PONE-D-24-00121Study on the effect of water content on physical properties of bentonitePLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Yan-zhao Yuan,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ajaya Bhattarai

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the name of the third party contact or institution / contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made]. Please update your statement with the missing information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for this article's research, authorship, and publication. This work is financially supported by the General project of the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province（212300410327）”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[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: Yes

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: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Thank you for submitting your research article on the effects of water content on the properties of expansive soils, specifically focusing on bentonite in the context of Longtan Temple area in Chengdu. While the topic is indeed intriguing and potentially valuable to the field of geotechnical engineering, there are several aspects that require clarification and elaboration for the manuscript to meet the standards of a rigorous scientific publication.

1.On line 14, it is mentioned that the study investigates “properties of bentonite.” To enhance clarity and precision, kindly specify which particular physical properties of bentonite are being studied under varying moisture conditions. Examples could include swelling potential, shrinkage, Atterberg limits, or permeability, among others.

Regarding data presentation:

2.On line 21, the term “w saturated” has been used without a clear definition. For readers to fully comprehend the results, please define this term explicitly. It typically refers to the water content at saturation point where all void spaces within the soil particles are filled with water. Please provide a detailed explanation of how this saturation condition was achieved in your experiments and present the corresponding measurements or observations.

In the methodology section:

3.By line 85, the experimental procedures seem incomplete or inadequately described. A more detailed account of the experimental steps would greatly benefit the reproducibility of your study. Please elaborate on the specific methods employed to control and measure the water content, the techniques used for subjecting the bentonite samples to various saturation levels, and the instruments utilized to assess changes in the relevant physical properties.

4.By line 196, the summary does not appear to offer a clear breakdown of the findings related to the “w saturated” condition. In your revised conclusion, please ensure that you draw explicit conclusions about the behavior of bentonite when it reaches its saturated state. This should include a concise summary of how saturation influences the key physical characteristics observed in your experiments, any thresholds identified, and the implications these findings have for mitigating hazards in expansive soil foundations and roadbeds.

I encourage you to address these points thoroughly in your revision, ensuring that each critical aspect of your research is well-defined and supported by the presented data. Your work can significantly contribute to the understanding and management of issues associated with expansive soils once these revisions are made.

Reviewer #2: Based on the research results on the physical properties of bentonite in Nanyang, China, under different water contents, this paper will focus on the fundamental physical properties of bentonite and use a rheometer to measure the fluid properties of bentonite and use a stereomicroscope to comprehensively analyse the influence of water contents on physical properties of bentonite under different water contents. The overall content of the paper is relatively detailed, logical and fluent, and its research object, content and method are reasonable. But there are still the following problems:

1. Research background and literature review: The introduction section of the paper provides an overview of existing research, but lacks in-depth analysis of relevant research and existing literature. Suggest the author to expand the literature review section and discuss in detail the findings of previous studies and how they are relevant to current research.

2. When discussing the effects of different water contents on the physical properties of bentonite, the paper did not fully combine theoretical models or existing theories to explain the observed phenomena. For example, the discussion on how the rheological properties, permeability, and microstructure changes of bentonite are related to its chemical and physical properties at different water contents is not in-depth enough. It is recommended that the author refer more to and cite relevant theories when analyzing the results, in order to provide more in-depth and comprehensive theoretical explanations.

3. When describing the experimental process, the paper lacks detailed information about the experimental conditions and implementation steps, which can affect the repeatability and verifiability of the experimental results. For example, in the free expansion test and rheological property test, the preparation method of the sample, the environmental conditions of the experiment (such as temperature and humidity), and the specific steps of the experimental operation were not detailed. In order to improve the reliability and reproducibility of the research, the author should provide a more detailed description of the experimental methods.

4. The paper lacks sufficient statistical analysis to verify the significance and reliability of the data when presenting experimental results. For example, have repeated experiments been conducted to ensure consistency of results? Have statistical methods been used to analyze differences in data variability and significance? These are key elements to ensure the rigor of scientific research. The author should include relevant statistical analysis, such as mean, standard deviation, confidence interval, etc., when presenting the data to improve the credibility of the study.

5. Although the paper has studied the physical properties of bentonite at different water contents, there is a lack of sufficient comparative analysis with existing research. For example, the findings and conclusions in a paper should be compared with previous research to demonstrate how new research extends or challenges existing knowledge. Suggest the author to add a comparative analysis with existing literature in the discussion section, emphasizing the innovation and scientific contribution of this study。

6. The paper lacks sufficient discussion on the experimental scope and possible limitations. Any scientific research has its limitations, such as sample selection, limitations in experimental conditions, etc., which may affect the universality of results Performance and scope of application. In the paper, it seems that these potential limitations have not been fully identified and discussed. For example, factors such as the source of bentonite samples, particle size distribution, and variability in chemical composition may affect the experimental results. Suggest the author to discuss these limitations in detail in the discussion section and explain their potential impact on the research findings. Meanwhile, it is also possible to propose how to overcome these limitations in future work to enhance the broad applicability and depth of research.

Considering the above problems, it is recommended to the author make a major revision.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Attachments for Manuscript Number PONE-D-24-00121.docx

PONE-D-24-00121R1Study on the effect of water content on physical properties of bentonitePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yuan,

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 submit your revised manuscript by May 26 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ajaya Bhattarai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please revise the manuscript according to the comments of reviewer 3.

[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 #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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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: authors have adequately addressed my comments raised in a previous round of review and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #3: 1. The Abstract should be re-written.

2. Please ask an English native speaker to review your paper as the English of the current version is poor.

3. Please add the number of all equations in the manuscript.

4. The figures are not clear, please adjust them through the manuscript.

5. The Conclusion is too long, which only needs to list the important findings in the manuscript.

**********

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 #3: 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.

Study on the effect of water content on physical properties of bentonite

PONE-D-24-00121R2

Dear Dr. Yuan,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Ajaya Bhattarai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript looks good.

Reviewers' comments: