Register Dashboard
Search
25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Application of transparent microperforated panel to acrylic partitions for desktop use: A case study by prototyping'

    Bookmark
    5
    Application of transparent microperforated panel to acrylic partitions for desktop use: A case study by prototypingCrossref
    useful application, with careful and rigorous methodology
    Average rating:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Application of transparent microperforated panel to acrylic partitions for desktop use: A case study by prototyping

     Kimihiro Sakagami (corresponding) ,  Midori Kusaka,  Takeshi Okuzono (2021)
    There are various measures currently in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19; however, in some cases, these can have an adverse effect on the acoustic environment in buildings. For example, transparent acrylic partitions are often used in eating establishments, meeting rooms, offices, etc., to prevent droplet infection. However, acrylic partitions are acoustically reflective; therefore, reflected sounds may cause acoustic problems such as difficulties in conversation or the leakage of conversation. In this study, we performed a prototyping of transparent acrylic partitions to which a microperforated panel (MPP) was applied for sound absorption while maintaining transparency. The proposed partition is a triple-leaf acrylic partition with a single acrylic sheet without holes between two MPP sheets, as including a hole-free panel is important to a possible droplet penetration. The sound absorption characteristics were investigated by measuring the sound absorption in a reverberation room. As the original prototype showed sound absorption characteristics with a gentle peak and low values due to the openings on the periphery, it was modified by closing the openings of the top and sides. The sound absorption performance was improved to some extent when the top and sides were closed, although there remains the possibility of further improvement. This time, only the sound absorption characteristics were examined in the prototype experiments. The effects during actual use will be the subject of future study.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ARCH.AOVEQW.v1.RDHGYO

      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Keywords:

      Review text

      I would like to thank the authors for taking into account the reviewers' comments, I think the manuscript is clear and smooth to read. 

      Regarding the figures, I tend to agree with one of the reviewers about removing Figg. 5 and 7 and leave only Fig 9, which includes all the necessary info. Please, explore the option and check if this is feasible withouth comporomising the flow of the narrative.

      To compensate for this, a new figure could be added: this could be a schematic diagram/flow chart of the experiments/steps - so the overall trial and error approach is reinforced and made clear to the reader. Please double check if the experiments/steps phrasing is consistent throughout the mansucript and inthe figures captions.

      Overall, an enjoyable work to read!

      Comments

      Dear Reviewer,

      Thank you very much for your constructive comment with positive appreciation.

      We have removed Figs. 5 and 7, and leave only Fig. 9. We also changed the structure of the section: the section is now divided into two – one describes the outline of the experiment, and the other presents results and discussion. By this reconstruction, we believe that this has saved space and made it easier to read. Also, we removed the word ‘step’ from this section to avoid a possible confusion. Now we consistently use ‘specimen’ only.

      Once again, many thanks for your kind suggestions and positive comments.

      2021-06-23 08:06 UTC
      +1

      Comment on this review