Exploring the Impact and Prevention of Epidemics Based on Inter-Animal Transmission from an Environmental Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Estimated Authors,

I've read with great interest your study entitled "Exploring the Impact and Prevention of Epidemics based on inter-animal transmission from Environmental perspective".

In this study, based on reference animal experiments, Authors have established a dynamic model of respiratory infectious diseases in living environments, therefore exploring the probability of illness in susceptible individuals and the patterns of respiratory virus transmission.

The study, despite the limits associated with an animal model, is both interesting and potentially useful for professionals and stakeholders. However, some adjustments could be envisaged before the eventual acceptance, and more precisely:

 

1) Table 2: are you dealing with core temperature or surface temperature? Human core temperature is higher than 36-37°C (axillary temperature), and I guess that body temperature of guinea pig is the rectal one, that in human being is way higher than the axillary one.

2) Table 3: please move Fig. 5 and 6 as well as the following ones (7-10) as supplementary or appendix material

3) a more appropriate way for comparing the simulation of virus spread could be the calculation of the Area Under Curve (AUC) for each estimate, with corresponding 95%CI. Overlaps of 95%CI would lead to acknowledge no substantial differences among the models, while the lack of overlaps would guarantee the opposite conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting and potentially valuable approach to modeling respiratory disease transmission. With the suggested improvements, particularly in clarity of presentation and more rigorous validation, it could make a significant contribution to the field. Here are my suggestions below:

1. Weaknesses:

   1. The manuscript has numerous grammatical and language issues that need to be addressed to improve clarity and readability. A thorough proofreading and editing is required.
   2. The methodology section could be more clearly structured and explained. The derivation of some key equations (e.g. Eq 5 and 6) is not well described.
   3. The animal-to-human analogies and scaling factors used in the model are not thoroughly justified. More discussion is needed on the validity of these comparisons.
   4. The literature review is somewhat limited. A more comprehensive review of existing transmission models would strengthen the paper.
   5. Some of the figures are of low quality and difficult to read (e.g. Fig 1). These should be recreated at higher resolution.
   6. Statistical analysis of the model results is limited. More rigorous statistical testing of the model outputs would increase confidence in the conclusions.

   Suggestions for improvement:

   1. Thoroughly revise the manuscript for language and grammar. Consider professional editing services.
   2. Restructure the methods section to more clearly explain the model development process, equations, and assumptions.
   3. Expand the discussion of limitations, particularly regarding the animal-to-human analogies used.
   4. Include a more comprehensive literature review of existing transmission models and how this work builds upon them.
   5. Improve the quality and clarity of all figures and tables.
   6. Conduct more rigorous statistical analysis of the model results and sensitivity to different parameters.
   7. Consider additional model validation using other real-world datasets if available.
   8. Expand the discussion of practical implications and how this model could be applied to inform public health strategies.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive language editing is needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented by the authors is interesting and will add value to the scientific community at large. Below are minor revisions I have for the authors

1. The text of this article must be worked on generally. See Section 2.2.1

2. The symbol \rho and \beta are not uniform in the manuscript. See line 194-212.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper about air transmissions and epidemics. It is important, because we should prepare for the next pandemic.

Some minors changes should be done.

ABSTRACT: In the abstract, the authors should include a section that deals with material and methods, and another section with the main results.

INTRODUCTIOn: Line 31, 32:  add to droplets, aerosols (like in covid19)

INTRODUCTION: The first time that an acronym is used it should be explained. For example you use 2 abreviatures , but don’t explain them in line 56 SIR (Susceptible, Infectious, Recovered) and SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered) models.

"At the same time, the SIR (Susceptible, Infectious, Recovered) model and SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infectious, Recovered) model are two classic models in the field of infectious disease dynamics."

 

 

For the discussion explain the biological bases, of the relation found between temperature and virus transmission.

Do the same with humidity.

Do you think that international or regulations, should be applied to airplane cabins, and railways’ carriages?.

 

Do you recommend any number of renovations for railways?

Another question for future research   should the air that is recirculated in airplanes be disinfected using UVC, or HEPA filters or photcatalitic systems. ?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf