extensive handling during preparation, which increases the risk of staphylococcal contamination. According to Levine (1938), almost all S. aureus strains produce exotoxins, and certain strains can cause food poisoning in humans upon consumption. Additionally, some data suggest that coliform bacteria may exhibit similar contamination risks [44].

Lima and colleagues [45] suggest that improper handling of products or contamination of raw materials (such as plants and seeds) may contribute to the presence of these bacteria [45]. Contamination can occur before harvest due to exposure to polluted soil, manure, irrigation water, or animal feces. These pathogens can adhere to plant leaves or penetrate plants through the endophytic root system or leaves [46,47]. Additionally, asymptomatic human carriers may introduce contamination during harvest, while post-harvest contamination can occur through contact with contaminated water or exposure to an unsanitary production environment. Beyond Staphylococcus aureus, Gram-negative bacteria such as K. pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are opportunistic pathogens capable of causing severe infections, including septicemia, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and soft tissue infections. These infections pose a significant risk, particularly for individuals with weakened immune systems.

The fungal load in this study ranged from 0 to 4 × 10⁵ cfu/ml, with a mean count of 6 × 104 ± 1.1 × 10⁵ cfu/ml, which is higher than the acceptable fungal load limit in vegetable oils (104 cfu/ml) for aerobic mesophilic fungi, as established by NAFDAC [39] and the Codex Codex Alimentarius standard [38]. This finding is higher than that of a study conducted in Addis Ababa, which reported a mean count of 4.1 × 104 ± 4.48 × 102 cfu/ml [43], as well as studies conducted in Gondar City and by Okechalu and colleagues [39].

According to [48], molds and yeasts are spoilage microorganisms that can alter product texture and flavor, potentially leading to toxicity. Molds produce extracellular lipase enzymes, which, at high levels, can cause respiratory issues, allergic reactions, and product degradation. Moreover, molds generate mycotoxins, which pose severe health risks to both humans and animals. Similar findings in Nigeria revealed that high concentrations of yeasts and molds in edible oil result in the secretion of extracellular lipases, contributing to oil degradation [49].

As Jaya [50] further suggest, fungi play a significant role in oilseed storage, particularly under suboptimal conditions. Their study evaluated factors affecting oilseed quality during storage, emphasizing how seed mycoflora influences both the quality and quantity of oil in oilseed crops. Specifically, Actinomycetes were identified as the primary agents responsible for Niger seed infection, with occurrences reported across all types of storage containers during the storage period. The study found the highest incidence of infection in plastic containers. Additionally, apart from Actinomycetes, five different fungal species were reported to infect Niger seeds [50].

Aspergillus niger, A. flavus, Alternaria alternata, Alternaria sp., Rhizopus nigricans, Rhizoctonia bataticola, and septate sterile fungal mycelium were also reported by Siddaramiah and colleagues to be associated with Niger seed oils [16,51,52]. Additionally, Mehrotra and Aggarwal (2005) reported that A. flavus can cause tissue softening and necrosis [53]. Various studies have also examined the link between A. niger and plant diseases that cause significant financial losses [5456]. Moreover, several studies have documented that Aspergillus species are capable of producing mycotoxins, which can lead to a range of health issues affecting multiple bodily systems, including the liver, kidneys, nervous system, skin, respiratory system, and digestive organs. Additionally, these fungi are known to produce aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, and fumonisin B2 when present in stored oil and other food commodities.

In the current study, coliforms were detected in the majority of oil samples. Total coliforms were found to be within a range of 18–1,350 cfu/ml, with a mean value of 2.1 × 102 ± 3.5 × 102 cfu/ml. This result exceeds the standard for edible vegetable oils, which is 102 cfu/ml for coliforms [39]. The presence of coliform bacteria in edible oils is a significant indicator of microbial contamination, suggesting potential health risks and compromised product quality. Their detection indicates possible contamination from environmental sources or during processing. However, this value is lower than that reported in a study conducted in Addis Ababa [43], which found a mean value of 6.6 × 104 ± 2.62 × 102 cfu/ml [43]. Fecal coliforms were present in four oil samples, which is lower than findings from other studies, where values of 1.6 × 104 and 3.28 × 103 cfu/ml were reported [43]. Since coliforms originate from sources similar to those of pathogenic organisms, they respond similarly to environmental conditions and treatments, often serving as indicators of pathogen presence. The detection of fecal coliforms in edible oils often points to unhygienic handling, processing, or storage practices. However, research suggests that food poisoning is not primarily attributed to coliforms, as humans possess a certain level of resistance to the toxins produced by coliform bacteria. Instead, coliform concentration is considered an indicator of overall hygienic conditions during oil production and handling, as well as the effectiveness of contamination control measures [39,57,58].

Nevertheless, high levels of coliforms can negatively impact the sensory attributes and shelf life of the oil, leading to deterioration in quality and decreased consumer satisfaction. Additionally, the presence of coliform bacteria in Niger seed oil can harm the product’s reputation and the brand associated with it. Consumers may lose trust in the safety and quality of the oil, resulting in decreased demand and potential economic losses for producers and manufacturers.

Strength and limitation

This study provides valuable baseline data on the microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Ethiopia, addressing a critical knowledge gap. It employs standardized and rigorous microbiological methods for isolation, enumeration, and identification of key bacterial and fungal contaminants, ensuring reliable results. The findings are contextualized through comparisons with national and international standards, underscoring public health relevance. By identifying potentially harmful microorganisms, the study offers important insights for food safety stakeholders and lays a foundation for improving hygienic practices and quality control in edible oil production and distribution.

A limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which reflects microbial contamination at a single point in time and does not capture possible seasonal or temporal variations. The analysis primarily focused on culturable bacterial and fungal contaminants, without the use of molecular techniques or assessment of other microbial pathogens and mycotoxins. Future research incorporating molecular methods could offer more precise identification and enhanced safety evaluation. Additionally, longitudinal studies would be valuable to observe changes in contamination over time.

Conclusions

Foodborne diseases and instances of food poisoning stemming from microbial contamination of edible seed oils are a significant global public health and food safety concern. Effective regulation of these issues becomes more manageable when there is a clear understanding of the quality of edible seed oils and regular assessments thereof. The microorganisms isolated in this study encompass indicator organisms, fungi, and potentially harmful bacteria. Any detection of these microorganisms at any point along the processing, packaging, and retail stages indicates that the oil may not meet cleanliness standards. Ingesting this contaminated edible oil can pose health risks, exacerbated by the presence of food-spoiling organisms, particularly molds, which accelerate the oil’s degradation. This underscores the importance and requirement of implementing stringent hygiene practices, quality control measures, and adherence to food safety regulations throughout the production and distribution process through coordinated efforts to enhance the safety of edible oil in Ethiopia. Additionally, local manufacturers should be subjected to stringent quality and safety control measures, while investors should be encouraged through incentives to develop and use innovative and updated technologies for edible oil production.

Implication of the study

This study highlights critical public health concerns related to the microbial contamination of Niger seed oil in Gondar City, emphasizing the need for stringent hygiene practices and regulatory oversight. The detection of pathogenic bacteria and molds suggests potential risks to consumer health and underscores the importance of routine quality control and food safety monitoring. These findings provide valuable evidence to inform policymakers, producers, and health authorities in developing targeted interventions to improve edible oil safety, thereby protecting public health and enhancing market confidence in locally produced oils.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the University of Gondar, Gondar Trade and Industry office, study participants, and facilitators.

Abbreviations

APC

Aerobic Plate Count

CFU

Coliform Units

EFDA

Ethiopian Food and Drug Administration

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FC

Fecal Coliform

HACCP

Hygiene and Critical Control Point

MAC

MacConkey

ML

Mililiter

MSA

Mannitol Salt Agar

NAFDAC

National Agent for Food and Drug Administration and Control

PCA

Plate Count Agar

PDA

Potato Dextrose Agar

QMS

Quality Management System

TC

Total Coliform

TSI

Triple Sugar Iron

WHO

World Health Organization.

Data Availability

The dataset is freely available in the paper for other researchers.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Panday A, Sharma S, Bisen R, Jain S, Malviya M, Ranganatha AJTISOOR. Niger improvement: Current status and future strategies. 2014.
  • 2.Zhou Y, Zhao W, Lai Y, Zhang B, Zhang D. Edible plant oil: global status, health issues, and perspectives. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1315. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.01315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bhagya S, Shamanthaka Sastry MC. Chemical, functional and nutritional properties of wet dehulled niger (Guizotia abyssinica Cass.) seed flour. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2003;36(7):703–8. doi: 10.1016/s0023-6438(03)00091-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Getinet A, Sharma S. Niger, Guizotia abyssinica (Lf) Cass. 1996.
  • 5.Venkata Rao S, Nagaraj G, Misra R, Haldar JJ. Yield and quality characteristics of nine niger genotypes developed in Orissa. 1996;28:57–9.
  • 6.Dutta PC, Helmersson S, Kebedu E, Alemaw G, Appelqvist L. Variation in lipid composition of niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica Cass.) samples collected from different regions in ethiopia. J Americ Oil Chem Soc. 1994;71(8):839–43. doi: 10.1007/bf02540459 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Syume M, S. Chandravanshi B. Nutrient composition of niger seed (Guizotia abyssinica (L. f.) Cass.) cultivated in different parts of Ethiopia. Bull Chem Soc Eth. 2015;29(3):341. doi: 10.4314/bcse.v29i3.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dagne K, Jonsson A. Oil content and fatty acid composition of seeds of Guizotia Cass (Compositae). J Sci Food Agric. 1997;73(3):274–8. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chavan VJN. Niger and Safflower. 1961. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ramadan MF, Mörsel J-T. Proximate neutral lipid composition of niger (Guizotia abyssinica Cass.) seed. Czech J Food Sci. 2002;20(3):98–104. doi: 10.17221/3518-cjfs [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thatte P, Jyothi Lakshmi A. Nutritional potential, bioaccessibility of minerals and antioxidant properties of niger (Guizotia abyssinicacass.) seed protein. Int J of Food Sci Tech. 2012;47(3):656–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02890.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jakhmola S. Niger grain fly, Diozina sororcula (Wiedemann), a serious pest of niger in central India. 1984.
  • 13.Schmutterer H. Contribution to the knowledge of the crop pest fauna in Ethiopia. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie. 1971;67(1–4):371–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1971.tb02136.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Geleta M, Ortiz R. The importance of Guizotia abyssinica (niger) for sustainable food security in Ethiopia. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2013;60(5):1763–70. doi: 10.1007/s10722-013-9997-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oranusi S, Oguoma O, Agusi EJGR. Microbiological quality assessment of foods sold in student’s cafeterias. Journal of Microbiology. 2013;3(1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Siddaramaiah A, Desai S, Hedge RJM. Effect of seed mycoflora of niger on seed germination and oil content under different moisture levels. J A S. 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hamm W, Hamilton RJ, Calliauw G. Edible oil processing. Wiley Online Library. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Febrianto N, Abdullah W, Yang TJADS. Effect of fermentation time and roasting process on the antioxidant properties of rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum) seed fat. 2012;65:694–702.
  • 19.Bavec F, Grobelnik Mlakar S, Rozman C, Bavec MJII. Oil pumpkins: niche for organic producers. ASHS Press. Alexandria, VA, USA. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lei M. Research on Edible Oil Quality and Safety System. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Merga M. Niger improvement and production in Ethiopia: progress and major challenges. J Innovative Agricul. 2022;9(1):1. doi: 10.37446/jinagri/ra/9.1.2022.1-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.WHO. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. World Health Organization. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hailu GG, Gobosho AA, Teseme WB. Effects of seed roasting on the yield, physicochemical properties, and oxidative stabilities of Niger seed oil. Food and Humanity. 2023;1:219–26. doi: 10.1016/j.foohum.2023.05.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Negera DJE, Development S. Physicochemical characteristics analysis in Niger seed edible oil (Adama) and Linseed edible oil (Bishoftu). J Sci. 2018;5(1):153–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nuru Z, Getachew PJH. Improving the quality of used frying niger seed oil with adsorbent treatment. 2021;7(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 26.Marshall RT. Standard methods for the examination of dairy products. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fawole M, Oso B. Laboratory manual of microbiology. Ibadan, Nigeria: Spectrum Books. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Downes F, Ito K. Compendium of methods for the microbiological examination of foods. USA: American Public Health Association. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Greenwood DR. Practical food microbiology. 3rd edition. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ethiopia FSASAO. Manual of analysis of foods. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nestle. Microbiological specifications. 2014.
  • 32.Garrity G. Bergey’s Manual® of Systematic Bacteriology: Volume 2: The Proteobacteria, Part B: The Gammaproteobacteria. Springer Science & Business Media. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Enemuor S, Adegoke S, Haruna A, Oguntibeju OO. Environmental and fungal contamination of palm oil sold in Anyigba Market, Nigeria. 2012.
  • 34.Barnett HL, Hunter BBJ. Illustrated genera of imperfect fungi. 3rd ed. 1972. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Santhini K, Myla J, Sajani S, Usharani GJBRI. Screening of Micrococcus sp from oil contaminated soil with reference to bioremediation. 2009;2(4):248–52.
  • 36.Vignesh R, Madhusudhanan J, Gandhiraj V, Deepika RC. Screening and characterization of laccase from fungal isolates. 2016.
  • 37.WHO. Food Safety-Food borne diseases and value chain management for food safety. In: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Alimentarius CJC. Codex standard for named vegetable oils. 1999;210:1–13.
  • 39.Okechalu JN, Dashen MM, Lar PM, Okechalu B, Gushop T. Microbiological quality and chemical characteristics of palm oil sold within Jos Metropolis, Plateau State, Nigeria. 2011.
  • 40.Ngangjoh AS, Tatanja NA, Ejoh AR. Spoilage and microbial quality of crude palm oil from the North-west Region of Cameroon. Afr J Food Sci. 2020;14(9):304–12. doi: 10.5897/ajfs2020.1993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gobena W, Girma S, Legesse T, Abera F, Gonfa A, Muzeyin R, et al. Microbial safety and quality of edible oil examined at Ethiopian public health institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A retrospective study. Experimentation. 2018;6:136–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chabiri S, Hati S, Dimari G, Ogugbuaja VJT. Comparative quality assessment of branded and unbranded edible vegetable oils in Nigeria. Journal of Science and Technology. 2009;10(2):927–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tesfaye L, Sahile S, Madhusudhan AJI. Microbial quality and chemical characteristics evaluation of edible oil sold at Gondar Town markets, North West Ethiopia. J M C A S. 2015;2(4):238–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Levine M, Ajwani G, Weldin JJ. The Morgan group of paratyphoids. J P H. 1925;15(1):17–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lima IM, Fogaça LCS. Ocorrência de Staphylococcus aureus em Queijos Minas Padrão Comercializados no Munícipio de Vitória da Conquista - Bahia. IDonline. 2018;13(43):819–27. doi: 10.14295/idonline.v13i43.1565 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gu G, Hu J, Cevallos-Cevallos JM, Richardson SM, Bartz JA, van Bruggen AHC. Internal colonization of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in tomato plants. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kutter S, Hartmann A, Schmid M. Colonization of barley (Hordeum vulgare) with Salmonella enterica and Listeria spp. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2006;56(2):262–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2005.00053.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Heperkan D. Microbiota of table olive fermentations and criteria of selection for their use as starters. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:143. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ibienebo T. Quality assessment of unbranded palm oil distributed in five local markets in Port Harcourt, Rivers State Nigeria. J Food Quality. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Singh J, Paroha S, Mishra RP. Factors Affecting Oilseed Quality during Storage with Special Reference to Soybean (Glycine max) and Niger (Guizotia abyssinica) Seeds. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(10):2215–26. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.262 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Siddaramaiah A. Kulkarni S. Effect of wedicides on the growth of Streptomyces sp. 1980.
  • 52.Siddaramaiah A, Kulkarni S, Basavarajaiah AJCS. Occurrence of a new collar rot disease of niger (Guizotia obyssinica Cass.) in India. 1979.
  • 53.Makun H, Anjorin S, Abidoye A, Rufai A, Kabiru YJAJABS. Incidence and botanical control of seed-borne fungi of cowpea in Niger state, Nigeria. 2012;7:654–8.
  • 54.Anderegg RJ, Biemann K, Büchi G, Cushman M. Malformin C, a new metabolite of Aspergillus niger. J Am Chem Soc. 1976;98(11):3365–70. doi: 10.1021/ja00427a051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Narayana K, Srikanth M, Vijayalakshmi M, Lakshmi N. Toxic spectrum of Aspergillus niger causing black mold rot of onions. 2008.
  • 56.Prakash O. Diseases and disorders of mango and their management. Diseases of Fruits and Vegetables Volume I. Springer Netherlands. 2004. p. 511–619. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2606-4_13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.ControlProgram AT. The nation’s health. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ababa A. Central Statistical Agency. 2011.

Decision Letter 0

Charles Okpala

21 Nov 2024

Dear Dr. Yohannes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please see attached file , as well as comments below

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that the dataset is accessible at the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors, major revision is required, kindly address the comments raised

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory supported cross-sectional study.

The authors are allowed us to understand more about the study by using a material and methods are more details that are facilities for us to analyze the tables result for all microbial quality of Niger seeds. In the discussion is really rich by a lot of information from many studies from the same topic.

Reviewer #2: Dear Chief Editor,

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed Oils in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia" submitted to PLOS ONE. Overall, the study is well-conducted and presents valuable insights into the microbial quality of Niger seed oils. However, I have identified several issues and questions that need to be addressed before publication.

1) There are some typographic errors in this manuscript which must been corrected.

(line 169 [30 °c, hrs], line 213 [-ml])

2) what is the meaning of C in the line 278 in table2 (370C /48hrs) ? centigrade?

3) The authors have reported that the levels of various microbial contaminations are lower than the standards in Ethiopia, except for fungi. What is the rationale for studying oil contamination after evaluating the standard system? How do the findings contribute to existing knowledge or practices?

4) Considering the recent studies mentioned in the manuscript, what is the novelty of this study? What new insights or contributions does this research provide beyond the existing literature?

5) The manuscript requires a thorough review by a native English speaker to address grammatical errors and improve the coherence of the text.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  AIT TAADAOUIT Nezha

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: my review letter.docx

pone.0331546.s001.docx (14.2KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 9;20(9):e0331546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331546.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Feb 2025

Rebuttal letter

Manuscript Title: A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory-supported cross-sectional study

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-29805

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We ensured that we addressed all the concerns raised by the editors and reviewers by revising the manuscript thoroughly. Our response to the reviewer’s comment and question is described in detail on the following pages. Furthermore, the details of changes were shown by track changes in the supplementary document attached. Please feel free to contact us again if there are unaddressed issues.

NB. We make an effort to combine and address related concerns that were presented in various portions of the manuscript.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author’s response: Thank you for your positive assessment. We appreciate the reviewers' acknowledgment that the manuscript is technically sound and that the data support the conclusions. We have ensured that our study design, data collection, and analysis were conducted rigorously with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author’s response: Thank you for recognizing the rigor and appropriateness of our statistical analysis. We ensured that all analyses were conducted using standard and validated statistical methods, with appropriate tests applied based on the nature of the data.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author’s response: Thank you for acknowledging the availability of our data. We have ensured that all data underlying our findings are fully accessible, in accordance with journal guidelines, to support transparency and reproducibility.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Author’s response: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge Reviewer #2’s concern regarding the clarity and language of the manuscript. To address this, we have conducted a thorough revision to improve grammar, coherence, and readability.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters.)

Reviewer #1: A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory-supported cross-sectional study.

The authors allowed us to understand more about the study by using material and methods that are more detailed facilities for us to analyze the tables results for all microbial quality of Niger seeds. The discussion is really rich with a lot of information from many studies on the same topic.

Author’s response: Thank you for your positive feedback on our study. We appreciate your recognition of the detailed methodology, which we aimed to present clearly to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the microbial quality of Niger seed oil. Additionally, we are pleased that you found our discussion section informative and well-supported by relevant literature. Our goal was to provide a thorough comparison with previous studies while highlighting the significance of our findings.

Reviewer #2: Dear Chief Editor,

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed Oils in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia" submitted to PLOS ONE. Overall, the study is well-conducted and presents valuable insights into the microbial quality of Niger seed oils. However, I have identified several issues and questions that need to be addressed before publication.

Author’s response: Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on the quality and significance of our study. We acknowledge that there are areas that require further clarification and improvement. We addressed all the issues and questions you have raised to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and overall quality of the manuscript.

1) There are some typographic errors in this manuscript that must be corrected.

(line 169 [30°c, hrs], line 213 [-ml])

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully reviewed the text and corrected the mentioned errors.

� Line 169: Corrected "[30 °c, hrs]" to "[30°C, hours]" to ensure proper formatting and consistency.

� Line 213: Corrected "[-ml]" to [ml].

2) what is the meaning of C in the line 278 in table2 (370c/48hrs)? centigrade?

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. Here again, we have carefully reviewed the text and corrected the mentioned errors in the revised manuscript. In the notation "37°C / 48 hour\s" found in Table 2, Line 278, the "C" represents degrees Celsius (°C). This means that the incubation or testing condition specified in the table was conducted at 37 degrees Celsius for 48 hours.

3) The authors have reported that the levels of various microbial contaminations are lower than the standards in Ethiopia, except for fungi. What is the rationale for studying oil contamination after evaluating the standard system? How do the findings contribute to existing knowledge or practices?

Author’s response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We would like to clarify that, in the previous version of the manuscript, we mistakenly stated that the coliform levels aligned with the standard. However, upon review, we have corrected this and now acknowledge that the coliform levels exceed the standard. The updated paragraph is as follows: “In the current study, coliforms were detected in the majority of oil samples. Total coliforms were found to be within a range of 18 to 1,350 cfu/ml, with a mean value of 2.1 × 10² ± 3.5 × 10² cfu/ml. This result exceeds the standard for edible vegetable oils, which is 10² cfu/ml for coliforms. (Okechalu et al., 2011). The presence of coliform bacteria in edible oils is a significant indicator of microbial contamination, suggesting potential health risks and compromised product quality. Their detection indicates possible contamination from environmental sources or during processing. However, this value is lower than that reported in a study conducted in Addis Ababa (Tesfaye et al., 2015), which found a mean value of 6.6 × 10⁴ ± 2.62 × 10² cfu/ml (Tesfaye et al., 2015).”. The rationale for studying microbial contamination in Niger seed oil, despite existing standards, stems from the need to assess real-world compliance and safety beyond regulatory frameworks. While Ethiopia has established microbial quality standards for edible oils, limited empirical studies have evaluated whether locally available Niger seed oil meets these standards, particularly in informal or small-scale production settings.

Our findings contribute to existing knowledge by identifying fungi and coliforms as a notable contaminant, highlighting a potential gap in quality control measures. This suggests the need for stricter monitoring, improved storage conditions, and possible revisions to current microbial safety protocols. Additionally, understanding contamination patterns can inform public health interventions and enhance consumer safety by encouraging best practices in oil production and storage.

Additionally, this study contributes to both scientific knowledge and practical food safety improvements in the following ways:

� Identification of Fungal and Coliforms Contamination as a Major Concern:

o While bacterial contamination levels were found to be within standard limits, the high fungal and coliform load highlights a critical gap in existing microbial quality control measures for edible oils. This finding urges further investigation into the sources of fungal and coliform contamination and potential mitigation strategies, such as improved drying, storage, and antifungal treatment of seeds.

� Comparative Analysis with Other Studies and Global Standards:

o By comparing the microbial quality of Niger seed oil with studies conducted in Ethiopia, Nigeria, Cameroon, and other regions, this research contextualizes the findings within a broader international framework. It helps assess whether Ethiopia’s microbial standards align with global best practices or require adjustments.

� Informing Policy and Industry Practices:

o The study provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, regulatory agencies, and food producers. If fungal and coliform contamination is prevalent, stakeholders may need to introduce stricter monitoring, better packaging solutions, or guidelines for proper storage at both industrial and retail levels.

� Consumer Awareness and Health Implications:

o The findings raise awareness about potential health risks associated with contaminated edible oils. This can guide public health initiatives, educate consumers on proper oil storage, and encourage manufacturers to adopt better hygiene practices.

� Enhancing Food Safety Research in Ethiopia:

o This study adds to the growing body of research on food safety in Ethiopia, particularly concerning edible oil contamination. It provides a foundation for future studies exploring factors such as the role of temperature, humidity, and packaging materials in microbial growth.

� Encouraging Innovations in Oil Processing and Preservation:

o The study's findings may encourage technological advancements in oil processing, including the use of antifungal treatments, better filtration techniques, and improved preservation methods to enhance the microbiological safety of Niger seed oil.

4) Considering the recent studies mentioned in the manuscript, what is the novelty of this study? What new insights or contributions does this research provide beyond the existing literature?

Author’s response: The novelty of this study lies in its focused assessment of the microbial quality of Niger seed oil specifically within Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia, conducted in 2021. While previous research has evaluated the microbial quality of various edible oils in Ethiopia, this study provides a targeted analysis of Niger seed oil, which is a staple in the region.

Key Contributions Beyond Existing Literature:

� Specific Focus on Niger Seed Oil:

o Prior studies have predominantly assessed the microbial quality of a range of edible oils without isolating Niger seed oil. This study fills that gap by concentrating exclusively on Niger seed oil, providing detailed insights into its microbial safety.

� Identification of Specific Microbial Contaminants:

o This research identifies specific bacterial strains, including Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, as well as fungal species like Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus, and Aspergillus fumigatus. Such detailed identification of contaminants in Niger seed oil has not been extensively reported in previous studies, thereby contributing new data to the field.

� Highlighting Fungal and Coliform Contamination Concerns:

o The study reveals that, fungal and coliform counts exceeded national guidelines. This finding underscores a specific public health concern regarding fungal and coliform contamination in Niger seed oil, which has not been prominently featured in earlier research.

� Implications for Local Production Practices:

o By pinpointing contamination sources, the study offers practical recommendations for local producers. Emphasizing the need for improved hygiene and quality control during oil processing and storage, the research provides actionable insights that can enhance food safety practices in the region.

In summary, this study advances existing knowledge by delivering a focused analysis of the microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City, identifying specific contaminants, and offering targeted recommendations to improve production practices, thereby addressing a critical gap in the literature.

5) The manuscript requires a thorough review by a native English speaker to address grammatical errors and improve the coherence of the text.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring grammatical accuracy and coherence in the manuscript. To address this, we carefully revised the text to improve clarity, readability, and overall flow. We appreciate your suggestion, and we have made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Decision Letter 1

Charles Okpala

12 May 2025

Dear Dr. Yohannes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors, please kindly attend to the corrections observed by reviewer.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed responses and thoughtful revisions to the manuscript titled "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed Oils in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia." I appreciate the effort you have invested in addressing the concerns raised.

The typographic and formatting issues have been corrected appropriately.

The clarification of "C" in Table 2 is accurate and resolves the query.

The rationale and significance of the study, as well as its contributions to existing knowledge and public health practices, are now well-articulated.

The novelty and specific focus on Niger seed oil are clearly demonstrated, adding substantial value to the literature.

Revisions to improve grammar and coherence have been noted, and I trust these have enhanced the manuscript’s readability.

Overall, your responses comprehensively address the feedback provided. I recommend this revised manuscript for acceptance and publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer #2

Reviewer #3: The authors of the article "A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory supported

cross-sectional study" described microbial analysis of oil derived from plant Guizotia abyssinica (L.f.) Cass.

In my opinion article requires major corrections:

1. The title should be more informative.

2. The whole botanical name of plant should be given.

3. The Abstract should be changed, it is divided in 5 parts.

4. It is unsual to cite Microsoft Excel 2016 in the article (line 39).

5. Why is it important to describe data for sesame oil or soybean in this article?

6. The section Methods should be completely rewritten- why did the authors descrbe the location and the other characteristic for city Gondar?

7. What is Kebele (line 141)?

8. It is unusual to describe all used in laboratory equipment as gloves, Burner bunsen, spatula etc. in research article. It should be changed.

9. Table 3 "Pseudomonas. A; Klebsiella pneumonie" they should be corrected.

10. We have 2 tables 1 and 2, but no table 4 or 5.

11. Table 6- many microorganism names written with mistake.

12. line 196 "Diane Roberts provided"- in my opinion citation is enough.

13. lines 198-199- the number of plate is in this formula?

14. Gram staining is descibed in details.

15. "Gram staining for fungi"???

16. Table 2- SD equal to 4x10^4????

17. Line 360-which pathogens did the authors mean?

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Sepideh Asadi

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 9;20(9):e0331546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331546.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Jun 2025

Rebuttal letter

Manuscript Title: A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory-supported cross-sectional study

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-29805

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript. We ensured that we addressed all the concerns raised by the editors and reviewers by revising the manuscript thoroughly. Our response to the reviewer’s comment and question is described in detail on the following pages. Furthermore, the details of changes were shown by track changes in the supplementary document attached. Please feel free to contact us again if there are unaddressed issues.

NB. We make an effort to combine and address related concerns that were presented in various portions of the manuscript.

Comments to the Author

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict-of-interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Author’s response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback throughout the review process. We are grateful that all comments have been thoroughly addressed to your satisfaction.

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Author’s response: We thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of the technical aspects of our manuscript. We are pleased that Reviewer #2 finds the study technically sound and the data supportive of our conclusions. We appreciate Reviewer #3’s partial agreement and would be grateful for any specific concerns or suggestions to further clarify or strengthen the rigor of our experiments.

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Author’s response: We thank the reviewers for their careful consideration of the statistical analysis in our study. We are glad that Reviewer #2 finds the statistical methods appropriate and rigorous. We appreciate Reviewer #3’s concerns and take them seriously. If Reviewer #3 could specify particular aspects of the analysis that require improvement or further explanation, we would be happy to incorporate those suggestions to strengthen the statistical validity of our findings.

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Author’s response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for confirming that all data underlying our findings have been made fully available in accordance with PLOS’s Data Policy.

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Author’s response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their positive assessment of the clarity and quality of the manuscript’s language.

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed responses and thoughtful revisions to the manuscript titled "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed Oils in Gondar City, Northwest Ethiopia." I appreciate the effort you have invested in addressing the concerns raised.

The typographic and formatting issues have been corrected appropriately.

The clarification of "C" in Table 2 is accurate and resolves the query.

The rationale and significance of the study, as well as its contributions to existing knowledge and public health practices, are now well-articulated.

The novelty and specific focus on Niger seed oil are clearly demonstrated, adding substantial value to the literature.

Revisions to improve grammar and coherence have been noted, and I trust these have enhanced the manuscript’s readability.

Overall, your responses comprehensively address the feedback provided. I recommend this revised manuscript for acceptance and publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer #2

Reviewer #3: The authors of the article "A review of microbial quality of Niger seed oil in Gondar City: a laboratory supported cross-sectional study" described microbial analysis of oil derived from plant Guizotia abyssinica (L.f.) Cass.

In my opinion article requires major corrections:

1. The title should be more informative.

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. Here is our updated article title which will make it more informative “Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) Oil in Gondar City: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study”.

2. The whole botanical name of plant should be given.

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. In the current manuscript, we have added the whole botanical name of the plant Niger throughout the manuscript which is “(Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini)”.

3. The Abstract should be changed; it is divided in 5 parts.

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. Currently the abstract is corrected and the headers are removed. In addition, currently, it only contains “Background, Methodology/Principal Findings, and Conclusions/Significance” as per the instruction in the submission guideline of the Journal.

4. It is unsual to cite Microsoft Excel 2016 in the article (line 39).

Author’s response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have removed Microsoft Excel 2016 citation from the article as per the suggestion.

5. Why is it important to describe data for sesame oil or soybean in this article?

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable question. We totally agree that it is not important to describe data about sesame and soybean oil here, so we deleted it from the text as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

6. The section Methods should be completely rewritten- why did the authors describe the location and the other characteristic for city Gondar?

Author’s response: Thank you for your instructive comment and question. We have described the location and characteristics of Gondar City in the Methods section to provide essential contextual background that justifies the study setting and enhances the relevance of the findings. Gondar is a key cultural and economic hub in northwest Ethiopia with a substantial population and a notable edible oil market, including numerous wholesalers and producers of both imported and locally produced oils. We thought that detailing the city’s geographic, demographic, and market features helps readers understand the local dynamics affecting edible oil production, distribution, and consumption, which are critical for interpreting microbial contamination risks and quality control challenges specific to this context.

But now we have agreed with the suggestion of the reviewer and we only put the description of Gondar’s edible oil market structure-such as the number and types of wholesalers and producers which highlights the complexity and scale of oil supply chains in the area underscoring the importance of evaluating microbial quality in oils marketed there.

7. What is Kebele (line 141)?

Author’s response: Thank you for your question. The meaning of Kebele in the manuscript is now defined in bracket as follows “(smallest administrative unit, essentially a neighborhood or village)”.

8. It is unusual to describe all used in laboratory equipment as gloves, Burner bunsen, spatula etc. in research article. It should be changed.

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. It is corrected by removing the detail description of the commonly used laboratory equipment’s as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

9. Table 3 "Pseudomonas. A; Klebsiella pneumonie" they should be corrected.

Author’s response: Thank you for your careful review. Now, it is corrected as per the suggestion of the reviewer in the current manuscript.

10. We have 2 tables 1 and 2, but no table 4 or 5.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. In the revised manuscript, there are six tables in line 271(table 1), line 282(table 2), line292(table 3), lin299(table 4), line306(table 5) and 311(table 6) respectively.

11. Table 6- many microorganism names written with mistake.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. In the current revised manuscript, all microorganism’s names are corrected as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

12. line 196 "Diane Roberts provided"- in my opinion citation is enough.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected it as suggested by the reviewer.

13. lines 198-199- the number of plate is in this formula?

Author’s response: Thank you for your question. Yes, it is to say “number of plates”. We have corrected it from plate – to – plates.

14. Gram staining is descibed in details.

Author’s response: Thank you for your comment. It is corrected as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

15. "Gram staining for fungi"???

Author’s response: Thank you for your question. We have agreed with comment and changed the heading as follows: “Microscopic Identification of Fungi Using Lactophenol Blue Staining”

16. Table 2- SD equal to 4x10^4????

Author’s response: Thank you for your question. The microbial loads for various media were determined, and the results are summarized in Table 2. The mean values represent the average microbial counts, while the standard deviation (SD) indicates the variability within the samples. The standard deviation (SD) quantifies the spread of microbial counts around the mean, reflecting the degree of variability in the samples. For example, the total aerobic mesophilic bacterial count at 37°C showed a mean of 3.4 × 10⁴ CFU with an SD (standard deviation) of 4 × 10⁴, indicating some variability in bacterial populations across replicates.

17. Line 360-which pathogens did the authors mean?

Author’s response: Thank you for your question. The pathogens referred are primarily Staphylococcus aureus strains, which produce exotoxins capable of causing food poisoning in humans upon consumption, as noted by Levine (1938). Additionally, coliform bacteria, including certain strains of Escherichia coli (notably pathogenic strains like E. coli O157:H7), are implicated as potential contaminants posing similar food safety risks.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_WAD.docx

pone.0331546.s002.docx (22.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Charles Okpala

8 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Yohannes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 22 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, authors, thank you for your patience. As you can see, reviewers still have some concerns. Kindly make effort to address the concerns where you can.

For example, condense/shorten the step by step methodology for Gram staining, as well as "A microscopic method for identifying fungi"-

In the Materials section, delete the list of volumetric flasks, Petri dishes, glass rod etc, because these are standard laboratory equipment.

In the section, Data quality assurance and control methods, further condense and shorten it.

Please, address all other concerns raised by the other reviewer.

Looking forward to your revised manuscript

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The authors of the article made a lot of corrections, but in my opinion the work still does not meet the usual standards set for published articles. For example the authors describe methodology for Gram staining step by step; everyone knows how to do it. The same applies to the section "A microscopic method for identifying fungi"- there is a step by step recipe for how to do it.

In the Materials section- the authors list: volumetric flasks, Petri dishes, glass rod etc. Why to do it? It is a standard equipment for every laboratory.

The section Data quality assurance and control methods- should be omitted.

Reviewer #4: The authors on this manuscript "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) Oil in Gondar City: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study," which apparently appraised or revealed Ethiopia's lack of stringent quality control and regulatory oversight, further raising concerns about public health and safety.

They further opined, from their result, that the oil processing, production, handling, and storage systems seemed not to have proper hygienic handling practices.

On careful scrutiny, I could see that the previous reviewers' queries had been addressed, although no table should be allowed to crisscross pages (take note of Table 1, pp. 11-12, and Table 3, pp. 12-13).

Summarily, if the editors are satisfied with the response to the reviewers queries, decision could be made.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Sep 9;20(9):e0331546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331546.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


17 Aug 2025

Rebuttal letter 8/17/2025

Manuscript Title: Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) Oil in Gondar City: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-29805

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript again. We ensured that we addressed all the concerns raised by the editors and reviewers by revising the manuscript thoroughly. Our response to the reviewer’s comment and question is described in detail on the following pages. Furthermore, the details of changes were shown by track changes in the supplementary document attached. Please feel free to contact us again if there are unaddressed issues.

NB. We make an effort to combine and address related concerns that were presented in various portions of the manuscript.

Comments to the Author

Reviewers' comments:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please, authors, thank you for your patience. As you can see, reviewers still have some concerns. Kindly make an effort to address the concerns where you can.

For example, condense/shorten the step-by-step methodology for Gram staining, as well as "A microscopic method for identifying fungi"—

In the Materials section, delete the list of volumetric flasks, Petri dishes, glass rods, etc., because these are standard laboratory equipment.

In the section, Data quality assurance and control methods, further condense and shorten it.

Please, address all other concerns raised by the other reviewer.

Looking forward to your revised manuscript.

Author's response: Thank you very much dear reviewer for your thorough review and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate your patience and thoughtful suggestions.

We have carefully considered all the concerns raised, and we are committed to improving the manuscript accordingly. Specifically:

• The step-by-step methodology for Gram staining and the microscopic method for identifying fungi have been carefully condensed and shortened for clarity and conciseness.

In the Materials section, we have removed the detailed list of standard laboratory equipment (volumetric flasks, Petri dishes, glass rods, etc.) to streamline the presentation and focus on key materials.

• The data quality assurance and control methods section is now deleted as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

• We have thoroughly addressed all other points raised by the reviewers to the best of our ability.

We believe these revisions have improved the manuscript significantly and look forward to your continued guidance.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict-of-interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Author’s response: Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that all your comments and concerns have been adequately addressed. We appreciate your constructive feedback, which greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work.

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

Author’s response: We thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of the technical aspects of our manuscript. We appreciate Reviewer #4’s positive assessment that the study is technically sound and that the data support the conclusions. Regarding Reviewer #3’s comment indicating a partial agreement, we would appreciate further clarification to address any specific concerns they may have.

In our manuscript, we have taken great care to ensure that all experiments were conducted rigorously with appropriate controls and adequate replication as detailed in the methods section. Statistical analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the findings. The conclusions were drawn directly based on the presented data, avoiding overstated interpretations.

If Reviewer #3’s concerns relate to specific experiments or data points, we are happy to provide additional analyses or clarification as needed to strengthen the technical rigor and data support. We are committed to ensuring that the manuscript meets the highest scientific standards and welcome suggestions to improve the clarity and robustness of our study.

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

Author’s response: We thank the reviewers for their evaluation of the statistical analysis employed in our study. We appreciate Reviewer #4’s confirmation that the statistical methods were appropriate and rigorous. Regarding Reviewer #3’s indication of uncertainty, we would like to clarify that the data were carefully managed and analyzed using Stata Version 14. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were computed to summarize microbial counts across samples. Where relevant, serial dilution and colony counting followed standard microbiological quantification protocols to ensure accuracy.

Due to the cross-sectional nature and the descriptive objectives of the study, advanced inferential statistical tests were not deemed necessary. However, if Reviewer #3 seeks additional analysis, such as comparisons across sampling sites or brands, or statistical tests to assess variability, we are willing to provide these upon request. Our primary aim was to reliably characterize the microbial quality of available Niger seed oil products, and we believe the current analysis delivers valid and reproducible results that support our conclusions.

Please let us know if further detail or additional analyses would be helpful.

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Author’s response: We appreciate the reviewers’ positive assessment regarding the availability of data underlying our findings. In accordance with the PLOS data policy, we confirm that all data supporting the conclusions of this study are fully available upon request. We are committed to transparency and reproducibility.

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Author’s response: We sincerely thank the reviewers for their positive evaluation of the manuscript’s clarity and presentation. We have made every effort to ensure that the manuscript is written in clear, correct, and standard English suitable for publication.

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The authors of the article made a lot of corrections, but in my opinion the work still does not meet the usual standards set for published articles. For example the authors describe methodology for Gram staining step by step; everyone knows how to do it. The same applies to the section "A microscopic method for identifying fungi"- there is a step by step recipe for how to do it.

Author’s response: We sincerely thank Reviewer #3 for the constructive feedback and for acknowledging the corrections made in the manuscript. We appreciate the valuable perspective regarding the level of detail provided in certain methodological and materials descriptions.

Our intention in including step-by-step protocols for procedures such as Gram staining and microscopic fungal identification was to ensure full transparency and reproducibility, particularly given the interdisciplinary readership of the journal. While these methods are indeed standard in many microbiology laboratories, we aimed to provide sufficient detail so that readers from diverse backgrounds, including those less familiar with routine microbiological techniques, could fully understand the processes employed in this study. However, we understand the reviewer’s suggestion and totally agree to remove it in the revised manuscript.

In the Materials section- the authors list: volumetric flasks, Petri dishes, glass rod etc. Why to do it? It is a standard equipment for every laboratory.

Author’s response: We sincerely thank you for the constructive comment and question. We included a list of common laboratory equipment to emphasize the rigor and thoroughness of the sample processing environment and to affirm that all materials conformed to standard sterile laboratory practice. However, we understand the reviewer’s suggestion that some of this detail may be unnecessarily extensive for the intended audience. Accordingly, we propose to condense these sections by removing overly detailed stepwise descriptions and standard equipment listings.

The section Data quality assurance and control methods- should be omitted.

Author’s response: We thank you dear reviewer, for the helpful suggestion regarding the "Data quality assurance and control methods" section. We agree that omitting this section will streamline the manuscript and improve its overall clarity and readability. Finally, we have removed it from the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #4: The authors on this manuscript "Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) Oil in Gondar City: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study," which apparently appraised or revealed Ethiopia's lack of stringent quality control and regulatory oversight, further raising concerns about public health and safety.

They further opined, from their result, that the oil processing, production, handling, and storage systems seemed not to have proper hygienic handling practices.

On careful scrutiny, I could see that the previous reviewers' queries had been addressed, although no table should be allowed to crisscross pages (take note of Table 1, pp. 11-12, and Table 3, pp. 12-13).

Summarily, if the editors are satisfied with the response to the reviewers queries, decision could be made.

Author’s response: We sincerely thank Reviewer #4 for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript and for acknowledging that the reviewers’ queries have been appropriately addressed. We appreciate the insightful summary regarding the public health implications of our findings related to the hygiene practices in Niger seed oil processing and handling.

We also appreciate the constructive comment regarding the formatting of tables. We will carefully revise Tables 1 and 3 to ensure that they are presented fully on a single page, avoiding any breaks across pages, to enhance the manuscript’s readability and presentation quality. Thank you again for your valuable feedback and support for the consideration of our manuscript.

Additional changes to the revised manuscript

1. We have included the strengths and limitations of the study.

2. We have outlined the implications of the study.

3. We have also incorporated a map of the study area into the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.KDM.docx

pone.0331546.s003.docx (22.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Charles Okpala

19 Aug 2025

Microbial Quality Assessment of Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica (Linnaeus f.) Cassini) Oil in Gondar City: A Laboratory-Based Cross-Sectional Study

PONE-D-24-29805R3

Dear Dr. Yohannes,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you authors for your diligent efforts. Very acceptable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Charles Okpala

PONE-D-24-29805R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yohannes,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: my review letter.docx

    pone.0331546.s001.docx (14.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_WAD.docx

    pone.0331546.s002.docx (22.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.KDM.docx

    pone.0331546.s003.docx (22.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The dataset is freely available in the paper for other researchers.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES