Dear Dr. Zhu,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 2025 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,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

6. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which you refer to in your text on page 22, 23.

7. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Tables 1, 2, and 3, which you refer to in your text on page 22, 23.

8. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[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: Review

Article: Enhanced dust removal via the synergy of a standing wave acoustic field and high-pressure spray: an integrated experimental and numerical study

This article is devoted to a comprehensive study of a new method proposed by the authors for removing coal dust in mines. This method involves the preliminary introduction of coagulation nuclei (highly dispersed water droplets) and accelerated coal dust coagulation under conditions of a standing acoustic wave and a high-pressure spray jet. The proposed method is interesting, and the authors' conscientious approach to the research methodology is also noteworthy. However, the text of the manuscript raises many questions (which I hope the authors will address).

My questions and comments will be presented in the order they appear in the manuscript:

1. Abstract (lines 30, 31): "nozzle orifice diameter" – It's unclear here that this refers to the high-pressure nozzle. "acoustic power density" – It's also unclear here that this refers to the acoustic power when creating a standing wave (since you also have ultrasonic atomization). Just check the text.

2. Introduction. Line 68. Please note the article that presents new methods of ultrasonic atomization (Shalunov, A., Kudryashova, O., Khmelev, V., Genne, D., Terentiev, S., & Nesterov, V. (2024). Innovative ultrasonic spray methods for indoor disinfection. Applied System Innovation, 7(6), 126.)

3. Line 82. You may not have seen the new article (Xu, R. C., Sharma, A. K., Ozdemir, E., Miwa, S., & Suzuki, S. (2024). Experimental investigation on effective aerosol scavenging using different spray configurations with pre-injection of water mist for Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 35(5), 42)

4. Line 83. There is an article about the mechanisms of agglomeration and sedimentation of particles in acoustic fields (Kudryashova, O., Antonnikova, A., Korovina, N., & Akhmadeev, I. (2015). Mechanisms of aerosol sedimentation by acoustic field. Archives of Acoustics, 485-489)

5. Experimental setup. Line 114. It's unclear here what kind of droplets—those generated by the ultrasonic nebulizer or the nozzle? The Malvern isn't visible in the experimental setup diagram. It would be interesting to see the droplet sizes over time. Also, you didn't mention the ultrasonic nebulizer. What kind is it? What size droplets does it generate? What size droplets do the nozzles generate (perhaps this is also important)?

6. Coal dust preparation. Line 124. It's unclear what high atomization efficiency means and why the water consumption is low. Compared to what? Moreover, the same water consumption will be given for all orifice sizes (180 ml/min).

7. Fig. 3. Recommendation: provide statistical characteristics, average diameters. Also: samples were taken at the inlet and outlet, #1 and #2. I wonder if there was a difference in dust size in these samples?

8. Model description. Line 152. How scalable are these dimensions? Why were these chosen (significantly smaller than in the experiment or in real tunnel conditions).

9. Dynamics of dust/droplet motion. Line 167. To what extent can Brownian motion be neglected? Under what conditions is this possible?

10. 3.1.1 Effects of nozzle orifice diameter. Line 229. The flow rate was the same for three nozzle hole diameters. What changed depending on these hole diameters? (I'm assuming it was the droplet size, or maybe not?) It's unclear how the hole sizes themselves could influence the processes under consideration. It would be interesting to discuss this further.

11. Discussion of Figure 5. Figure 5c is certainly impressive. But looking at Figures 5a and 5b, it's clear that the efficiency increase is occurring from an already good baseline—80% or more. If the system without acoustic coagulation already works well, how justified is a standing wave generator, especially in a mine's natural environment, if it increases dust removal efficiency from 80% to 90%?

12. 3.1.3 Effects of airflow velocity It would be useful to plot a graph of overall efficiency (not by particle size, but for the entire population, according to their size distribution) as a function of flow rate. This would show at what flow rates the efficiency of acoustic coagulation continues to increase, and at what rates it no longer does.

13. Line 274. I'm afraid increasing the acoustic power won't help. Indeed, the time spent in the acoustic zone is more important here, so the lower the ventilation speed, the greater the effect. Perhaps increasing the rate of ultrafine droplet generation while simultaneously increasing the airflow speed might help?

14. Captions for Figure 7. Here you need to indicate what air flow speed each figure corresponds to.

15. 3.2.5. The profiles of droplets concentration. Line 365. You only considered two droplet sizes and two levels of impact intensity. It would be interesting to see, for example, a graph of droplet concentration at a pressure node for a single impact intensity as a function of droplet size. Perhaps your conclusion that 10-20 µm are the optimal agglomeration nuclei is incorrect? Perhaps, for example, nuclei of 5 or 30 µm would be better?

16. Line 390. Could you be more specific here, with numbers – which drops are large? Which are optimal?

17. At the end of the Conclusion, it would be useful to discuss the potential practical applications of the results of this work. How feasible is it to create similar installations in mines? How economically feasible is this (especially considering the generally modest increase in dust removal efficiency)? On the other hand, your work could have broader application, not only (and not primarily) for coal dust removal, but also in other areas where hazardous fine dust is present.Also, please clearly state the fundamental scientific novelty of your results.

Overall, the article is interesting, and I eagerly await its publication. However, the text needs some work to clarify any unclear points and inaccuracies. I wish the authors success with the publication.

Reviewer #2: 1. Applicability and scalability of experimental conditions

The laboratory-scale tunnel model provides valuable insights into the synergistic mechanisms of acoustic waves and sprays. However, underground mining environments present far more complex conditions, including larger airflow scales, turbulence, and irregular geometries. The current work would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how the experimental results can be reasonably extrapolated to real-world mining operations, as well as the potential limitations of such extrapolation. Highlighting the constraints of laboratory findings and outlining a pathway for future large-scale validation would considerably strengthen the practical impact of this study.

2. Justification of parameter selection

The choice of critical experimental parameters—such as ultrasonic frequency (20 kHz), nozzle orifice size (0.4–0.8 mm), and acoustic power (60–180 W)—is briefly described but lacks sufficient justification. Readers may find it difficult to assess whether these parameters are representative of actual mine dust suppression systems or were chosen arbitrarily. It is recommended that the authors provide additional references or results from preliminary trials to clarify why these ranges are appropriate. Such information would help ensure the generalizability and credibility of the reported findings.

3. Simplification in numerical modeling

The numerical model reasonably captures the essential physics of particle–droplet interactions in a standing-wave acoustic field. However, several key factors—such as acoustic energy dissipation, wall reflection losses, and droplet evaporation—were neglected. These simplifications may lead to an overestimation of agglomeration efficiency. It would strengthen the paper if the authors acknowledged these assumptions in greater detail and discussed their potential effects on the simulation outcomes. In addition, outlining future directions to incorporate these complexities would enhance the robustness and reliability of the modeling approach.

4. Lack of statistical and uncertainty analysis

The improvements in dust removal efficiency are mainly reported as average values without sufficient treatment of variability or statistical reliability. For instance, Figures 5–7 present performance enhancements but do not include error bars, confidence intervals, or significance testing. This omission reduces the persuasiveness of the results, especially given the potential variability in dust and droplet interactions. It is recommended that the authors conduct uncertainty analysis and add statistical indicators to their figures. Such additions would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the robustness of the experimental findings.

5. Structure and presentation improvements

While the manuscript is generally well-written, some sections—particularly the Results and Discussion—contain redundant or loosely connected descriptions. For example, certain figure captions (e.g., Figures 5–7) repeat information already provided in the text, which can make the narrative less concise. I suggest tightening the link between the figures and the discussion, emphasizing comparative insights rather than restating data. Furthermore, the Conclusions could be improved by presenting a clearer summary of the engineering implications and practical application potential. This would make the paper more compelling to both academic and industrial audiences.

**********

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.

Enhanced dust removal via the synergy of a standing wave acoustic field and high-pressure spray: an integrated experimental and numerical study

PONE-D-25-48254R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have thoroughly addressed all the points raised in the review, providing detailed and satisfactory responses to each comment. They have made substantial revisions to the manuscript, including clarifying key terms, adding necessary experimental data and justifications, incorporating relevant citations, improving figure presentations with statistical indicators, and explicitly discussing the limitations, scientific novelty, and potential applications of their work. The revised manuscript is now significantly strengthened and well-supported, and I am pleased to recommend it for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes:  Olga Kudryashova

Reviewer #2: No

**********