PONE-D-21-23710Inequalities in E-coli contamination in the point of use drinking water in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hoque,

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 Feb 06 2022 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: 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,

Mentore Vaccari

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.

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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 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: I think the topic is relevant and can broaden our knowledge on the situation related to SDG 6 in Asia. But more works to do by authors.

Major comments

- Please check the writing. The sentences are not well written as an academic journal. I strongly suggest authors to do a professional proofread before submit the revision.

- There are many repetition as well in the text.

- The story line of the paper is bad. Authors need to revise the whole draft.

- The way the authors write E. coli is not correct. Please revise the whole paper.

- There are many sentences that need references.

- After reading the paper, I guess the authors are not really familiar with the drinking water quality. E.g., writing E. coli is wrong, some terms are rarely used in the WASH sector (e.g., secondary contamination, source water). I suggest authors to read some papers related to WASH and water quality and use common terms in this field.

- Authors should add references from region outside Bangladesh, not only from Bangladesh. So the findings are relevant also to other countries/settings.

Please check specific comments in the pdf file. I put my comments there. Thank you and good luck for the authors!

Reviewer #2: General:

The manuscript is technically sound. Though it has used secondary data, the data was analyzed vigorously with an appropriate use of statistics. Data supports conclusions that have been drawn by the author. The study incorporated an appropriate number of samples, and the methodology used for statistical analysis is latest and appropriate for the study.

Major:

One of the aims of the paper is to monitor the empirical evidence to monitor the progress of the sustainable development targets in relation to the safe drinking water usage in Bangladesh. This aim was not achieved, or it is not clear how author intended to achieve this aim.

In introduction, it is not mentioned, why this study is new and different from the existing studies. Identifying the research gap is not clear. Suggest authors to enumerate more on literature to highlight the gaps in the current research studies and the novelty of this work.

In results (statistical analysis), Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) interpretation was not done correctly. It is not clear on what basis; the author subtracts 1 from AOR values. Authors need to use the AOR values or explain with clear base why the subtraction is needed.

In results, when discussing regional changes of E. Coli values, “Mymenshing” division values must be used as it is the only lower value than the “Rangpur” division value which is the default. Or explain that it has been disregarded as the values are not significant.

The conclusion is not addressed to the aims of the study fully.

Limitations of the study, recommendations to address for future works are not included which is also a major limitation of the paper.

Minor:

Abstract:

*2nd para, 1,2,3 lines. Using of “if” is not appropriately done which alter the idea of the sentence.

Introduction:

* 2nd para, 2nd line. "Or other" written in brackets, it's not clear which other microbes the author tries to specify. It is better to name a microbe or maybe a family of microbes.

* 2nd para, 12th line. Better to start "Type of ma...." as a new paragraph as it discusses a new point.

* 2nd para, 14th line. "improved sources may have faecal contamination above the WHO standard" here above, does not give the idea that improved sources have minimum vulnerability to contaminate.

* 2nd para, 20th line. Better to start "A clear understanding ..." as a new paragraph as it discusses a new point.

* 2nd para, 31st line. It is unclear who "respondents" refers to.

Variables: Predictor variables

* 1st para, 4th line. "may be carried through the source of water collection", should be corrected as "may be occurred at the source of water collection"

Statistical Analysis:

* 1st para, 14th line. 35,36 references should be superscript.

Results:

* 1st para, 2nd line. reference not available

**********

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: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-23710_review.pdf

Differences in levels of E. coli contamination of point of use drinking water in Bangladesh

PONE-D-21-23710R1

Dear Dr. Hoque,

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,

Mentore Vaccari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: Authors response well to my comments and have improved the draft. Thank you for all hard work. But since there are many new references in the draft, please check carefully all of them and make sure that the citation position/numbers arre correct.

Reviewer #2: It would be better if use percentages at least to interpret AOR values. Specially when you compares them to the standard value.

**********

7. 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: No