Evaluation of an Air Cleaning Device Equipped with Filtration and UV: Comparison of Removal Efficiency on Particulate Matter and Viable Airborne Bacteria in the Inlet and Treated Air
, Jacek A. Koziel 1,2,*, Nubia Macedo 3, Jeffrey J. Zimmerman 3, Danielle Wrzesinski 1, Erin Sobotka 1, Mateo Balderas 4, William B. Walz 1, Reid Vincent Paris 5, Myeongseong Lee 1,6, Dongjie Liu 7, Bauyrzhan Yedilbayev 1,8, Brett C. Ramirez 1 and William S. Jenks 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting and hot topic, strictly connected to human health. The results are significative in the context of indoor air purification and pathogens abatement.
I recommend publication after minor revision.
Specific comments.
- is it possible to predict a potential commercial price of the proposed device? and what is the mean lifetime of the UV lamps?
- with regard to the data presented in Tables 2-4. The mean values should be reported with the correct number of decimal digits based on the uncertainty, which is expressed by the standard deviation. E.g. 78.9% ± 4.8% becomes 79% ± 5%.
Moreover, standard deviation equal to 0% has non sense from the statistical point of view as casual errors are always present in experimental measurements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read an article on such an urgent topic. In general, the article makes a positive impression, but I had a few comments. First, it is necessary to expand the introduction. The author is pointed out that there are many air purification devices on the market that have not passed sufficient tests. Thus, the authors express doubts about the effectiveness of these devices. But the article lacks arguments on this issue: the principles of operation of these devices are not specified and there is no justification for the doubts expressed about the effectiveness. Secondly, evaluating the efficiency of the FastAir device, the authors focused on ultraviolet irradiation as the most important process determining the effectiveness of its operation. But there is no mention in the article about what the ozone emission is during the operation of the device. The assessment of ozone release is important both for the correct interpretation of the results of air disinfection, and for assessing the possible negative impact of the device on the air of public premises. Ozone, if inhaled for a long time, can cause serious consequences for the health of citizens, therefore, this parameter should not be underestimated for devices designed to purify the air of public spaces. The article can be published after the completion of the argumentation in the introduction and discussion of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
