Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 28, 2019
Decision Letter - George Vousden, Editor

PONE-D-19-32995

Differences in the optical properties of photochromic lenses between cold and warm temperature

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Yu,

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.

The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request additional information on methodological aspects of the study and have made several points be clarified in the text.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

George Vousden

Senior 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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: It is well known that photochromic lenses darken more at medium and low temperatures (temperatures above zero). The conclusions of the research carried out by the authors confirm this phenomenon (see table 2. Optical properties of photochromic lenses./ Mean values of luminous transmittance for all tested samples (LT0)at warm temperature is 41% and in cold temperature is 31,0 %). The authors tested lenses conditioned at positive temperatures (6 and 12 oC). The choice of these temperatures is dictated by the climatic conditions in which protective glasses with mounted photochromic lenses are used. It would be interesting to carry out these tests for lenses conditioned at temperatures well below freezing. The practical aspect of the research is very important. I fully agree with the authors that information on changes in the selected optical properties of photochromic lenses (e.g. optical density, colored state and fading rate) should also be provided to users of glasses.

Suggestion to introduce small additions to the text:

The Authors write: “Other correlations were analyzed to examine the applicability of transmittance instead of luminous transmittance (LT) weighted by the photopic spectral sensitivity of the human eye at each wavelength”. To determine the value of luminous transmittance, the illuminant distribution is also taken into account. I would suggest writing the right formula in the Optical properties section or referring to the distribution of the illuminant in the text.

Reviewer #2: This paper reports an analysis of the photochromic behavior of commercial photochromic lenses with a focus on the effect of temperature on the performance of these systems. The authors use a big collection of gray and brown lenses from different manufacturers.

The analysis of the results is quite detailed but the discussion is rather disorganized and difficult to follow. In particular, it would be very useful to add comparative graphics to follow the discussion which, for 16 samples, has just too many numbers. Also, the results and discussion parts should be divided into subsections and each section should include an objective conclusion.

The quality of the few available graphics is very low and they are impossible to read in the pdf file.

The fading kinetics of the photochromic lenses was assumed to follow a mono-exponential behavior which is a big simplification since two colored species are formed. From fig 2A one can see the effects of this simplification: the data does not follow a straight line. Fig 2b,c,d show smaller deviations because the authors collected only 4 points, which is rather low. This aspect should be commented.

The experiments were conducted at 21 degrees to simulate the Korean summer and at 6 degrees to simulate the Korean winter (-6-7 degree). Although I understand the difficulties in performing this experiments at -6 degrees, the authors should comment on the expected effect from going from 6 to -6 degrees.

Some of the lenses show a big difference in the lifetime measured at lmax1 or lmax 2. This may lead to a color change during decoloration. For instance, DMP brown has a lifetime of 198 s at 456 nm and 51 s at 584 nm. This is quite different and must be commented. The same for RDP brown.

The conclusions of this work are rather vague. That the fading kinetics are temperature depend everyone knows. For instance, the authors don’t identify which lenses show the lowest temperature dependency, which one maintains its color shade, or not. After a so long statistical study, the conclusions are a deception. Since the goal was to analyze the marketed lenses the study should be more objective especially the conclusions.

The conclusion could include a table or a paragraph to answer all the topics written in the last paragraph of the abstract:

Abstract: “There were significant differences in the optical properties of photochromic lenses in terms of showing absorbance at a shorter wavelength, lower transmittance, higher optical density, higher optical blocking % ratio, and higher luminous transmittance in cold temperature than in warm temperature. Hence, it is necessary to provide consumers with information on photochromic optical properties including …”

Reviewer #3: The authors present a study on the kinetics of commercially available photochromic spectacle lenses. The study seems to be well conducted and the results have been clearly presented. The underlying data has been made available.

Specific comments:

1. The statement in the abstract does not seem to be correct "... properties at cold than at warm temperatures were 11.5% lower for transmittance at the colored state, 1.4 times higher for optical density". According to the data this should be "1.4 times higher for the change in optical density (from faded to colored state).

The corresponding text in the manuscript main text should be revised accordingly

2. page 5, line 107: "All were middle index" does not sound very scientific. As according to the given refractive indices of the lenses, most of the lenses are most likely made of CR-39, the standard material. I'd suggest the following: "All lenses had a refractive index of 1.5-1.54 (standard material)".

3. page 6, line 128: Please add some more data on the spectrometer, what kind of light source was used?

4. page 9, line 193: is this correct that there is three times t1(1/2) ?? Does this make any sense?

5. The fact that photochromism shows different behaviour related to the ambient temperature has been shown previously. The authors may want to include the following literature to provide a better unterstanding on the thermal effects in photochromic materials:

R. J. Araujo, "Kinetics of Bleaching of Photochromic Glass," Appl. Opt. 7, 781-786 (1968)

D. C. Look and W. L. Johnson, "Transmittance of photochromic glass at environmental extremes," Appl. Opt. 18, 595-597 (1979)

6. The authors should discuss, that the measurements are affected by the fact that the activation has been performed outside the spectrometer and the lens was already deactivating/fading during spectrometer measurement. This may affect the results considering that the scanning speed of the spectrometer (500 nm/min) is relatively long. Given that only a VIS-spectrum was measured (bandwidth ~ 380 nm between 380 nm and 760 nm), the measurement would take about 46 seconds which is nearly half of t(1/2) at least for the measurement at the warm state

7. In general it would be extremel interesting to also have the change in the UV transmittance/absorbance of the lenses (< 380 nm). Are these data available?

Good luck with your 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

Reviewer #3: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1
Decision Letter - Timo Eppig, Editor

Differences in the optical properties of photochromic lenses between cold and warm temperatures

PONE-D-19-32995R1

Dear Dr. Yu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Timo Eppig

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I participated as a reviewer for the initial evaluation of this manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

These responses are in a attach file related Response to Editor’ comments and Response to Reviewers' comments:

We have revised our manuscript accordingly and provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments.

All the authors express their appreciation for your kind consideration of our manuscript.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Timo Eppig, Editor

PONE-D-19-32995R1

Differences in the optical properties of photochromic lenses between cold and warm temperatures

Dear Dr. Yu:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Timo Eppig

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .