Influence of Temperature Variability on the Efficacy of Negative Ions in Removing Particulate Matter and Pollutants: An Experimental Database
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
I need to see clear findings being expressed in the abstract, otherwise it is just about methods.
I do not understand the summary heading? Also because there is already an abstract and the introduction will not start like this.
“1. Summary”
“1. Summary This paper presents new data on the interaction between negative ions and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 µm (PM2.5) in controlled environments to reduce airborne PM2.5 concentrations through electrostatic recombination. Negative ions, generated via a high-voltage system, bind to pollutants, increasing particle mass and accelerating their removal from the air. The experiments, conducted in a 40 cm3 chamber, measured variables such as temperature, humidity, formaldehyde (HCHO), total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), negative air ions (NAIs), and PM2.5 concentrations. Pollutants used included cigarette smoke, incense, charcoal, and gasoline, tested across two voltage levels (7500 V and 30,000 V) and three temperature ranges (14–17°C, 23–27°C, 39–51°C). A total of 24 unique conditions were examined, resulting in 36,000 samples. The experimental setup involved two key devices: the KT-401 aerosol ion tester (for NAI measurements) and the DM306 portable air quality monitor (for PM2.5 and other parameters). The data, stored in CSV format, follows international standards and is available for further analysis. Each test was repeated five times for reliability, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the effect of negative ions on PM2.5 reduction under various conditions.”
I am unsure if this is some kind of graphical abstract which instead instead is just a ssheme.
“Figure 1. High-voltage electronic circuit that elevates the voltage to levels of 7500 V or 30000 V”
It seems to me that authors have tried to make this specific manuscript similar to the ones found in similar journals where the main objective is to report data. In any case, this needs to be clear and improved as MDPI allows data manuscripts to resemble common articles.
Data description is not an adequate title for a HAT to
“2.1. Experimental Conditions”
This should in fact all be methods.
“3. Materials and Methods”
Not sure if there is a need to present such a figure. You can just point it out to the correct URL or company selling it.
“Figure 2. KT-401 aerosol ion tester.”
Please do not start captions with. “The”
So if I understand correctly and until now, you mainly have a text where you describe how they. data was obtained instead of presenting the data and show what it was used for.
The references are extremely scarce and in fact , they are not properly formatted and we do not have in fact access to the data.
Please check if the below example (another subject but useful) helps you on restructuring the manuscript and adding much more information as providing the data.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107560
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAt this manuscript authors have dealt with an interesting topic, of high environmental, manufacturing and industrial interest, when measuring/monitoring the impact on PMs and other hazardous substances in industrial and airborn-deleterious environments. For this, there is still room for structural improvements and organizational upgrading, prior to its publication at the Data journal. To this end, the proposed review comments can be considered.
1) The Introduction section is not fully conveying what is the exact problem setting and what are the sampling, trials’ period of collecting and experimenting, the country in which the experiments took place, as well as the logical framework followed by authors. The study cannot be a-topical and a-chronic, but to be undertaken in specific time and place. Please determine them since the involvement of temperature outdoors is directly related to specific time and place and experimental sessions’ importance. For this, please let me support authors to revise and upgrade their analysis, structuring it under the following logical background:
There are dust collectors which perform in industry, especially in the paper and cardboard industry, as well as in waste incineration plants. Particularly, using filter the dust collectors can centrally collect it and prevent dust from spreading. However, the presence of viruses and other particles that are detected directly into the production machines, making the dust collectors to protect people, machines, environment production areas and products. In the case of filterless device that removes fine particles, such as PM, there should be the electrostatic precipitator (ESP), such as dust and smoke, from specific industrial plants, as that of a flowing gas using the force of an induced electrostatic charge, while minimally impeding the flow of gases through the unit. An ESP is considered as an energy-mild technique since it applies energy only to the particulate matter being collected, making it very efficient as an energy-saving device considering its rational low energy consumption (mainly in the form of electricity).
2) The min-max temperature intervals cannot be such a closely varied, only 3 oC, but at a temperature min-max 5oC is needed. Therefore, these temperature borders expansion should make authors to redesign their experiments, or at least to make a make a coherent and creative discussion of what should be the findings if the temperature intervals are extended to 5oC borders, per each one of the 3 temperature ranges’ studied.
3) The main part of subsections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, is deprived from cross-citations, thus, adding them can better validate and verify the analysis and findings.
4) The titles of all main headings sound somehow distant and irrational for the scopes of scientific article. Therefore, authors are recommended to name and to deploy their analysis, results, findings, discussion, in alignment with the formal terminology: 1.Introduction, 2.Literature Review, 3.Methodology and Analysis, 4.Results and Discussion, 5.Notations. Those already developed sections can be kept as are, while the missing main headings have to be structured and numbered, as above. However, the sections of Methodology and Analysis, Discussion, are high advised to be included in the revised manuscript, disclosing constraints, positive practices and authors’ recommendations or priority actions to protect machines’, products’ and moderators-workforce in the long-run from an air pollution degradation environment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHighlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
Please clearly answer each comments, separately, as usual.
No clear answer in fact, see that the reviewer is entitled to an own opinion:
“Comment 1.1 “I need to see clear findings being expressed in the abstract, otherwise it is
just about methods.
I do not understand the summary heading? Also because there is already an abstract and the introduction will not start like this. “1. Summary” “1. Summary This paper presents new data on the interaction between negative ions and particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 µm (PM2.5) in controlled environments to reduce airborne PM2.5 concentrations through electrostatic recombination. Negative ions, generated via a high-voltage system, bind to pollutants, increasing particle mass and accelerating their removal from the air. The experiments, conducted in a 40 cm3 chamber, measured variables such as temperature, humidity, formaldehyde (HCHO), total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), negative air ions (NAIs), and PM2.5 concentrations. Pollutants used included cigarette smoke, incense, charcoal, and gasoline, tested across two voltage levels (7500 V and 30,000 V) and three temperature ranges (14–17°C, 23–27°C, 39–51°C). A total of 24 unique conditions were examined, resulting in 36,000 samples. The experimental setup involved two key devices: the KT-401 aerosol ion tester (for NAI measurements) and the DM306 portable air quality monitor (for PM2.5 and other parameters). The data, stored in CSV format, follows international standards and is available for further analysis. ”
Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. This article has been submitted as a “data descriptor article” and according to the Data journal has the following parts within the instruction section for authors: Summary, Data Description, Methods, User notes.1 Based on the above and to address the reviewer’s comment, the abstract was analyzed and modified.”
Well, this doubt was also raised because I could not define any specific mention to figure 1 in the text. So there needs to be one.
“Comment 1.2 “I am unsure if this is some kind of graphical abstract which instead instead
is just a ssheme.”
Answer. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding Figure 1. To clarify, Figure 1 is indeed a scheme rather than a graphical abstract. It represents the high-voltage system used to generate the negative ions essential for the air purification process. This scheme is crucial to understanding the experimental setup, as the negative ions play a key role in binding to particulate matter and facilitating its removal from the air. We hope this clarifies the purpose of the figure and its relevance to the study.”
“Comment 1.2 “I am unsure if this is some kind of graphical abstract which instead instead
is just a ssheme.”
Answer. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback regarding Figure 1. To clarify, Figure 1 is indeed a scheme rather than a graphical abstract. It represents the high-voltage system used
Please, see the Data Descriptor Information in https://www.mdpi.com/journal/data/instructions
1/5
to generate the negative ions essential for the air purification process. This scheme is crucial to understanding the experimental setup, as the negative ions play a key role in binding to particulate matter and facilitating its removal from the air. We hope this clarifies the purpose of the figure and its relevance to the study.”
Well but then the “ARTICLE” classification above, indicated by the authors, makes little sense to me>
“– Comment 1.3 “It seems to me that authors have tried to make this specific manuscript
similar to the ones found in similar journals where the main objective is to report data. In
any case, this needs to be clear and improved as MDPI allows data manuscripts to resemble
common articles.”
Answer. Thank you for your insightful comments. I would like to clarify that the submitted manuscript is a Data Descriptor article, which focuses on providing a comprehensive overview of the dataset, rather than conducting a traditional research study”
I will insist in the comment>
“– Comment 1.4 “Data description is not an adequate title for a HAT to “2.1. Experimental
Conditions””
Answer. Thank you for your insightful comments. I would like to clarify that the submitted manuscript is a Data Descriptor article, which focuses on providing a comprehensive overview of the dataset, rather than conducting a traditional research study”
What I mean is that the previous content should integrate the methods section then>
“– Comment 1.5 “This should in fact all be methods. “3. Materials and Methods””
Answer. I totally agree with the reviewer. This section is part of the Data Descriptor
article sections.”
I do not find the figure relevant in the context of a “DATA” article>
“– Comment 1.6 “Not sure if there is a need to present such a figure. You can just point it
out to the correct URL or company selling it. “Figure 2. KT-401 aerosol ion tester.””
Answer. Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Figure 2. The intention behind
including this figure is to provide readers with a visual representation of the specific
equipment used in the study, which plays a critical role in collecting the dataset. We believe
this visual aid enhances clarity and helps readers unfamiliar with the equipment better
understand the experimental setup. However, we appreciate your suggestion and have
included the the URL or company information for those seeking further details.”
Despite this, I do in fact believe to be important to complement the content>
“Comment 1.8 “So if I understand correctly and until now, you mainly have a text where
you describe how they. data was obtained instead of presenting the data and show what it
was used for.”
Answer. Thank you for your insightful comments. You are absolutely right in your observation, and this aligns with the focus of the journal for this particular submission. As mentioned earlier, this manuscript follows the structure of a Data Descriptor article, which emphasizes providing a detailed overview of the dataset, methods used for its collection, and guidance on how it can be reused by other researchers. The sections such as Summary, Data Description, Methods, and Usage Notes are specifically designed to facilitate this goal, in line with the journal’s focus on sharing and describing valuable datasets for the research community. We greatly appreciate your understanding and are committed to ensuring the article adheres to these standard”
The comments below intend to assist the authors in chieving more relevance, nothing more.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagemoderate
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy review comments have been addressed in a satisfactory manner. The manuscript has been considerably improved comparing to the initial study, thus, it can be accepted for publication at the Data journal as is (in its revised version).
