Vibroacoustic Pollution in the Neonatal Ward

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

In my opinion, the Authors have given satisfactory responses to the comments, and the paper has been improved after revision. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have reviewed the corrections to the article and the doubts I raised are clearer. I thought the article was full paper, now I understood correctly.

King Regards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this interesting review the Authors aimed to focus on the effects of neonatal vibrations.

The paper appears well written, and the discussion looks well-balanced, although I would suggest to slightly expand the section dedicated to the possible favorable effects of low and well controlled intensity vibrations. 

References may need to be better adapted to the editorial requirements. 

Author Response

In this interesting review the Authors aimed to focus on the effects of neonatal vibrations.

Thank you very much. We believe that it is useful to introduce the concept of vibration pollution in the neonatal environment in order to promote further studies on the subject, which are currently very scarce.

The paper appears well written, and the discussion looks well-balanced, although I would suggest to slightly expand the section dedicated to the possible favorable effects of low and well controlled intensity vibrations. 

 We have expanded this section to accomplish with your considerations

References may need to be better adapted to the editorial requirements. 

reviewed

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Vibroacoustic Pollution in the Neonatal Ward

In the title the word acoustic appears, but it seems to focus more on vibrations.

The title is very general and it is somewhat obvious that noise pollution exists in these Neonatal Ward.

The gap knowlage and solutions are not defined, it is all very qualitative, nothing quantitative.

The Abstract

It is very basic and has no value, it only shows evidence without referring to vibration measurement values or the admissible normative limits.

 Introduction

It focuses on showing the results of other articles, but does not discuss the gap knowlage of this article.

Analysis and quantification

It shows some figures that are formulas not figures.

There is no quantification as the title says

There are no measurements, or they are not showns

Solutions

There are no justified solutions as there are no measurements.

Vibrations occur in a wide range of frequencies, and depending on the predominant frequencies, some isolation systems are defined or others.

Conclusions

They are not conclusions because no measurements have been made and there are no results, therefore, the conclusions are not grounded from a scientific point of view.

My research profile does not allow me to accept this type of article, since it does not follow a correct structure. There are no objectives, work methodology, measurements, result and discussions of the results. This article does not add value and is not useful for taking action in this type of neonatal wards..

Author Response

Comments: THIS IS AN ENTRY PAPER

Entry manuscripts should comprise:

Front matter: Title, Author list, Affiliations, Definition, Keywords.

Entry manuscript sections: Instruction or History, Main Body, Conclusions (optional).

Back matter: Supplementary Materials, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, References.

I am sorry but I think you thought it was a research article and it is not. The quantification has already been published in a previous, longer article showing that the neonate's head is subjected to excessive vibration. ( Sequí-Canet, J.M.; Rey-Tormos, R.d.; Alba-Fernández, J.; González-Mazarías, G. Vibroacoustic Study in the Neonatal Ward. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1180.)

This article aims to delve into the state of the question which seems to us to be new because there has been much study of noise but little study of vibration in neonates admitted to neonatal centers.

The tittle is like that because vibration is a kind of acoustic pollution

Title: Vibroacoustic Pollution in the Neonatal Ward

In the title the word acoustic appears, but it seems to focus more on vibrations.

Vibrations are a fundamental part of acoustics. A distinction is made in the field of acoustics: airborne noise and vibrations. They are distinguished from each other by frequency. Generally speaking, waves with low frequencies are vibrations, and waves with medium-high frequency are known as airborne noise.The human ear cannot detect waves outside the range of 20Hz-20KHz. Waves from 0Hz to 80-100Hz should be considered vibrations. The authors have previously studied the airborne noise analysis of the neonatal nursery, this reference can be found in the paper: del Rey, R.; Alba, J.; Sequí, J.; Revert, M. Análisis Acústico Del Entorno de La Sala Neonatal Del Hospital de Gandia. In Proceedings of the XI Congreso Iberoamericano de Acústica. X Congreso Ibérico de Acústica, 49◦ Congreso Español de Acústica, Cádiz, Spain, 24–26 October 2018.

The authors have tried to reflect this consideration in the text, from line 54 to line 68:

The title is very general and it is somewhat obvious that noise pollution exists in these Neonatal Ward.

The novelty of this work is that it defines a protocol for the review of vibrations in neonatal wards, which has been little studied so far, compared to the extensive studies that exist on the evaluation of airborne noise.

 The gap knowlage and solutions are not defined, it is all very qualitative, nothing quantitative.

The authors have quantified both noise pollution and the existence of vibrations in the neonatal nursery in previous works referenced in the text. 

The Abstract

It is very basic and has no value, it only shows evidence without referring to vibration measurement values or the admissible normative limits.

 the admissible normative limits are shown in table 1

 Introduction

It focuses on showing the results of other articles, but does not discuss the gap knowlage of this article.

 Analysis and quantification

It shows some figures that are formulas not figures.

There is no quantification as the title says

There are no measurements, or they are not showns

 The authors have quantified both noise pollution and the existence of vibrations in the neonatal nursery in previous works referenced in the text. 

Solutions

There are no justified solutions as there are no measurements.

Vibrations occur in a wide range of frequencies, and depending on the predominant frequencies, some isolation systems are defined or others.

Any acoustic solution is designed according to the frequency range to be solved. This is true for both airborne noise and vibration. Acoustic engineering consists in the evaluation of a very wide spectrum of waves, and in different applications. The improvement to a noise problem (either airborne noise or vibration) depends on the frequency. Therefore, for a solution to be effective, it must be frequency dependent.

 Conclusions

They are not conclusions because no measurements have been made and there are no results, therefore, the conclusions are not grounded from a scientific point of view.

 My research profile does not allow me to accept this type of article, since it does not follow a correct structure. There are no objectives, work methodology, measurements, result and discussions of the results. This article does not add value and is not useful for taking action in this type of neonatal wards.

we believe that it is useful to introduce the concept of vibration pollution in the neonatal environment in order to promote further studies on the subject, which are currently very scarce.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript contains an overview of the literature concerned with impact of noise and vibrations on humans, and in more detailed the overview of their impact on neonatal patients the authors gathered and presented. The authors introduced their contribution only through some comments on the results already presented in literature, that is, there are no original research results in the manuscript.

If the journal's policy is to publish only original research results, this manuscript should not be published. But, if the journal's policy is to publish review papers without original contribution, then the paper can be evaluated. The opinion of this reviewer zs that review papers are something that is worthy for experienced researchers, and not for young people like the authors of the manuscript.

even if it is acceptable for a journal to publish review work by young authors, the manuscript has serious shortcomings the manuscript has serious weaknesses that avoid its published in existing form.

1. Significant part of the manuscript contains notorious facts that one can found in student textbooks for elementary courses, such as:

„Airborne noise, which may be heard, can be defined as the propagation of sound between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz“.

„The displacement from the equilibrium point, or vibration, can be expressed as a distance in meters (m), a speed in meters per second (m/s), or an acceleration in meters per second squared (m/s2). Acceleration is the factor that is most frequently utilized in vibration evaluation, it is expressed in m/s2“.

Beside, it is hard to understand the meaning of this part: „vibration, can be expressed as a distance in meters (m),

2. The use of some physical terms is unusual or wrong, such as:

- affects then quontity of sound,

- setting high reverberation levels over noise in almost every frequency

- Noise quality targets for vibrations

3. There are technical and linguistic shortcomings:

- the formulas in the manuscript are named “pictures” because they were transferred by copy/paste from some other texts and not edited for the manuscript.

- Some sentences have a strange construction and wording as if they were literally translated from Spanish to English.

- The Vibration Index (Law) is mentioned on page 2, and its definition and explanation only on page 6.

4. Some explanations are slightly strange, such as:

„Some studies point that [44], the incubator's motor has the highest impact on vibrations, with other potential vibration sources like the room's central air conditioning having a smaller impact“. Ths reviewer has no idea how central air conditioning equipment can impact on vibration in incubator, beside motor in it.

5. the authors themselves defined the significance of their manuscript by the conclusion: „There is a need to further examine the degree of vibration in neonatal environments“ stating that their manuscript does not show any of their own results.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very wise comments, they make this article better. 

This is an Entry Paper which means that it is aimed to be a short review

Entry manuscripts should comprise:

Front matter: Title, Author list, Affiliations, Definition, Keywords.

Entry manuscript sections: Instruction or History, Main Body, Conclusions (optional).

Back matter: Supplementary Materials, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, References.

I am sorry but I think you thought it was a research article and it is not. The quantification has already been published in a previous, longer article showing that the neonate's head is subjected to excessive vibration. This article aims to delve into the state of the question which seems to us to be new because there has been much study of noise but little study of vibration in neonates admitted to neonatal centers.

The manuscript contains an overview of the literature concerned with impact of noise and vibrations on humans, and in more detailed the overview of their impact on neonatal patients the authors gathered and presented. The authors introduced their contribution only through some comments on the results already presented in literature, that is, there are no original research results in the manuscript.

If the journal's policy is to publish only original research results, this manuscript should not be published. But, if the journal's policy is to publish review papers without original contribution, then the paper can be evaluated. The opinion of this reviewer zs that review papers are something that is worthy for experienced researchers, and not for young people like the authors of the manuscript.

We believe that young people are the future and in the authorship of the article we have three established authors and two new authors with a great future who we hope will learn from the experience and follow the path of research, which is becoming increasingly difficult.

even if it is acceptable for a journal to publish review work by young authors, the manuscript has serious shortcomings the manuscript has serious weaknesses that avoid its published in existing form.

1. Significant part of the manuscript contains notorious facts that one can found in student textbooks for elementary courses, (it is an entry paper for all kind of readers)

This language has been used so that the readers of a magazine not specialized in acoustics could understand the concepts without difficulties or the need to consult specific bibliography of physics, acoustics or engineering.

such as:

„Airborne noise, which may be heard, can be defined as the propagation of sound between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz“.

„The displacement from the equilibrium point, or vibration, can be expressed as a distance in meters (m), a speed in meters per second (m/s), or an acceleration in meters per second squared (m/s2). Acceleration is the factor that is most frequently utilized in vibration evaluation, it is expressed in m/s2“.

Beside, it is hard to understand the meaning of this part: „vibration, can be expressed as a distance in meters (m),

As just a displacement from a central point. In acoustic engineering, the vibration parameter can be expressed in terms of displacement (m), velocity (m/s) and acceleration (m/s2). This is even specified in many ISO standards where vibrations are evaluated. The most commonly used expression is in terms of acceleration (m/s2).

2. The use of some physical terms is unusual or wrong, such as:

- affects then quontity of sound, corrected

- setting high reverberation levels over noise in almost every frequency corrected

- Noise quality targets for vibrations corrected

3. There are technical and linguistic shortcomings:

- the formulas in the manuscript are named “pictures” because they were transferred by copy/paste from some other texts and not edited for the manuscript.

- Some sentences have a strange construction and wording as if they were literally translated from Spanish to English.

- The Vibration Index (Law) is mentioned on page 2, and its definition and explanation only on page 6. corrected

4. Some explanations are slightly strange, such as:

„Some studies point that [44], the incubator's motor has the highest impact on vibrations, with other potential vibration sources like the room's central air conditioning having a smaller impact“. Ths reviewer has no idea how central air conditioning equipment can impact on vibration in incubator, beside motor in it. Corrected and explained

5. the authors themselves defined the significance of their manuscript by the conclusion:„There is a need to further examine the degree of vibration in neonatal environments“ stating that their manuscript does not show any of their own results. corrected