Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process

Mahdiyeh Hasani; Tracey Campbell; Fan Wu; Keith Warriner

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248487

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 6, 2021
8 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Rashid Nazir, Editor PONE-D-21-00533 Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Warriner, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2021 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rashid Nazir 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 [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? 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: PLOS ONE Manuscript: PONE-D-21-00533 Article Title: Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process Comments and recommendations: 1. Authors have proposed a very effective gas-phase Advanced Oxidation Process-based decontamination approach for decontaminating surgical masks N95 and 455 has good evidence of inactivation of human coronavirus and bacterial cells. 2. I went through entire manuscript and found that the paper is logically arranged and reflect the coverage of main thematic area chosen for the study, however some Major improvements are recommended. English language and sentence structures are poorly written, major improvements needed; some minor grammatical errors need to be adjusted throughout the manuscript. Rearranging all the manuscript sections with proper heading and rephrasing of the sentences throughout the manuscript is recommended. 3. Authors are supposed to provide pathways explaining the reason for the role of hydrogen peroxide combined with UV-C lamps and ozone sources. Please provide the evidence how lethality of gAOP was independent of the applied hydrogen peroxide concentration. Since hydrogen peroxide is an antiseptic and bleaching agent that is common and well-known. When exposed to moisture and bubbled with ozone, atmospheric gas and toxic smog components, a strong and extremely microbicidal chemical reaction is generated that can kill almost any form of bacteria and make them harmless. 4. There is no fair justification for research goals and related findings. 5. Clearly mention concentrations of the reagents (Ozone, hydrogen peroxide) and the light intensity with spectrum. 6. Author surveyed the literature and supported the facts with available literature, but it is recommended to add more supportive literature in introduction as well as results and discussion section, repeating one reference in every section is not recommended. Literature reviewed is not justified to focus on research parameters. 7. Consistency among the paragraphs is essential in any article, otherwise reader shall not be able to understand what is written. It is recommended for the authors to relook the sentences and paragraphs and provided consistency among the words and paragraphs especially in the introduction section. 8. The conclusion is well written with proper future direction along with the facilities required. All the objectives must be properly stated with concluding results. 9. Concluding Remarks: Keeping in view the observations in the comments section, this research paper needs major revisions. Some minor and moderate revision are also suggested for rephrasing and grammatical error explained in comments section. The reviewer would like to recommend this article after assurance of the incorporation of all the observations and comments for the possible publication in PLOS ONE. Dr Nadia Riaz, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Abbottabad, Pakistan nadiariazz@gmail.com/ nadiariazz@cuiatd.edu.pk Reviewer #2: Major Concern Is there any negative effect of pyrrole on the filtration efficacy of mask? Is there any allergic response associated with pyrrole? Tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Please explain abbreviations used in captions and legends. References are not properly formatted and some are even incomplete. I shall suggest to improve quality of figures. Some of the figures showing equipment and sample loading might be shifted to supplementary data. Minor revisions Line 77; It would be appropriate to write ‘spp.’ after genus. Line 88-89; typo error, ‘.’ Should be replaced by ‘,’ Line 100; would it be not appropriate to replace ‘fresh produce’ with some more obvious phrase? Line 141; the word slope should be replaced by ‘slant’ Line 142: The word sterile should be replaced by ‘sterilized’ Line 149-150; the purpose of the activity performed is not described. Line 184-188; Why figure caption is provided here without figure? Line 191; Cell density should also be mentioned here. Line 210: K12 should not be italicised. Line 260 and 277; why there are different incubation times? Please explain. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Dr. Muhammad Ali, Department of Biotechnology, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad campus, Pakistan [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248487.r001
Revision 1
12 Feb 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers We thank the reviewers to take time for reviewing the script and raising constructive comments that we have addressed as indicated below. Reviewer #1 English language and sentence structures are poorly written, major improvements needed; some minor grammatical errors need to be adjusted throughout the manuscript. Rearranging all the manuscript sections with proper heading and rephrasing of the sentences throughout the manuscript is recommended. The script has been further proof-read. Authors are supposed to provide pathways explaining the reason for the role of hydrogen peroxide combined with UV-C lamps and ozone sources. Please provide the evidence how lethality of gAOP was independent of the applied hydrogen peroxide concentration. Since hydrogen peroxide is an antiseptic and bleaching agent that is common and well-known. When exposed to moisture and bubbled with ozone, atmospheric gas and toxic smog components, a strong and extremely microbicidal chemical reaction is generated that can kill almost any form of bacteria and make them harmless. By using hydrogen peroxide, ozone or UV-C alone there were negligible reduction of endospores. Specifically, the 3% hydrogen peroxide was 0.97�0.07 log cfu reduction, ozone (30s) 0.10�0 log cfu and 0.93 � 0.09 log reduction for UV-C alone. Endospores are relatively resistant to low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide with 35% required to achieve a 6 log reduction. There is no fair justification for research goals and related findings. The need for a decontamination method for masks originated from the request from health agencies to address the on-going shortage of PPE. This has been further underlined in the revised script. Clearly mention concentrations of the reagents (Ozone, hydrogen peroxide) and the light intensity with spectrum. The reaction conditions are provided within the abstract and throughout the text. Author surveyed the literature and supported the facts with available literature, but it is recommended to add more supportive literature in introduction as well as results and discussion section, repeating one reference in every section is not recommended. Literature reviewed is not justified to focus on research parameters. There are relatively few published works on N95 mask decontamination and application of gas phase AOP. Consequently, several of the references are repeated through the Introduction and Discussion. I Consistency among the paragraphs is essential in any article, otherwise reader shall not be able to understand what is written. It is recommended for the authors to relook the sentences and paragraphs and provided consistency among the words and paragraphs especially in the introduction section. The script has been further proof-read to ensure consistency. The conclusion is well written with proper future direction along with the facilities required. All the objectives must be properly stated with concluding results. The conclusion has been revised to include the objectives of the study. Reviewer #2: Is there any negative effect of pyrrole on the filtration efficacy of mask? Is there any allergic response associated with pyrrole? The actual indicator would be adhered to the mask using double-sided tape and hence no direct contact between Nafion-pyrrole with the filter material. One could suspect the chemical indicator would be placed away from the filter material (for example, strap) or removed prior to donning the mask. Tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Please explain abbreviations used in captions and legends. References are not properly formatted and some are even incomplete. The legends have been corrected in the revised script. I shall suggest to improve quality of figures. Some of the figures showing equipment and sample loading might be shifted to supplementary data. The suggested figures have been transferred to supplemental data. Minor revisions Line 77; It would be appropriate to write ‘spp.’ after genus. Corrected in the revised script. Line 88-89; typo error, ‘.’ Should be replaced by ‘,’ Corrected in the revised script. Line 100; would it be not appropriate to replace ‘fresh produce’ with some more obvious phrase? The term “fresh produce” has been replaced with “fresh fruit and vegetables”. Line 141; the word slope should be replaced by ‘slant’ Slant has been included in the revised script. Line 142: The word sterile should be replaced by ‘sterilized’ Sterilized has been included in the revised script. Line 149-150; the purpose of the activity performed is not described. This was to determine the spore density of the suspension and was included in the revised script. Line 184-188; Why figure caption is provided here without figure? This was to illustrate where the figure would be included. In this case the figure has been moved to supplemental data. Line 191; Cell density should also be mentioned here. The inoculating suspension was ca 7 log cfu/ml. This has been included within the revised script. Line 210: K12 should not be italicised. Corrected in the revised script. Line 260 and 277; why there are different incubation times? Please explain. In sterility testing it is common practice to have a prolonged incubation to account for super-dormant endospores that exhibit delayed germination. In the current study there was no growth observed in the tubes incubated over 7-days thereby confirming spore inactivation. This has been clarified in the revised script. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248487.r002
1 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Rashid Nazir, Editor Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process PONE-D-21-00533R1 Dear Dr. Warriner, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Rashid Nazir Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248487.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Mar 2021 Acceptance Letter - Rashid Nazir, Editor PONE-D-21-00533R1 Decontamination of N95 and surgical masks using a treatment based on a continuous gas phase-Advanced Oxidation Process Dear Dr. Warriner: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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 Rashid Nazir Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248487.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .