Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Editor,
We would like to share our views on the publication, “Measurement of particulate matter 2.5 in surgical smoke and its health hazards [1].” Okoshi et al. concluded that “Surgical smoke poses potential health risks to operating room personnel by contaminating their breathing zone with high concentrations of particulate matter 2.5. A local exhaust ventilation system is needed to reduce exposure. [1].” We agree that particulate matter 2.5 in surgical smoke is a risk but details are lacking. The authors of the study describe the existence of particulate matter 2.5 in the operation room; however, the exact source of the matter may or may not be related to the surgical procedure. Particulate matter 2.5 might already exist in the background environment. Conducting chronological monitoring of particulate matter 2.5 in the operation room in the pre-, intra- and post-surgery periods could provide interesting data. We agree with the authors’ recommendation for a good ventilation system, but more discussion is needed about the requirements of a ventilation system that does not allow the entry of unwanted contaminants from outside into the operation room. Finally, the recommendation of using an appropriate facemask to protect the wear from direct exposure to particulate matter 2.5 should also be mentioned [2].
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Okoshi K, Hida K, Kinoshita K, Morishima T, Nagai Y, Tomizawa Y, et al. Measurement of particulate matter 2.5 in surgical smoke and its health hazards. Surg Today. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02473-z.
Shakya KM, Noyes A, Kallin R, Peltier RE. Evaluating the efficacy of cloth facemasks in reducing particulate matter exposure. J Expo Sci Env Epidemiol. 2017;27(3):352–7.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RM 50%—1a Substantial contributions to study conception and design 1b. Substantial contributions to acquisition of data 1c. Substantial contributions to analysis and interpretation of data 2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content 3. Final approval of the version of the article to be published VW 50%—1a Substantial contributions to study conception and design 1b. Substantial contributions to acquisition of data 1c. Substantial contributions to analysis and interpretation of data 2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content 3. Final approval of the version of the article to be published.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors are from poor developing countries and cannot pay for any charge and ask for full waiving for this correspondence letter.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mungmunpuntipantip, R., Wiwanitkit, V. Comment on “Measurement of particulate matter 2.5 in surgical smoke and its health hazards”. Surg Today 52, 1392 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02510-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02510-x