PCLM-D-25-00166

Forecasting human heat stress: insights from observations and WRF simulations during Bangladesh heatwaves

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Chaki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 2 July 2025. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i. Please clarify all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

ii. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

iii. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

2. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

3. You have indicated that data is available from

• GFS data obtained from National Centres for Environmental Prediction, National Weather Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015. NCEP GFS 0.25 Degree Global Forecast Grids Historical Archive.
• Observed data were collected from the Bangladesh Meteorological Department.

Please can we ask you to provide us with a general contact email address for the data requests, so readers can request access in perpetuity. If a general email is not available please provide a link to a website where readers can obtain access to data.

4. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility.

Potential Copyright Issues:

a. Figure 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

b. Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC-BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:

- https://commons.wikimedia.org

- https://openclipart.org/

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jingyu Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review “Forecasting human heat stress: insights from observations and WRF simulations during Bangladesh heatwaves”. This study presents a timely and methodologically sound investigation into thermal stress forecasting in Bangladesh. The study is well-motivated, given the increasing frequency and intensity of heatwaves in South Asia, and it offers practical insights into the applicability of the WRF model for forecasting human thermal stress up to nine days in advance. The use of PET (Physiologically Equivalent Temperature) calculated through the RayMan model is methodologically appropriate, and the integration of both observational analysis and high-resolution regional modeling provides a robust framework for the research.

The overall structure of the paper is logical and clearly presented. The authors successfully combine observational data with numerical simulation and evaluate model performance using accepted metrics such as RMSE and Willmott’s d-index. The results are carefully interpreted, and the paper highlights key differences in model performance across cities and lead times. Notably, the authors find that WRF simulations are more reliable during April heatwave events and that performance generally declines in late May and early June. These insights could support the development of early warning systems and urban resilience strategies.

However, I would encourage the authors to address a few substantive and linguistic concerns prior to publication. Scientifically, while the modeling framework is appropriate, the discussion of model uncertainty and regional discrepancies (e.g., the consistently high RMSE values for Chattogram) remains limited. It would benefit the manuscript to include a reflection on the potential reasons behind regional performance variability, such as local land–sea interactions or unresolved mesoscale processes in coastal areas. Additionally, although the study focuses on PET as an indicator of human thermal discomfort, the absence of health outcome data (e.g., heat-related illness, hospitalization, or mortality) limits the potential for directly linking modeled stress with public health impact. A brief discussion on this limitation and suggestions for integrating health metrics in future work would strengthen the paper’s applied relevance.

From a language and writing perspective, the manuscript is largely clear and coherent, but some revisions would improve fluency and precision. For instance, the use of “forecasted meteorological variables (lines 180)” should be revised to “forecast meteorological variables,” and the phrase “PET value lied within (lines 201)” contains an incorrect verb tense—it should read “PET value lay within.” Additionally, the authors should maintain consistency in terminology, such as using “heatwave” as one word throughout the manuscript (e.g., lines 46, 91, 93, and elsewhere). Hyphenation should be applied appropriately in compound modifiers, such as “heat-stress-based forecasting system (lines 91).“ Several phrases could be made more formal; for example, “This case is no different for Bangladesh (lines 48)” may be better expressed as “Bangladesh is no exception.” Additionally, the authors are encouraged to revise the table formatting. Adopting a standard three-line format, as is typical in scientific writing, would improve the presentation and align with the expectations of most journals.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript "Forecasting human heat stress: insights from observations and WRF simulations during Bangladesh heatwaves" by Chaki et al. explores the use of WRF model outputs and the PET index to assess and forecast thermal stress across Bangladesh. The effort to extend forecasting of human heat stress to lead times of 5–9 days is timely and regionally relevant for Bangladesh. However, while the study presents the use of observed regional dataset and a WRF modeling setup, it contains several major and minor challenges that are critical for publication readiness.

Key issues include overgeneralized conclusions drawn from a single long-lead forecast case, a lack of multi-variable validation and uncertainty analysis, inadequate articulation of real-world application and policy relevance, and limited scientific insight into the dynamics driving heatwave persistence and PET variability. Additionally, the manuscript would benefit from substantial improvements in figure placement, clarity of presentation, and adherence to journal formatting guidelines.

Given these scientific and structural concerns, I recommend major revision. The study has good potential, but the authors need to address the following issues in depth before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Please see review file for detailed description: R1-review_Chaki_et_al.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Raju Pathak

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: R1-review_Chaki_et_al..docx

Forecasting human heat stress: insights from observations and WRF simulations during Bangladesh heatwaves

PCLM-D-25-00166R1

Dear Dr. Chaki,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. For billing related questions, please contact billing support at https://plos.my.site.com/s/.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jingyu Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?<br/><br/>PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

--------------------

Reviewer #1: NA.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

--------------------