Mint essential oil: A natural and effective agent for controlling house dust mites

Haiming Cai; Xu Zhang; Zhibin Lin; Shanshan Li; Huiquan Lin; Yongwen Lin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318639

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 21, 2024
21 May 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318639.r001
10 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Rachid Bouharroud, Editor PONE-D-24-20445Mint Essential Oil: A Natural and Effective Agent for Controlling House Dust MitesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lin, 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. ============================== Dear As you can see, one of reviewers rejected your manuscript. So be accurate and give necessary details for each of comments addressed by both reviewers in order to avoid rejection during the review's 2nd round. Good luck============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 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, Rachid Bouharroud 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 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This study was supported by the Doctoral fund of Zhangzhou Institute of Technology (grant number ZZYB2207), and the Special Project of Public Welfare Scientific Research Institutes of Fujian Provincial Science and Technology Department (2023R1028001)" Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: Yes 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: 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: Comments: General: This is an interesting study investigating the acaricidal and repellent properties of different varieties of mint essential oils on house dust mites. While there is a substantial body of literature on the use of such essential oils and their constituents, the novelty of this study is related their potential application in managing dust mites, and identification of potential active ingredients. In general the methods appear sound and the findings worthwhile, however there are several areas where the manuscript should be improved before being considered for publication in PLOS One, which I’ve outlined below. A thorough review for english editing is also suggested. Specific comments: Introduction: L47-48 – needs citation. L50 – capitalization not required for yellow mealworm larvae L51-52- needs citation. L52-54 – needs citation. L69-73 – should this section be in past, or future tense – may depend on journal format? Methods: L76 – When starting a sentence, genus names should always be written in full and not abbreviated. Change elsewhere, including in figure titles. L87 – Table 1 – Abbreviations for the mint varieties are useful for later context, however the images of the plants provide nothing informative to this study. Please remove them. L87 – Table 1 title should read ‘Ten varieties of mint used in this study and their respective abbreviations’. L91 – change ‘A 1 kg mint sample’ to ‘Each one kg mint sample’. L94 – list the supplier information for the sodium sulfate. L99 – provide address of manufacturer. L115 – Provide version and years for the spectral libraries used. What minimum confidence % was used to confirm identifications from NIST if there were no standards or Kovats indices used? L116 – title ‘Bioassay’ is vague. Change to ‘Acaricidal bioassay’ L123 – describe how was the sex and maturity of these mites determined. L125 – provide supplier information for benzyl benzoate. L133 – remove ‘the’ L137 – ‘approximately three times the contact+fumigant LC100 values for each compound’ – a table listing these would be useful (or possibly add this information to Table 3 which has LC50 values? L140 – how large was the hole in the lid? This is important as it impacts how much opportunity there will be for losing volatiles. L141 – How were these containers maintained during the experiment? Were they in a closed container? A fume hood? What were the airflow parameters, temperature and humidity? – all factors which will influence the rate of volatile. L148 – LC15 concentration should also be presented in a table for comparison between varieties. L151 – “After placing the growth medium on filter paper for 5 minutes, 30 adult mites (without food) remaining on the paper were transferred to the compound-treated section using a brush to avoid damage” – I find this confusing to visualize. Suggest adding an image of the set-up showing the position of treated cloth and how the mites are added. L153-155 – were the petri dishes covered or sealed in any way – not indicated. L155- The term ‘escape’ suggested that a subject has exited the arena, but I believe its being used here to indicate repellency. I suggest replacing with ‘repellency’ throughout, unless the author truly means the mites are leaving the petri dish. L159 – Add a citation for Abbott’s formula. L167 – What statistical package was used? What was the alpha value used? Results and Discussion: L174 – Table 2. Title needs to be more descriptive and specific to this study. For example, instead of “Table 2. Main compound of 10 kinds of essential oils”, I suggest “Table 2: Most abundant compound identified from each of ten varieties of mint following steam distillation and GC-MS analyses” L174 – Was there a blank solvent run of chloroform used to subtract the solvent front? Trying to determine how the % area calculations compensated for this. L174 - Compounds need not be capitalized. Tables 3 and 4 – alpha value for statistics should be reported. L175 – change ‘time’ to ‘times’ L176 – Write ‘var.’ in full for a header. Also change in other locations if used in titles for tables and figures. L192 – Table 3. I’m very concerned about the concentrations and volumes being reported for the LC50s and fumigant toxicities. It would be very useful to see the % mortality reported alongside these values (its challenging to consider any of the volumes being reported here being of realistic application – even 65ul/cm2 of MC10 would seem a massive amount of solvent for a small area). L201 – 200ml/cm2 of MC5 oil? Is this correct? Seems physically impossible. L219 – ‘Repellent effect of branched fatty acids’? This has nothing to with this paper? L222-223 – “The absence of dead mites following ethanol treatment indicates that the repellent effect is attributed to the mint oils and main compounds”. Its unclear what this statement is trying to infer, but given that this is reporting a repellent assay, one would be typically using sublethal dosages. I’m also wondering if this bioassay should be names something different – since it actually investigates a range from 100% mortality to 0% repellency. L224 – see above comment on ‘escaping’ L230 – Suggest changing the mean number of mites repelled (20.33, 19.33, 17.33) to a percentage instead. L234 – spelling “subletial’ = ‘sublethal’ L235 – “The strong aroma of mint may disrupt the sensory receptors of house dust mites, deterring their presence and reducing infestation risks” – this is a very vague statement, and needs further context and explanation. References: - needs a thorough check for formatting consistency, as well as correct formatting for latin names Figures: - Indicate the LD50 on the figures. Other points: - The presentation and interpretation of the repellent bioassay is insufficient. More comparison and detail is warranted. - The discussion should be expanded to include points on: o Potential mode of action of the essential oil constituents (active ingredients) which were investigated. There are many papers which investigate the effects of these compounds (i.e. linalool, menthol, limonene) on other species. Discussing the known lethal and sublethal effects on other arthropods, and acarines, would be important for context. o More detail on proposed application of this knowledge, or key next steps should be included. Reviewer #2: I read the manuscript (PONE-D-24-20445) entitled "Mint Essential Oil: A Natural and Effective Agent for Controlling House Dust Mites," written by Cai et al. for publication in PLOS ONE. The study explores the effectiveness of mint essential oils in controlling house dust mites. The research title is interesting and might attract the reader's interest; however, the methodology and results sections are poorly written. In particular, the author should consider statistical analysis to provide robust evidence for their results. The manuscript has no result interpretation, comparative discussion about their results, or implications. I think this manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form. Please see some minor comments and suggestions below. Lines 46–49: Please provide references for these statements. Lines 51–54: Please provide references for these statements. In table 1, what is “M. × piperita”? Extraction of Essential Oils; Please briefly explain the methods and materials used for essential oil extraction. Why did the author use 5-8-day-old adults for bioassay? What is the average adult longevity for this species? What is the ratio of males and females used in the bioassay? What concentration of mint oil was used for the experiment? How did the author prepare the stock solutions? The author needs to provide this information through materials and methods. Why was benzyl benzoate used as a positive control? What concentration was used for the bioassay? Please provide information about benzyl benzoate in the chemicals section. Please utilize the statistical analysis in Table 3 to see the significant differences in LC50 values among the varieties. Were there any significant differences in mortality between the varieties? ****** 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.0318639.r002
Revision 1
9 Aug 2024 Author Response Point-by-point responses to Reviewers and Editor Reviewer #1: Comments: Introduction: L47-48 – needs citation. Respond: The citation is included as suggested. L50 – capitalization not required for yellow mealworm larvae Respond: Corrected. L51-52- needs citation. Respond: Citation included as suggested. L52-54 – needs citation. Respond: Done as suggested. L69-73 – should this section be in past, or future tense – may depend on journal format? Respond: The section has been revised accordingly. Methods: L76 – When starting a sentence, genus names should always be written in full and not abbreviated. Change elsewhere, including in figure titles. Respond: Many thanks for this observation. This has been corrected throughout the manuscript as suggested. L87 – Table 1 – Abbreviations for the mint varieties are useful for later context, however the images of the plants provide nothing informative to this study. Please remove them. Respond: Revised as suggested. L87 – Table 1 title should read ‘Ten varieties of mint used in this study and their respective abbreviations’. Respond: Corrected as suggested. L91 – change ‘A 1 kg mint sample’ to ‘Each one kg mint sample’. Respond: Done as suggested. L94 – list the supplier information for the sodium sulfate. Respond: Supplier information provided as suggested. L99 – provide address of manufacturer. Respond: Provided as suggested. L115 – Provide version and years for the spectral libraries used. What minimum confidence % was used to confirm identifications from NIST if there were no standards or Kovats indices used? Respond: NIST 2017. It was added in the revised version of the manuscript to capture that as suggested. L116 – title ‘Bioassay’ is vague. Change to ‘Acaricidal bioassay’ Respond: Done as suggested. L123 – describe how was the sex and maturity of these mites determined. Respond: We did not distinguish the sex of mites, and the maturity was determined by the exuviate time. L125 – provide supplier information for benzyl benzoate. Respond: Provided as suggested. L133 – remove ‘the’ Respond: Deleted as suggested. L137 – ‘approximately three times the contact+fumigant LC100 values for each compound’ – a table listing these would be useful (or possibly add this information to Table 3 which has LC50 values? Respond: The information is now added to Table 3 as suggested. L140 – how large was the hole in the lid? This is important as it impacts how much opportunity there will be for losing volatiles. Respond: 0.5 cm diameter, and this is now added in the revised version of the manuscript. L141 – How were these containers maintained during the experiment? Were they in a closed container? A fume hood? What were the airflow parameters, temperature and humidity? – all factors which will influence the rate of volatile. Respond: Kept in a closed container and the information is now added in the revised version of the manuscript as suggested. L148 – LC15 concentration should also be presented in a table for comparison between varieties. Respond: Addressed as suggested, and this is now included in Table 3. L151 – “After placing the growth medium on filter paper for 5 minutes, 30 adult mites (without food) remaining on the paper were transferred to the compound-treated section using a brush to avoid damage” – I find this confusing to visualize. Suggest adding an image of the set-up showing the position of treated cloth and how the mites are added. Respond: We revised the statement for more clarity and easy to visualize. L153-155 – were the petri dishes covered or sealed in any way – not indicated. Respond: Yes, they were covered; this is now captured in the revised version of the manuscript to avoid confusion. L155- The term ‘escape’ suggested that a subject has exited the arena, but I believe its being used here to indicate repellency. I suggest replacing with ‘repellency’ throughout, unless the author truly means the mites are leaving the petri dish. Respond: Many thanks for this remark. Changed to repellency throughout the text as suggested. L159 – Add a citation for Abbott’s formula. Respond: Done as suggested. L167 – What statistical package was used? What was the alpha value used? Respond: Graphpad Prism 9.0 software were used and now captured in the revised version of the manuscript. Results and Discussion: L174 – Table 2. Title needs to be more descriptive and specific to this study. For example, instead of “Table 2. Main compound of 10 kinds of essential oils”, I suggest “Table 2: Most abundant compound identified from each of ten varieties of mint following steam distillation and GC-MS analyses” Respond: Done as suggested. L174 – Was there a blank solvent run of chloroform used to subtract the solvent front? Trying to determine how the % area calculations compensated for this. Respond: No, we did not use blank solvent. L174 - Compounds need not be capitalized. Tables 3 and 4 – alpha value for statistics should be reported. Respond: Corrected as suggested. L175 – change ‘time’ to ‘times’ Respond: Changed as suggested. L176 – Write ‘var.’ in full for a header. Also change in other locations if used in titles for tables and figures. Respond: Done as suggested. L192 – Table 3. I’m very concerned about the concentrations and volumes being reported for the LC50s and fumigant toxicities. It would be very useful to see the % mortality reported alongside these values (its challenging to consider any of the volumes being reported here being of realistic application – even 65ul/cm2 of MC10 would seem a massive amount of solvent for a small area). Respond: Revised as suggested. L201 – 200ml/cm2 of MC5 oil? Is this correct? Seems physically impossible. Respond: Sorry for this mistake. That is 200 μl/cm2 and it is now corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. L219 – ‘Repellent effect of branched fatty acids’? This has nothing to with this paper? Respond: Sorry for this mistake from our end. This should rather read ‘Repellent effect of main compounds of mint’. It is now corrected in the revised manuscript. L222-223 – “The absence of dead mites following ethanol treatment indicates that the repellent effect is attributed to the mint oils and main compounds”. Its unclear what this statement is trying to infer, but given that this is reporting a repellent assay, one would be typically using sublethal dosages. I’m also wondering if this bioassay should be names something different – since it actually investigates a range from 100% mortality to 0% repellency. Respond: The section is revised accordingly for more clarity and avoid confusion. L224 – see above comment on ‘escaping’ Respond: Addressed accordingly. L230 – Suggest changing the mean number of mites repelled (20.33, 19.33, 17.33) to a percentage instead. Respond: Corrected as suggested. L234 – spelling “subletial’ = ‘sublethal’ Respond: Corrected. L235 – “The strong aroma of mint may disrupt the sensory receptors of house dust mites, deterring their presence and reducing infestation risks” – this is a very vague statement, and needs further context and explanation. Respond: The sentence is now revised for more clarity. References: - needs a thorough check for formatting consistency, as well as correct formatting for latin names Respond: The references have been revised as per the guidelines of the journal for uniformity. Figures: - Indicate the LD50 on the figures. Respond: Done. Other points: - The presentation and interpretation of the repellent bioassay is insufficient. More comparison and detail is warranted. Respond: Done! - The discussion should be expanded to include points on: o Potential mode of action of the essential oil constituents (active ingredients) which were investigated. There are many papers which investigate the effects of these compounds (i.e. linalool, menthol, limonene) on other species. Discussing the known lethal and sublethal effects on other arthropods, and acarines, would be important for context. Respond: Done! o More detail on proposed application of this knowledge, or key next steps should be included. Respond: Done! Reviewer #2: Lines 46–49: Please provide references for these statements. Respond: Reference included as suggested. Lines 51–54: Please provide references for these statements. Respond: Done as suggested. In table 1, what is “M. × piperita”? Respond: That is Mentha piperita. It is now corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. Extraction of Essential Oils; Please briefly explain the methods and materials used for essential oil extraction. Respond: More explanation has been added as suggested (lines xxxxx). Why did the author use 5-8-day-old adults for bioassay? What is the average adult longevity for this species? What is the ratio of males and females used in the bioassay? Respond: According to Kim JR, Perumalsamy H, Kwon MJ, Chae SU, Ahn YJ. Toxicity of hiba oil constituents and spray formulations to American house dust mites and copra mites. Pest Manag Sci. 2015 May;71(5):737-43, the average of adult longevity of house dust mite is about 20 days! That is why we selected one week old adult for the bioassay for easy manipulation and avoid physical damage. We did not distinguish the sex for mite during the bioassays. What concentration of mint oil was used for the experiment? How did the author prepare the stock solutions? The author needs to provide this information through materials and methods. Respond: Various concentrations of each test substance in 50 μL of ethanol were administered to 4.5 cm diameter black cotton-fabric circles, resulting in mint oil quantities of 300, 150, 75, 37.5, 18.75, 9.325, and 5 μL/cm² applied on the fabric. So, these were the various concentrations used, and they are captured in the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript. We used the pure mint oil directly which was consider as the stock solution too. Why was benzyl benzoate used as a positive control? What concentration was used for the bioassay? Please provide information about benzyl benzoate in the chemicals section. Respond: Benzyl benzoate was an effective recommended acaricide, and it was used in many previous studies. This is now included in the revised version of the manuscript. Please utilize the statistical analysis in Table 3 to see the significant differences in LC50 values among the varieties. Respond: Many thanks for the observation. However, LC50 is an estimated data rather than a measured data, and it is an estimated value of several sets of repeated test data, which is generally generated and not used for statistical difference analysis. Were there any significant differences in mortality between the varieties? Respond: Not yet observed as per our results. However, we can design further experiments as per your comment to investigate further on this aspect. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Comments - Komivi Akutse.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318639.r003
28 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Rachid Bouharroud, Editor PONE-D-24-20445R1Mint Essential Oil: A Natural and Effective Agent for Controlling House Dust MitesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lin, 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 Oct 12 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, Rachid Bouharroud Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments:Dear AuthorsI read carefully your revised manuscript and now looks better than the 1st version.However still one comment related to LC50 significance that I'm not agree with your feedback. LC/LD50 is "estimated" but obtained from measured data and each measured data should be statistically checked. Refer to many papers dealing with LD50 significance.Another comment related to editing. Please let me know the lines refered to this feedback ( Extraction of Essential Oils; Please briefly explain the methods and materials used for essential oil extraction. Respond: More explanation has been added as suggested (lines xxxxx). )Good luck [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0318639.r004
Revision 2
10 Jan 2025 Author Response Point-by-point responses to Reviewers and Editor Comment: Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Responding: Thank you for you comment! We had check all the references and did not change this part. Additional Editor Comments: Comment 1: However still one comment related to LC50 significance that I'm not agree with your feedback. LC/LD50 is "estimated" but obtained from measured data and each measured data should be statistically checked. Refer to many papers dealing with LD50 significance. Responding: Thank you for your kindly! However, we did not want to show or describe the significant different of LC50, we just mentioned the level. Comment 2: Another comment related to editing. Please let me know the lines refered to this feedback (Extraction of Essential Oils; Please briefly explain the methods and materials used for essential oil extraction.) Responding: I am sorry for puzzling you. Please check Line 92-95 in the clean version. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: respond.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318639.r005
21 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Rachid Bouharroud, Editor Mint Essential Oil: A Natural and Effective Agent for Controlling House Dust Mites PONE-D-24-20445R2 Dear Dr. Lin, 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, Rachid Bouharroud Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318639.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rachid Bouharroud, Editor PONE-D-24-20445R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lin, 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. Rachid Bouharroud Academic Editor PLOS ONE Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: pone.0318639.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318639.r007

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 .