Health effects of occupational noise exposure on heavy-duty equipment operators and exposed workers in a mining firm in Ghana

Francis Amanle Cudjoe; Douglas Aninng Opoku; Nana Kwame Ayisi-Boateng; Joseph Osarfo; Kofi Sekyere Boateng; Lydon Nii Adjiri Sackey; Edgar Andoh Cobbina; Isaac Kofi Yankson; Alhassan Sulemana

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332600

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 17, 2024
23 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Stephen Dajaan Dubik, Editor Dear Dr. Opoku, 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 Aug 07 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. 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, Stephen Dajaan Dubik, BSc, MPH, MPhil 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. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: PONE-D-24-02308 The authors have investigated the association between exposure to noise and experiencing work-related health outcomes. This study is relevant to the current state of the mining sector in Ghana, and I highly recommend it be published. The manuscript is well written however I recommend that the authors consider the following and refine the manuscript before publication. 1. There is an inconsistency noted within the manuscript concerning the participants of the study. While it is frequently indicated that the respondents were operators of heavy-duty machinery, Table 1 enumerates individuals from departments such as HSE, which do not engage in the operation of such equipment. The authors must clarify and reconcile this discrepancy. 2. I would suggest that the authors include the questionnaire used in their study as a supplementary file. This would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the research. 3. A minor textual amendment is necessary on Page 5, Line 128, where the term "operators" should be inserted after "heavy-duty equipment" to maintain clarity in the description of the subjects. Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for such an important study. This is an essential area of research the authors seek to address. Abstract. Conclusion: The conclusion of the abstract must be reviewed. The conclusion should be directed to the study population. It is not all miners who were studied in this research. Background. The background is fairly written well. Line 92. The word "close" should be revised. Methods Line 103: The authors seek to describe the study setting. It is not clear whether the authors are referring to a firm or a number of firms. They should consider revising the write up from line 103 to 112 to rightly describe the study setting. The sentence beginning in line 120 "These workers were excluded ......." should be deleted. Outcome variable: It is not too clear what health-related problems were used to define the outcome variable. Are they related to the outcome of interest? Results: What is the definition for Mining experience? Does it relate to years of work as an heavy-equipment operator or what? What does "ear surgery" means? Is it after a health-related problem has occurred and surgery preformed or is a disease name? Discussion: The discussion is lacking some details point that will demonstrate the merit of the study. Paragraph 2 should be revised, more can be said that has policy implications. PPE was not discussed. Does heavy-equipment operators use PPEs? This was not discussed as it is important in the mining industry. ****** 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-24-02308.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332600.r001
Revision 1
20 Aug 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1 The authors have investigated the association between exposure to noise and experiencing work-related health outcomes. This study is relevant to the current state of the mining sector in Ghana, and I highly recommend it be published. The manuscript is well written however I recommend that the authors consider the following and refine the manuscript before publication. Reviewer’s comment: There is an inconsistency noted within the manuscript concerning the participants of the study. While it is frequently indicated that the respondents were operators of heavy-duty machinery, Table 1 enumerates individuals from departments such as HSE, which do not engage in the operation of such equipment. The authors must clarify and reconcile this discrepancy. Authors’ response: The study population were heavy-duty equipment operators and other exposed workers. We included other exposed workers because their activities also exposed them to the noise from the heavy-duty equipment. We have provided clarity in the revised manuscript and have also used it consistently throughout the manuscript. The revised section now reads; The study population was heavy-duty equipment operators and exposed workers in the mining firm. The exposed workers were those whose activities subjected them to noise exposure from the heavy-duty equipment. Reviewer’s comment: I would suggest that the authors include the questionnaire used in their study as a supplementary file. This would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the research. Authors’ response: The questionnaire has been included as a supplementary file as recommended by the reviewer. The section in reference now reads; A structured questionnaire (see Supplementary File 1) was used for data collection Reviewer’s comment: A minor textual amendment is necessary on Page 5, Line 128, where the term "operators" should be inserted after "heavy-duty equipment" to maintain clarity in the description of the subjects. Authors’ response: We are grateful to the reviewer for drawing our attention to these errors. This has been done as suggested and it now reads as; The selection of study participants was done through a simple random sampling approach. Reviewer #2: Reviewer’s comment: I would like to thank the authors for such an important study. This is an essential area of research the authors seek to address. Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort in ensuring that the quality of the manuscript is enhanced. Reviewer’s comment: Conclusion: The conclusion of the abstract must be reviewed. The conclusion should be directed to the study population. It is not all miners who were studied in this research. Authors’ response: The conclusion has been revised. It now reads; The prevalence of health-related problems among the workers was high. Working experience, knowledge of NIHL and exposure to unacceptable noise levels were significant factors. Potential strategies including a hearing conservation program to promote health and safety among these workers at the workplace should target reducing the exposure to high noise levels and increasing awareness of NIHL. Reviewer’s comment: The background is fairly written well. Line 92. The word "close" should be revised. Authors’ response: The word ‘close’ has been revised as recommended by the reviewer. The revised statement now reads as; ………… to assess the possible effect of noise exposure and prior knowledge of NIHL on the possible occurrence of health-related problems, resulting in a knowledge gap that the current study aims to explore. Reviewer’s comment: Line 103: The authors seek to describe the study setting. It is not clear whether the authors are referring to a firm or a number of firms. They should consider revising the write up from line 103 to 112 to rightly describe the study setting. Authors’ response: We are grateful to the reviewer for this insightful comment. The study was conducted in a mining firm in the Western Region of Ghana. Clarity has been provided in the revised manuscript to show that the work was conducted in only one firm and not ‘firms’. Reviewer’s comment: The sentence beginning in line 120 "These workers were excluded ......." should be deleted. Authors’ response: The sentence in reference has been deleted from the revised manuscript as recommended by the reviewer. Reviewer’s comment: Outcome variable: It is not too clear what health-related problems were used to define the outcome variable. Are they related to the outcome of interest? Authors’ response: Yes, the outcome of interest in this study was experiencing a health-related problem in the last twelve months before the study. Clarity has been provided in the revised manuscript. Reviewer’s comment: What is the definition for Mining experience? Does it relate to years of work as an heavy-equipment operator or what? Authors’ response: Mining experience in this study was operationalized as the number of years of work in the mining firm. This has been defined in the revised manuscript under “Data collection tools and techniques”. Reviewer’s comment: What does "ear surgery" means? Is it after a health-related problem has occurred and surgery preformed or is a disease name? Authors’ response: We have dropped the variable ‘‘ear surgery’’ from the revised manuscript. Reviewer’s comment: The discussion is lacking some details point that will demonstrate the merit of the study. Paragraph 2 should be revised; more can be said that has policy implications. PPE was not discussed. Authors’ response: The discussion has been revised including paragraph 2. PPE (hearing protection device) has also been discussed as recommended by the reviewer. Reviewer’s comment: Does heavy-equipment operators use PPEs? This was not discussed as it is important in the mining industry. Authors’ response: Yes they use hearing protection device and this has been discussed in the revised manuscript. The current study observed high adherence to hearing protection device (HPD) among the study participants. The use of HPD by most of the workers is particularly encouraging considering that it can offer protection to their ears by reducing the intensity of exposed noise entering the eardrum at the workplace. Additionally, adherence to HDP is a very useful preventive measure for minimizing the occurrence of health-related problems, including NIHL (30,31). It is therefore important that educational workshops targeted at enhancing the use of HPD is promoted at all cost due to its significance in promoting employees’ health and safety at the workplace. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: AUTHORS RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332600.r002
2 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Vidya Ramkumar, Editor Health effects of occupational noise exposure on heavy-duty equipment operators and exposed workers in a mining firm in Ghana PONE-D-24-02308R1 Dear Dr. Opoku, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Vidya Ramkumar, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #2: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my previous comments. They mentioned the study's limitations but failed to discuss its strengths. Besides, I don't have any more comments. ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332600.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vidya Ramkumar, Editor PONE-D-24-02308R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Opoku, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Vidya Ramkumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332600.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 .