PONE-D-20-30769

Simulation code for estimating external gamma-ray doses from a radioactive plume and contaminated ground using a local-scale atmospheric dispersion model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Satoh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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, consider important to answer to each one of the suggestions and comments provided by both reviewers. I suggest also, attending to one of the sugestions, putting the manuscript in review by a native english speaking.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Leal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

[This study was partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/index.html) KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K07017. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.].   

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Hewlett-Packard Japan, Ltd

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In my view the manuscript fulfils the criteria for publication listed in https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines#loc-criteria-for-publication

with an exception of criterion no.5 regarding "standard English".

Therefore the manuscript merits publication with minor revisions.

The manuscript needs revision in regards to English language. I do not have the time to carry out a language revision of the entire manuscript.

Lines 12-13: “… maps calculated using SIBYL agreed within 10% with those calculated using PHITS…”. I think what is actually meant is that “… maps calculated using SIBYL differ by up to 10% from those calculated using PHITS…”.

Line 409: “The results showed good agreement within 3%.” It should be “The results showed good agreement, with differences up to 3%”.

Line 427, 451-452 and 472: “The results of SIBYL agreed with those of PHITS within x%”. It should be “The results of SIBYL differed from those of PHITS by up to x%”.

Line 496 and 529: “the results of SIBYL agreed within x% with those of PHITS”. It should be “the results of SIBYL differed by up to x% from those of PHITS”.

Other minor comments are listed follow:

Line 40: Replace “they could not” by “they were not designed to”

Lines 90-92: “The reliability of LOHDIM-LES was validated by comparing with the results of the wind tunnel experiments [15, 16] and the field experiments [17] in an actual urban area under real meteorological conditions.” References 15, 16 and 17 describe the experiments. As the sentence is written it gives the impression that they describe the validation of LOHDIM-LES. No references of the validation studies of LOHDIM-LES are actually given. The sentence should be rephrased and references of validation studies must be added (if they exist).

Figures 14 and 17: It would be helpful to show the wind direction on the plots

Reviewer #2: In this study, a system was developed to evaluate ambient dose rates at 1 m height due to gamma-ray source distributed in air and on ground surface utilizing dose-response functions which were prepared beforehand based on accurate Monte Carlo simulations. The system was coupled with atmospheric dispersion models and designed to take source distribution data directly from the dispersion simulations. Furthermore, the system can simulation variation of terrain and shielding effects by objects existing in the environment using simple manners. Ambient dose rates at 1 m height is a basic quantity to indicate the radiation level of environment, and many trials have been made to evaluate them from sources distributed in the environment. The presented system is judged to contribute to improving the dose evaluation in the environment according to several new devices. The manuscript is well-organized; while adding some descriptions is expected to promote a better understanding of readers. The manuscript should be accepted with small modifications.

1. lines 30-31:

It is stated that gamma-ray monitoring cannot cover the whole area. This may not be true; aerial monitoring can cover almost the whole targeted area. Correctly saying, environmental monitoring cannot obtain the whole spatiotemporal information.

2. page 8, 1st paragraph:

It is not mentioned how the depth distribution of deposited radionuclides was assumed. Did you assume that deposited radionuclides distributed just on the flat ground surface? If so, the ambient dose rates may be a little overestimated because ground surface has some roughness and deposited radionuclides may cause initial migration into the ground in the real environment. How do you evaluate these effects?

3. page 8:

It is not clear if electron transport in the environmental media was considered in the simulation using PHITS. It should be described.

4. lines 207-210:

It would be kind to add some explanation on the resizing of dose-response functions. For example, in case of 5 m resolution, do you sum up dose-response functions for every combination (25 x 25 cases) of 1 m square elements included in a source cell and a target cell and average the summed value?

5. page 10, equation (1):

It is not explained how the ranges of summation were determined; that is, how L, M and N were determined. Obviously, they must be large enough to cover the whole source components which contribute to the ambient dose rate; while, they need to be as small as possible to reduce the computational time. How did you determine them? Did you change them according to gamma-ray energy?

5. page 12, equation (3):

It is necessary to explain how the system deal with gamma-ray transport from source deposited on the elevated terrain to the unelevated terrain, and vice versa. Is it not simulated at all?

6. Figures:

In many figures, “ambient dose equivalent” in the y-axis should be “ambient dose equivalent rate”.

7. Results and Discussion:

Difference in computing time between SIBYL and PHITS should be discussed in Results and Discussion. Some descriptions on the computing time difference exist in Abstract and Conclusion, but not in Results and Discussion. Basically, what described in Abstract and Conclusion need to be discussed in the main body of the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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.

Simulation code for estimating external gamma-ray doses from a radioactive plume and contaminated ground using a local-scale atmospheric dispersion model

PONE-D-20-30769R1

Dear Dr. Satoh,

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 http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Leal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No