Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Materials and Methods

Lines 152-153: What is the program did you use to built 3D model? Please, mention the program.

Line 172: The sentence: “This result was obtained by scaling and simply summing up the deposition...”. Is this Figure 3 a result? This information is not clear, I suggest rewrites that in a sentence.

 

Discussion

There is not a discussion about the results with previous studies. Please, explain better this section.

Parts of conclusions could be better here, I suggest reorganized it (lines 424-439).

 

Conclusions

Lines 447-452: This model was made with patients no vaccinated, probably these results could be modified with vaccinated people? A sentence explaining this information is importante here.

References

Please, reorganize this section according to the instructions for authors.

Author Response

The authors sincerely appreciate the time and effort you spent on reviewing our manuscript. Your comments are helpful and constructive and can help us improve our manuscript, and we do honestly agree with most of them. For details, please see the attachment. Thank you so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-designed experimental work exploring respiratory mucus dynamics in humans based on cellular fluid dynamics. Its conclusions are sound and I believe it is publishable in its current format.

Author Response

The authors sincerely thank you for your kind comments and your recognition of this study. We tweaked some contents slightly to make the article clearer. Many thanks for your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

NA

Author Response

The authors sincerely appreciate your review. We have modified the article to some extent according to the comments of reviewers. Look forward to your comments and many thanks in advance.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the modifications, I consider that the results presented of interest for the scientific contribution.