Evaluation Reports for TEBT-2025-0015 | Zimmerman et al.

Evaluation reports for "An update on micro- and nanoplastics in foods from plastic food contact articles: Protocol for a systematic evidence map" (Zimmerman et al. 2025).

This is a promising first draft of a protocol for a complex and challenging study of the literature about the migration of micro- and nanoplastic particles from food contact materials into foodstuffs. It is well-structured but there are some issues that should be addressed by the authors prior to peer-review, in order to prevent the review process potentially being derailed by excessive focus on trivial issues, and to maximise the quality of reviewer feedback as it relates to improving the validity of a clear and complete planned method.

In terms of the issues that should be addressed, in my comments below I recommend: disambiguating the objectives and consider whether a mapping methodology is appropriate for the study goals; considering whether too much is being done to exclude studies in what ought to be a mapping exercise; testing the search and potentially improving recall, which seems low; looking for opportunities to simplify the screening methodology; using appropriate terminology for the “data mining” methods to prevent confusion for peer-reviewers; reconsidering the study appraisal methods for how the method supports the evidence mapping goals (or synthesis methods, if that is in fact the goal); and considering provision of a sample dataset to allow the data storage methods to be evaluated by the peer-reviewers.

I also have comments on the search and selection methods, but these do not need to be addressed prior to peer-review - unless the authors wish to do so, of course.

Overall, this may sound like a lot of work, but it is a complex study with challenging goals. The authors are experienced in this area and with this methodological approach, so I am confident that the revisions are achievable. I recommend the authors arrange a call with me to discuss my comments in detail, so we can agree on what needs to be done prior to peer-review and what can be addressed later, and also to clarify some of the issues that may not be altogether clear from my comments.