Rat-Tail Models for Studying Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome: A Comparison between Living and Cadaver Rat Tails

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an original and very thorough article investigating the biodynamic responses of living rat tails in a finger vibration model and time dependence. The study of Warren and Colleagues aims to deeply understand the health effects on human fingers under exposure to vibration and force with hand-held power tools. The paper is well-written, and the organization of the work is clear. I have only a few main points that I listed below.

1)    In Table 2, the parameters of Tail 1 are empty, and I suggest putting ‘*’ as Table 1 to clarify the outliers.  In addition, the CVs of these parameters without that of tail 1 are over 20% which is expected to be interpreted in the Discussion.

2)    The p values in the manuscript are supposed to use italic format.

3)    In Table 4, four data are marked in red without illustration.

4)    In Line 345, there is 11 which is probably reference No.

 

5)    The authors must provide DOI indexes for all references if they exist. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment:

In its current form, this paper is seen more as a progress report than a scientific paper. In view of the uncertainties associated with some of the experimental limitations or shortcomings which have been identified, it would perhaps have been more appropriate for the authors to consider addressing and resolving these issues BEFORE attempting to present the results as part of a scientific paper.

More specific comments follow:

1.      Explanations on the motivation for investigating the difference in the biodynamic responses of cadaver and living rat tails and their change with exposure time are clearly lacking. Explanations are also missing on how these results are likely to provide a better understanding of the biological effects leading to VWF.

2.      The last paragraph of section 4.3 states that:’ Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.’ While this reviewer questions whether these suggestions were really intended to be a part of the discussion, he agrees with these statements and is of the opinion that theses recommendations should have been addressed as part of the current paper.

3.      In section 4.3, the authors acknowledge the fact that the large variations of the experimental and modeling data could account for some of the inconsistencies noted among the four testing stations. They also suggest how their design and operational mode could be improved to reduce the discrepancies. Why not have applied these suggestions as part of the current study to ensure that the results are independent of the test station used?

4.      The above suggestion applies also to the experimental conditions (excitation amplitude, exposure duration) which were reported to be different with the cadaver and living rat tails. Why not have considered, at least partially, some experiments where the conditions would have been identical to provide a baseline for the comparison?

5.      Avenues for improving the loading devices have been identified by the authors in section 4.3. The value of the results that are presented as part of this paper would have benefited from further investigation of these avenues to remove the large variability that was observed with some of the reported results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Consider that the paper is now acceptable for publication.