Next Article in Journal
The Heterogeneity of High-Quality Economic Development in China’s Mining Cities: A Meta Frontier Function
Previous Article in Journal
Social Network, Sense of Responsibility, and Resident Participation in China’s Rural Environmental Governance
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Do They Really Work? Quantifying Fabric Mask Effectiveness to Improve Public Health Messaging

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(11), 6372; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116372
by Charles Freeman 1,*, Reuben Burch 2,3, Lesley Strawderman 2, Catherine Black 1, David Saucier 3, Jaime Rickert 4, John Wilson 4, Holli Seitz 5 and Jeffrey Stull 6
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(11), 6372; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116372
Submission received: 19 April 2022 / Revised: 20 May 2022 / Accepted: 20 May 2022 / Published: 24 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

TO THE AUTHORS

This is an interesting paper about the implementation of a variant procedure for testing filtration efficiency and differential pressure of face masks and barrier face coverings, in order to evidence the importance of face fit for the overall performance of the protective equipment.

The presented method can find useful and practical application in the field of mask testing. The manuscript is informative and conclusions fit the reported results.

However, there are some improvements that authors should perform to improve clarity and reproducibility of the presented methods that are currently lacking clarity and essential information. Part of this information was supposed to be in a supplementary material which actually was not available for review. The structured analytical and statistical approach should be better detailed in a dedicated paragraph under the Mat&Methods section. The authors are also suggested to check the recent literature on the specific topic of mask filtration testing and assessment of air leaks at the face-mask interface, comparing their findings with other authors results on very similar approaches (e.g.: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2021.1933377 and https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063548)

Quality and clarity of figures including graphs should be improved.

A number of specific comments are provided in line with the text in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached for responses to reviewer 1 on the detailed PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors sufficiently addressed all comments from this reviewer. Manuscript clarity and methods reproducibility has increased. Despite three additional references were added to the text, bibliographic list was not updated and should be checked.

Author Response

The authors have added those 3 references. 

Back to TopTop