Effectiveness of a suction device for containment of pathogenic aerosols and droplets

Kai Lordly; Ahmet E. Karataş; Steve Lin; Karthi Umapathy; Rohit Mohindra

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305842

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 21, 2023
19 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Sara Hemati, Editor PONE-D-23-38824Effectiveness of a suction device for containment of pathogenic aerosols and dropletsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohindra, 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 01 2024 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, Sara Hemati Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Yes 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: ‎1.‎ Abstract should be revised basically.‎ ‎2.‎ Introduction is very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy. ‎Authors have done through literature survey and have presented the past works. But, what ‎kind of innovation will be brought to the literature with this article? Therefore, the state-of-‎art should be clearly specified in detail in the Introduction part. Hypothesis should be given. ‎How this work is different from the available literature?‎ ‎3.‎ The introduction of the manuscript should be analyzed the critical gap in the literature ‎and how the present study mitigates the gap.‎ ‎4.‎ Please briefly clarify the problem statement, objectives, and future prospects in the ‎introduction section. Provide one nice and technically sound paragraph at the end of ‎introduction section about what is covered in the manuscript.‎ ‎5.‎ The novelty carried out with this work was not reported and would be emphasized?‎ ‎6.‎ Discussion” section should be revised basically. It is not suitable for a manuscript. ‎The ‎manuscript needs more adequate discussion with supporting latest references. ‎ ‎7.‎ In the discussion section, the potential limitation of the study should be highlighted and ‎in ‎the conclusion, novel insight should be clearly highlighted.‎ ‎ ‎8.‎ It is also recommended to discuss and explain what should be the appropriate policies based ‎on the findings of this literature.‎ ‎9.‎ Please make sure your conclusions and future perspectives section underscores the ‎scientific value-added of your paper and/or the applicability of your results. ‎ Reviewer #2: There are many research papers already published on this topic and this ‎one ‎follows the same structure as many of the ‎previously ‎published articles, without adding any significance to the current knowledge. In my point of view, the work reported in this manuscript is not suitable ‎for ‎publication in this journal, since no conceptual or technological innovation is studied ‎and ‎presented. Thus, I reject this paper as the goals and importance of the journal do not allow ‎to ‎recommend this type of manuscript.‎ ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305842.r001
Revision 1
4 Jun 2024 Author Response General Response to Statistical Analysis In response to the reviewer's concerns regarding statistical analysis, our methodology and experimental design are an extension of the work presented in reference [9]. This previous research involved capturing cough images from the manikin and taking spatial measurements without a suction device. These were then analyzed alongside computational fluid dynamics simulations that considered the effects of humidity and temperature. Figure 5 presents the current manuscript's standard deviation and mean values, underscoring significant decay and trends that transcend mere variability. To further address the reviewer's concerns, we have added a new paragraph at the end of the "Sources of Error" section. Reviewer #1 � The abstract has been revised. � Response to Comments 2‒5: We recognize that our initial submission may not have sufficiently emphasized the literature gaps and the innovative contributions of our study. In response to the reviewer's perceptive observations, we have rewritten our Introduction and Discussion, detailing the gaps in the current literature that our study aims to bridge. These additions clarify the two primary gaps in the existing literature that our study seeks to fill. Firstly, we outline the need for a robust experimental method for the direct spatial and temporal assessment of droplet counts instead of relying solely on inferences from flow measurements obtained via particle image velocimetry and numerical simulations. Secondly, we highlight the absence of a cost-effective, rapidly deployable suction device adaptable to many indoor environments in the current literature. Finally, our results demonstrate the device's efficacy with multiple cough events, which is unique to our study design. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript by providing a clearer exposition of its novel contributions and how it diverges from and builds upon the current state-of-the-art. � The discussion has been revised to include more in-depth comments and supporting references, as well as more discussion about the limitations and the novel aspects of the research. � The manuscript has been updated to include policy implications for this device. � The conclusions and future perspective section has been updated to highlight the significance of our work. Reviewer 2 � We believe this revised version of the manuscript highlights our work's unique value and innovation. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305842.r002
6 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Sara Hemati, Editor Effectiveness of a suction device for containment of pathogenic aerosols and droplets PONE-D-23-38824R1 Dear Dr. Mohindra, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Sara Hemati Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305842.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Sara Hemati, Editor PONE-D-23-38824R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohindra, 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 If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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. 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. Sara Hemati Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305842.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 .