Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCorrigendum
Posted by ChandrasekharanKesavachandran on 24 Jan 2017 at 04:53 GMT
There are following typological errors in the manuscript, which does not affect the scientific integrity of the work. The readers may kindly read the manuscript with following corrections.
In page-3, line-25: Methods: Study design and subjects (2nd paragraph)
Both kitchen workers and control group subjects work between 09.00 –16.00 h per day.
In page-3, line-28: Method: Study design and subjects, (2nd paragraph)
The inclusion criteria for the kitchen workers were: 18–60 years of age, at least three year work experience in kitchen, and absence of any communicable diseases during the study period.
In page-3, line-33: Method: Study design and subjects,(2nd paragraph)
The inclusion criteria for the control subjects were: 18–60 years of age, at least three-year work experience in non-kitchen area (office room), and absence of any communicable diseases during the study period.
In page-4, line-19: Method: Sampling sites and hygiene practices (4th paragraph)
The indoor air quality monitoring was conducted in the selected commercial kitchen during working hours of kitchen workers and other staff (9.00–16.00 h) for single day and study period was during winter in December 2014.
In page-5, line-17: Method: Indoor air sampling for PAHs (3rd paragraph)
Air samples were collected using constant flow motor pump (General Electronic AC Motor, Fortwayne, Indiana, USA) operated at 1.5 L/min and equipped with a glass microfiber filter paper (Whatman, Cat No.1820 866) in the sampling head.
There is typological error in Table 1 regarding range of age in control and in Table 3 regarding the unit of TVOC that should read as follows.
Table 1. Physical characteristics of kitchen workers and controls.
Variable Control (n = 94) Kitchen workers (n= 94) p Value
Age (yrs) 31.7 ± 9.4 (19 – 60) 32.0 ± 8.3 (18 – 53) p = 0.8
Height (cm) 166.5 ± 6.5 (150 – 180) 164.8 ± 6.8 (150 – 182) p = 0.1
Weight (kg) 65.0 ± 12.4 (43.6 – 109.5) 63.1 ± 10.1 (44 – 86) p = 0.2
Body Mass Index (kg/m2) 23.4 ± 3.9 (16 – 34.6) 23.1 ± 3.1 (16.5 – 30) p = 0.7
Data are mean ± standard deviation (range).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148641.t001
Table 3. PM and TVOC concentration in indoor air at kitchen of canteen and control room.
Parameter Control room Kitchen p Value
PM1 (µg/m3) 26.6 ± 14.2 (10 – 57) 71.9 ± 48.4 (1 - 293) p<0.001
PM2.5 (µg/m3) 34.67 ± 12.56 (14 – 48) 81.31 ± 59.25 (1 - 187) p<0.001
TVOC (ppm) 0.08 ± 0.04 (0.02 – 0.2) 1.26 ± 0.35 (0.7 – 2.3) p<0.001
Data are mean ± standard deviation (range). Abbreviations: PM 1: Particulate Matter (1 micron); PM 2.5: Particulate Matter (2.5 micron); TVOC: Total Volatile Organic Compound.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148641.t003
The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Chandrasekharan Nair Kesavachandran
Corresponding author