Comparative Study of Blue Light with Ultraviolet (UVC) Radiation on Betacoronavirus 1

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Comparative study of blue light with ultraviolet radiations on SARS-C0V-2 virus” presents a study aiming to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blue light (405 nm) to disinfect coronavirus by comparing with other light disinfecting methods. While the question itself is of importance, the study itself is too slim and the writing is very confusing. A few examples are listed below:

1.       It seems there are only two experiments. One is the measurement of irradiance vs distance. The other is the comparison of TCID50. The results were not described properly. The principle of each experiment was not explained and the data were neither interpreted by comparing among the different light conditions, nor discussed for their possible application conditions.

2.       The title says SARS-CoV-2 virus. But the experiments were done using beta coronavirus 1.

3.       The goal of this study is to investigate the potential of 405 nm as a disinfecting method that can be utilized in a public area, but the irradiance of this light already falls to almost zero at ~50 cm. The author mentioned using multiple light sources. But how many light sources would that need to cover a public arena by keeping the distance within 50 cm?

4.       The figure presentation is a mess. Figure 2 is before Figure 1. Figures 3 & 4 are missing. Figure 7 is part of the data going with Table 1 and should be explained in the Result section instead of the Discussion section. The citations of most of the Figures are wrong.

Author Response

Hello,

I would like to thank you for your time and effort on my paper.

Please find below the answer to your comments and attached revised manuscript with track changes on.

1. It seems there are only two experiments. One is the measurement of irradiance vs distance. The other is the comparison of TCID50. The results were not described properly. The principle of each experiment was not explained and the data were neither interpreted by comparing among the different light conditions, nor discussed for their possible application conditions. – The result, discussion and conclusion are rewritten with this point into consideration.
2. The title says SARS-CoV-2 virus. But the experiments were done using beta coronavirus 1. – Title changed to “Beta coronavirus 1”
3. The goal of this study is to investigate the potential of 405 nm as a disinfecting method that can be utilized in a public area, but the irradiance of this light already falls to almost zero at ~50 cm. The author mentioned using multiple light sources. But how many light sources would that need to cover a public arena by keeping the distance within 50 cm? – The irradiance test was conducted for calculating the exposure time based on desired distance and dose. The results and discussion has been rewritten to highlight this point.
4. The figure presentation is a mess. Figure 2 is before Figure 1. Figures 3 & 4 are missing. Figure 7 is part of the data going with Table 1 and should be explained in the Result section instead of the Discussion section. The citations of most of the Figures are wrong. – All the figure numbers and cross references are corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comparative Study of Blue Light with Ultraviolet (UVC) Radiations on SARS-CoV-2 Virus

 It is an interesting work, where authors compare blue light to other sources to be used in disinfection.

Although it is an interest work, it has some flaws and needs revision and improvement: 

The microorganisms’ name should be in italic – see all document

Abstract – line 15 à conducted in the past

Introduction – line 51 à “…, to treat viruses.” – Treat is not the best word, virus are not “treated”. Please rephrase.

In the text the reference to figures 5 and 6 are switched, when 6 is referred, should be 5 and vice-versa.

Figure 6 – quality of picture is not very good; it is difficult to understand

Legend of table 1 should be more explanatory

Figure 7 should be placed in discussion and not in conclusion.

Discussion and conclusion should be improved. Authors don´t really discuss why blue light is better than the other sources.

 

Author Response

Hello,

I would like to thank you for your time and effort on my paper.

Please find below the answer to your comments and attached revised manuscript with track change on.

The microorganisms’ name should be in italic – see all document - Done

Abstract – line 15 à conducted in the past – Can you please explain

Introduction – line 51 à “…, to treat viruses.” – Treat is not the best word, virus are not “treated”. Please rephrase. - Done

In the text the reference to figures 5 and 6 are switched, when 6 is referred, should be 5 and vice-versa. – All the figure numbers and cross references are corrected

Figure 6 – quality of picture is not very good; it is difficult to understand – Done

Legend of table 1 should be more explanatory - Done

Figure 7 should be placed in discussion and not in conclusion. – Moved to results section

Discussion and conclusion should be improved. Authors don´t really discuss why blue light is better than the other sources. - Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some improvements, especially in the result presentation. But still, multiple points need to be addressed.

 

·         The experiments used Beta Coronavirus 1. But everywhere else (abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion) talked about SARS-CoV-2. This difference was not justified.

 

·         For each figure caption, there should be a title sentence introducing the main message of the figure.

 

·         Some figure captions should be more informative. For example, for fig 5, it is not clear what are presented in the images, cells or virus, if only reading the caption alone. Also, what is “Infectived plague” ?

 

·         A subtitle is missing for the description of the experiment for Fig 6 in the Result section.

 

·         All the number-unit presentation should have a space in between. For example, it should be 200 nm instead of 200nm.

 

·         Line 109: The SARS-CoV-2 is made of structural proteins i.e., spikes(S), envelope(E)…

Should be: The SARS-CoV-2 contains structural proteins i.e., spikes(S), envelope(E)…

 

·         Line 151: Each led module shown in Fig. 2…

Does it mean: Each LED module shown in Fig.2… ?

 

·         Lines 305-306: “Whereas visible blue light has the potential to be used in occupied space.” This sentence is incomplete.

Author Response

Hello Reviewer,

I have taken all the comments and edited the manuscript.

• The experiments used Beta Coronavirus 1. But everywhere else (abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion) talked about SARS-CoV-2. This difference was not justified. – The manuscript has been modified to beta coronavirus.
• For each figure caption, there should be a title sentence introducing the main message of the figure. - Done
• Some figure captions should be more informative. For example, for fig 5, it is not clear what are presented in the images, cells or virus, if only reading the caption alone. Also, what is “Infectived plague” ? – All the figure captions have been improved. It was infected plague which is the viral colonies that I highlighted.
• A subtitle is missing for the description of the experiment for Fig 6 in the Result section. - Done
• All the number-unit presentation should have a space in between. For example, it should be 200 nm instead of 200nm. - Done
• Line 109: The SARS-CoV-2 is made of structural proteins i.e., spikes(S), envelope(E)… Should be: The SARS-CoV-2 contains structural proteins i.e., spikes(S), envelope(E)… - Done
• Line 151: Each led module shown in Fig. 2… Does it mean: Each LED module shown in Fig.2… ? – Yes, its LED. I have corrected it in the manuscript.

 

• Lines 305-306: “Whereas visible blue light has the potential to be used in occupied space.” This sentence is incomplete. – Rewritten the discussion and conclusion.

Please find attached the manuscript.

Thank you so much for your time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comparative Study of Blue Light with Ultraviolet (UVC) Radiations on Beta Coronavirus 1

The work was revised, and although authors state that they improved discussion and conclusion, that is not true, They stayed the same! I still consider it should be improved, to have a really discussion.

In line 15 (now line 19), it is not "Several studies conducted the in past" but "Several studies conducted in the past"

 

Author Response

Hello Reviewer,

I have rewritten the discussion and conclusion part. Please find attached the edited manuscript. 

Thank you so much for your comments and time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx