https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9380-0490
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionOctober 5, 2020 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-20-31278 Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nuhu, 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. The two reviewers have concluded that this work is worth publishing but that it requires major revision first. Both reviewers have made constructive comments to improve the paper. Please address these and re-submit. 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:
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, Elisabeth Bui 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 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained to collect samples for the present study. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. We note that Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: (1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 7, and 8 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” (2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: No Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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: The manuscript "soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia" by Nuhu et al. presents a case study in a region where data and maps of the radon related risk have been rarely published. Therefore, I generally encourage publication of this pioneering work. However, before publication I suggest the authors to substantially revise the manuscript, especially regarding these general aspects: 1. A large fraction of the observed data on soil gas radon concentration seem to be extraordinarily low (more in the range of outdoor air rather than soil gas). Please give a physical reasoning for these large amount of observations with very low values. 2. The interpolation method (empirical bayesian kriging) is not described at all. Please give a brief description. Also, please elaborate why you have chosen this interpolation technique (which is rather novel and sophisticated) and not a simpler one such as a more basic kriging alternatives. What are the advantages of EBK? 3. How was cross-validation conducted? Please give details on fold assignment. Did you consider spatial autocorrelation in the observational data during cross-validation? What is the range of spatial auto-correlation in your data? 4. You showed a dependence of GRP on geology. Why do you not exploit this knowledge for spatial prediction/interpolation, e.g. by using geology as co-variable? 5. The conclusion is only partly supported by your results. The high risk of granitic areas seems to be rather your hypothesis than your finding. Large parts of the high GRP areas are not in the granitic areas. For instance, a large fraction of the area covered with quaternary sediments (in the south and south-west of the study area) has a higher GRP than the granitic areas. This might be a consequence of the interpolation technique that you selected by not implementing geology as co-variable. 6. In many cases the language is not precise enough, partly ambiguous and grammatically not always sound. Minor comments • L50: Rn is one of the leading causes for lung cancer, not for cancer in general • L54: “generate higher indoor Rn levels” • L 56: these methods are not geology-based. I guess you mean statistical methods (geostatistics, regression) using co-variable/proxy data • L 57: Ariel? Please explain • L76: What do you mean with “baseline” data? Unclear. • L 93: consider replacing geological “contexts” with “regions” • L96-98: The description of the sampling design is unclear to me. Please specify. Did you use the same fraction of measurements per geological region or did you sample preferentially in areas with expected higher values or higher geological heterogeneity? • Fig.1: What is the scale of the map? Please add sampling locations. Your geological classification in the legend is a mix of stratigraphic and lithologic classes. Please be consistent. Either stratigraphic or lithologic or lithostratigraphic. • Please indicate sampling locations also in Fig. 3, 7 & 8. This will help interpreting the maps. • Fig 2: please consider using smaller bins (e.g. 5 or 10 kBq/m³) for the histogram. In the box statistical indicators, a median of 0.15 seems to be unrealistic given my experience and also the data shown in the plot. Consider using standard deviation instead of error since you want to give a measure of dispersion in your data set rather than an error/uncertainty of an individual observation. There is no boxplot in this figure (figure caption) • I would recommend not using two decimal digits because it pretends an accuracy that is not existing in reality • L132: A soil gas Rn concentration of 0.01 kBq/m³ is a very low value. This is rather a Rn concentration observed in outdoor air than in soil (where Rn is continouosly produced). I would suspect such low values as erroneous measurements (e.g., due to contamination of your measured volume with outdoor air). If you consider these values to be realistic please elaborate on the processes in soil causing such low concentrations. • L136: You performed log-transformation of your data prior to geostatistical modelling. How did you backtransform your data to the original scale after interpolation. • L 166: “marine soils” are misleading for soils with marine sediments as parent material. Please consider revising. • Fig. 3. In this map a few apparent artefacts (e.g., in the east next to the label of Kelantan) are existent. Further, I suggest using even value breaks instead of giving two decimal digits. • L 174ff: I suggest shifting the explanation of a boxplot into the caption of Fig4 because it breaks somewhat the flow in your text and it can be assumed that most readers are familiar with the concept of a boxplot. • L180: The highest mean Rn conc. was found in Granite but the highest median in sed./metamorph. Please be more precise. • Fig 4: Does Fig. show Rn data on the original scale or log-transformed data. If it shows data on the original scale, most values are exceptionally low which would require a physical explanation. How many samples do you have in each class? Please give n per class. • L 211ff: the GRP is practically dimensionless since the log of k is used in eq. 1 • L227: Please describe your geostatistical model. What are the parameters of your variogram? • L227: What is the reasoning for using 9 colour codes? If you do a classification in low, medium and high, it would be straightforward to use only 3 codes • L240: Please describe your cross-validation procedure. How did you assign observation to the testing fold? Random, stratified, spatially blocked? • Fig. 8: resolution of the figure is poor. • L259ff: your conclusion is not fully supported by your results. You claim that high GRP areas are mainly found in the granitic areas. In fact, the high GRP regions in Fig 7 and the outline of the granitic rocks (Fig1) do overlap only partly. I feel that this granitic regions being at higher risk is rather your hypothesis than your finding. Further, large parts of the high GRP areas are located in the quaternary sediments. This might be a consequence of their proximity to high GRP observations in the nearby granitic areas. If this is the case (I can only speculate on this issue because information on sampling locations is missing), I suggest considering the implementation of your knowledge (dependence of GRP on geology) in your spatial prediction/interpolation model (e.g., by using geology as co-variable). • L 267: Why do you refer to a reference level of 300 Bq/m³? Your paper deals with the GRP, while the reference level of 300 Bq/m³ (or 100 Bq/m³or 200 Bq/m³) applies to indoor environments. The indoor reference level cannot be applied to your GRP estimates. Reviewer #2: Dear Dr. Bui The manuscript by Nuhu et al. (Ref. No.: PONE-D-20-31278) deals an important issue on study of spatial distribution of geogenic radon potential. The experimental part of the study includes measurements of radon concentration in soil gas and soil permeability; the applied geostatistical method is consistent with the scope of the study. However, the geostatistical analyses are not described in sufficient detail, and the discussion is quite superficial therefore, in my opinion, a MAJOR revision of the manuscript is necessary. My detailed comments on manuscript are given below: Introduction Lines 53-54: Please, check the definition of RPA, and clarify its relationship with indoor radon. “Radon Prone Area” is a term that describes an area where the probability of enhanced radon concentration is much higher than average. The establishment of such areas, by national authorities, can be based on geological conditions and/or the results of measuring campaigns of indoor radon concentration. See ICRP 1993 (Protection against radon-222 at home and at work. ICRP Publication 65. Paragraph 3.3) Line 57: “Ariel” ? Lines 67-68: High GRP indicates a high availability of geogenic radon that can enters indoor. Also, express clearly that GRP is related to Ra content (but also U content!) because it is a Rn source, whereas permeability (but also faults!) is related to Rn mobility. Line 69: I suggest to add here a short review of the methods previously used to map GRP. Lines 75-76: Please, summarize the results of previous studies. Line 78: What data? Please, add description and reference. Line 82: A strict definition of “radon risk” should be presented. 2.0 Materials and Method In this section, after the description of the study area and the analytical techniques, I expected to read a paragraph about the geostatistical technique used to map the GRP. Practically, the discussion is based on the maps elaborated using Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK), but the method description is absent. Please, add the description of EBK model and explain why you chose this interpolation method. What semivariogram did you select? What the maximum number of points in each local model? What software did you use? What is the resolution of your maps? 2.1 Study area and sampling points Lines 92-95: The geological description is too scarce, please add more information. Faults and structural discontinuities may be important pathways for radon movement in the subsoil, so you should describe the tectonic frame of the study area. Line 96-97: please, add the location of sampling points in Fig.1. Also, calculate the sampling density. How many samples for each geological formation? 2.2 Measurement of radon in soil gas Please, specify in what period of the year and meteorological conditions the measurements were performed. Line 109: Did you use a drying tube to maintain the relative humidity at low values? Results and discussion 3.1 Activity concentration of radon in soil gas Lines 131-132: for non-normal distribution, better to use geometric mean Lines 132-134: this description is does not fit to the histogram of fig. 2, probably a histogram with more classes will be better describe your data. Please, consider using a normal probability plot; it can help to recognize both anomalous samples and multiple populations in log-normally distributed data Lines 152-153: here the Authors introduce for the first time the Empirical Bayesian Kriging; see the comment above. Lines 153-155: this description is unnecessary; better to specify how you have determined the class breaks (e.g., manual interval, quantile, natural breaks etc.) Line 157: “ Manjung District”, and other localities cited later in the text (e.g., line 214), are unknown to non-Malaysian. Please, add it in the Figures. Lines 158-159: An explanation is needed of how this list of soil types is used and how these soils were identified. Did you identified these soils in field? Did you extrapolated from a pedological map? Is there a correlation between soil types and Rn concentration and/or permeability? Lines 159-162: This statement causes some doubts. The Authors identified the area with the highest values of soil gas radon in Manjung District, which is located in the southwestern part of the state of Perak; here, granite rocks outcrops and therefore the Authors explain the high Rn values because it derived from such bedrock. However, the geological map of fig. 2 shows that granite rocks extensively outcrop in the eastern part of the study area, where the soil gas Rn concentrations are not particularly high (Fig.3). So, how the Authors explain these spatial distribution? Did you consider the presence of permeable structures such as fractures and/or faults? Line 163: What mines/quarries are in the study area? Where they are located? Line 169: I suggest to add a table (or a box-plot) with the statistics (average values, ranges of values) of soil gas Rn concentration and permeability in different soil types, I think that it can be help the reader. 3.2 Radon activity concentration for each geological type Sincerely, there is no reason to separate this paragraph from the previous one. Lines 174-178: the general description of box-plot should be moved in the method section. A sub-paragraph describing statistical and geostatistical elaborations might be appropriate. 3.3 Soil gas permeability Lines 197-198: Please, add a map of spatial distribution of permeability, it could be very useful here. Please, also discuss how permeability influences radon in soil, in general and in your case study. Table 1: Add the number of your samples that fall within each class of permeability. 3.4 Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas Line 210: “Many years of extensive research in the Czech Republic”…please, add references. Line 232: the title of the paragraph is “Geogenic Radon Potential (GRP) and Radon prone areas”, but where in the text the RPA are described? Please, compare the map of GRP with the map of Terrestrial Gamma Dose Rate (TGDR) published by Ramli et al (2016) - Predicting terrestrial gamma dose rate based on geological and soil information: case study of Perak state, Malaysia. J. Radiol. Prot. 36(1), 20-36. 4.0 Conclusion Lines 268-270: this concept should be emphasized in Discussion. Figures Figure 1: add the location of sampling points, the prevailing tectonic lines, names of the district cited in the text Figure 2: delete “and box plot” in the figure caption Figures 3 and 7: add the corresponding semivariograms. Figure 4: what represent the blue dashed lines? How many samples for each geological type? Figure 5: add box plots classified according to geological formations and/or soil types. Figure 7: add a layer of urbanized areas, in order to evaluate if the areas of high RI are already urbanized or not yet; in the first case, the map could indicate the areas where it could be necessary monitoring the indoor radon concentration, in the second case the map could be a tool for future urbanistic plans. ********** 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-20-31278R1 Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nuhu, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR comments: While the authors have addressed minor issues with the original submission, there are still problems with this paper. Mapping Rn is the main objective of the paper so the mapping method must be explained and justified but Reviewer #1 points to lingering issues with this. The problem with the geostatistical method may need the authors to enlist help from a specialist in this field. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2021 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:
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, Elisabeth Bui Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ********** 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 Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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 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: Yes 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: Thanks to the authors for addressing all comments. Many of the minor issues related to grammar, style and figures have been mostly solved. However, the two fundamental issues of 1) Rn soil value range and the 2) the EBK predictive map are still unsolved from my point of view. 1. Soil Radon value range: I am still not convinced on the accuracy such low values (depth) which seem for most samples 1-2 orders of magnitude too low. You give median values (Fig. 4) between 0.1 and 1.0 kBq/m³ for the four different geological units. I have great doubts on the correctness of these data and rather suspect issues with your sampling procedure. I consider values below 10 kBq/m³ for soils with granitic parent material as rare and below 1 kBq/m³ as highly unlikely. In your study most of the values are below 1 kBq/m³. Based on my experience and the values reported in the literature these soils with granitic parent material are often reported to lie in the range 10 – 1000 kBq/m³. You correctly mention the various factors influencing soil Rn concentration such as soil physical properties, soil moisture, permeability etc. But, I cannot imagine that the interplay of these factors result in such a large number of very low values. Further, in contrast to your statement that low values may be associated with low permeability, I would rather expect the reverse pattern: low permeability decreases Rn transport (diffusion, advection) and, consequently, decreases Rn exhalation. This means at the same time increase of Rn accumulation in soils which is associated with higher Rn concentration. I suggest participation in soil gas intercomparison measurements for quality assurance and to be able to exclude issues with your sampling procedure. 2. Your reasoning for selection of your mapping method EBK does not convince me. It seems that the selection of EBK was motivated by the ease of its implementation in the sense of an automatic data processing and map production. While this may be convenient, it is dangerous because the method seems to be rather treated as a black box. You correctly emphasize the high importance of geology for spatial variability of Rn in soil. Giving this knowledge and the availability of the required data (geological map of your study region), why do you not implement this knowledge in your mapping procedure? At the current state, your interpolation completely ignores geological boundaries – you simply interpolate across those borders. Such a procedure cannot be assumed to provide accurate estimates since measurements in one geological unit cannot be used to produce predictions in another geological unit without consideration of geology as co-variable. From a geostatistical point of view, the range of spatial- autocorrelation varies throughout your study area. This issue manifests in the fact that your top hotspot region mainly results from a single very high value. This single high value spreads from the granitic area over a very large region into other geological units and just stops at the nearest observations. This is not plausible at all to me. I highly recommend implementing geology as co-variable for mapping soil Rn. This is feasible with EBK, but also with simpler geostatistical approaches (such co-kriging based on ordinary kriging). Further, artefacts are still visible in the map in the north-east where no observations were conducted (I suggest to clip these areas because predictions are not supported by observations. This issue can also be seen in Fig. 11 (dark red region in the north-east). Moreover, the resolution (i.e., grid cell size, e.g. 1km * 1km) of the map is still unclear. Reviewer #2: Dear Editor The authors tried to respond the questions arose from the first review. However, some questions are still unresolved, therefore I propose a minor revision for further improving the manuscript. In detail: L 86-87: Please, add a short description of the results of the cited references (references numbers 26 – 33) in the text of your manuscript. L 169: Please, I would like to know the resolution of the data, i.e., the dimension of each pixel/cell of your raster (e.g., 10 x 10 km or 30" x 30") L 203-205: you did not describe how the class breaks were determined. So, what classification method did you use (manual interval, equal interval, quantile, natural breaks, geometrical interval, standard deviation)? L 302 and Fig. 9: You wrote “A three-color code was used in categorizing the RI.” So I imagine that you have used the classification described between the lines 286-290 (i.e., low RI (GRP < 10), medium RI (10 <grp> Fig.1 Legend of geology: the lithology is still confused with the age of geological formations. The text (L 107-113) has the same problem. Fig 2. I suggest to increase the number of bins (not only increase the number of classes in the X axis) Fig 9: add a layer of urbanized areas or the location of the main cities. I agree that indoor radon measurements are recommended for the urbanized areas, I simply would know if there are important cities in the regions characterized by medium to high RI.</grp> ********** 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 [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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia. PONE-D-20-31278R2 Dear Dr. Nuhu, 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, Elisabeth Bui Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): A third independent reviewer has found this revision acceptable for publication. He has made some important comments regarding the difference in environmental conditions in Europe and Malaysia as they could affect the Rn gas transport process that I think would be worth mentioning in the discussion in your final version. 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 #3: (No Response) ********** 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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Review of the paper PONE-D-20-31278R2 Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia. This publication is devoted to the important issue of ensuring the radiation safety of the population during exposure to radon in dwellings. One of the widely used tools for assessing the radon hazard of territories is the assessment of the geogenic radon potential. This approach has worked well in a number of European countries. For them, a good correlation was observed between the geogenic radon potential and radon concentration on the first floors of buildings and in detached houses. In this regard, it can be noted that the data on the mapping of such a state as Malaysia, for which data on the geogenic radon potential were obtained for the first time, are of undoubted scientific interest. The work under review has been performed at a good technical level. The processing of the obtained experimental material was carried out in accordance with the approaches accepted in this field. The comments made by previous reviewers are answered in detail. At the same time, the reviewer had one question. As you know, the geogenic radon potential takes into account two factors - the concentration of radon in the soil air and the permeability of the soil. With the same concentration of soil radon, but different soil permeability, the values of the geogenic radon potential may differ significantly. However, different values of soil permeability affect the radon flux from its surface only when there is a pressure gradient between the soil air and the air inside the building. In this case, the dominant mechanism of radon entry into the building is advective transport.Typically, this pressure gradient occurs when there is a temperature gradient between the indoor air inside the building and the outdoor air. In this case, the indoor air temperature should be higher than outdoor. The situation when the temperature of the air inside the building is higher than the temperature of the outside air is typical for most countries in Europe and North America. Therefore, the advective influx of radon from the soil into the building is considered dominant for low-rise and detached buildings. For Malaysia, the situation is somewhat different. It will be characterized either by the absence of a temperature gradient between the building and the outside atmosphere, or (when using air conditioners) by the presence of an inverse gradient when the temperature inside is less than in the outside atmosphere. Under these conditions, advective radon transfer will not be observed. The dominant mechanism of radon entry in this situation will be the diffusion mechanism. The rate of entry of radon will depend on the concentration of radium in the soil, the diffusion coefficient of radon, and the thickness of the soil layer to the groundwater level. Measuring these three parameters over a large area is unrealistic. According to the reviewer, the integral characteristic describing the diffusion entry is the radon concentration in the soil air, measured at the same depth. In this regard, it would be interesting to compare maps of soil radon concentrations and geogenic radon potential to assess the potential radon hazard of territories, taking into account various mechanisms of radon entry into buildings. This comment is a wish that does not affect the overall positive assessment of the work. I suppose that this work can be accepted for publication. ********** 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 #3: No |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-20-31278R2 Soil gas radon and soil permeability assessment: Mapping radon risk areas in Perak State, Malaysia. Dear Dr. Nuhu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Elisabeth Bui Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .