PONE-D-24-28162

When do science recommendations stop being effective? The Case of the sprawl of diesel electricity generators in Beirut

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saliba,

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 Sep 22 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,

Ranjit Gurav, 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. 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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].”

b. 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: Partly

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: 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: Yes

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: This manuscript presents a source apportionment study on a considerably long dataset at multiple sites in Beirut using polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as tracers. The study was performed by using positive matrix factorization applied to original data to evaluate the contribution of diesel electricity generators to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk is calculated. The results provide interesting information about the sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Beirut. The manuscript is overall written in clear English, although the “Methods” and “Results” could benefit from a revision especially focused on the findings represented (see my specific comments below). I believe this manuscript is of interest to the scientific community and is coherent with the aims of this journal. Nevertheless, in my opinion, a few issues need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Specific comments

Lines 37 Please define the name of the sampling site when they are shown first.

Lines 183-189 The descriptions of source apportionment should be shown in detail. The current version is too simple to follow for the readers.

Lines 190-196 The descriptions of cancer risk calculation should be shown in detail. The current version is too simple for the readers to follow.

Lines 199. There is no figure 2.

Line 268. The quality of Figure 4 should be improved. The authors should present the source profiles for each factor.

Lines 273-286. There are no discussions for the source profile of each profile at all. The authors should compare the source profiles in this study with prior results in other studies. See the link https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113046.

Lines 342-351. What are the energy policies recommended from the authors? Biomass has been regarded as a promising option for solid energy, which is promoted in the residential sector and firing power plants in some low-income and middle-income counties. The established programs and technologies of wood control burning requirements have been documented in the US, which contribute to the major efforts in regulating air quality in the Northeastern US where wood fuel is very important

See the link https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123240.

EPA, 2020. The 2015 New Source Performance Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters. New Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, NC, USA

Reviewer #2: General comment

The studies tackles an extremely important environmental issue, linking economic recession and fuel poverty with carcinogenic aerosol pollution, in a semi-quantitative manner. However, the approach taken is rather local, and the discussion is very limited in terms of comparisons with the international status. The source apportionment methodology should be explained in more detail, and the scope of PMF related analysis and valorization of data should be expanded. The manuscript must be revised before publication according to the specific comments listed below.

Specific comments

L58-60: Since the national provider was totally shut down, how is power provided during non-blackout periods? Are there secondary providers?

L66-67: What about the remaining 63%?

Introduction: The study highlights a very important subject, but the presentation is local in scope. The introduction should broaden the implications of this type of research by presenting similar impacts of fuel poverty in other areas of the world. Such an example is the severe air quality degradation in European cities due to the EU debt crisis that led to the increase of oil prices and the widespread use of biomass products for heating (see, for example, Kaskaoutis et al., 2021, Atmos. Environ.). Another is the use of extremely polluting, low-quality farming byproducts for cooking and heating purposes in low-income countries that rely on an agrarian economy (Saenz et al., 2021, Environ. Int.; Bhattu et al., 2024, Nat. Comm.). Include a brief introductory paragraph in this direction to place the study within an international context.

L122: Indicate the distance of the highway and whether it affects measurements.

L122-126: So, what is the type of this site? Still urban background but more central or traffic?

L129: Indicate the distance and traffic load of this road and whether they result in a “traffic” site characterization.

L131: It is unclear how this sampling strategy will help assess the generators' impact. This is the main feature of the paper and must be explained. In addition, the sample numbers per site/period must be provided.

L139: Did you use denuders or impregnated backup filters in the Chemcomb?

L176-177: It would be more meaningful if you expressed these values per m3 of sampled air (actual or nominal).

L182: So, did you perform any blank corrections?

L173-182: Was it possible to calculate the repeatability of your quantifications using replicate analyses? That would be useful for the PMF as well.

L183-189: The methodological presentation of the source apportionment is insufficient. All necessary details must be provided, including uncertainty calculations, model selection strategy, model evaluation, error evaluation, rotations, constraints etc. This section must be substantially expanded. It is also important to indicate if the PAH dataset from three sites was combined to perform the PMF analysis.

L195-196: Not enough. You should list the TEFs used and their bibliographical sources. Also, indicate the used CalEPA unit risk. You should also mention that BaPeq is calculated as an intermediate step.

L198: This section should discuss the factors i.e. meteorological, varying seasonal emissions, spatial source constrasts, to explain the differences observed between the three sites-periods. This is necessary because if the site characteristics are widely different there is no point in calculating annual mean PM2.5 or using a combined dataset in the PMF.

L217-218: What about the other two?

L235-236: However, there is substantial site variation per member. This should be discussed. Moreover, the heavy members appear to record the higher levels at MSNU. It should be hinted early why this is the case (traffic or diesel generators?).

L241-242: Specify that this is a “cooling” demand.

L247-249: What type of hypothesis testing is used? This should be relevant also to the sample sizes.

Table 1: Check “NSMU”.

L254-257: Indicate which is the relative effect of traffic at BCD and MSNU.

L262: The way the references are used in this section is problematic. You should indicate specific references for each of the three factors and discuss the ones supporting your characterization. Focus especially on PAH PMF studies in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. This is important for all three factors..

L275-277: There has been no indication up to now for this type of source affecting the data in the text, and it is unknown how it can impact the area and under which conditions. In general, you should link the factor contributions with wind data (e.g. are the sites downwind of the incinerators when high factor contributions are estimated?) and also consider the seasonal (spatial) variability of source contributions. The discussion at present does not support the factor characterization enough. For example, based on this profile, Factor 2 could also be related to biomass burning emissions.

L277-286: In general, gasoline cars tend to produce more heavy than light PAHs. Are there any diesel-powered trucks and other HDDVs in Beirut? It could be that this is a combined diesel-gasoline traffic factor. I would not consider naphthalene as a tracer, as its overwhelming majority is in the gas phase, and its particle fraction is extremely unstable; therefore, not suitable for PMF (same goes for Ace, Acy and probably Flu, Phe). Check also the seasonality of the factor.

L288-292: The source contributions should be calculated per site, and the spatial contrasts should be discussed. This also helps verify the sources. Consider this in the discussion.

L293: Why didn’t you calculate BaPeq and risks for each of the three sources? Using the source profiles, this is feasible. Consider this also in the discussion.

L314-324: These have already been discussed; take a more general approach.

L326-327: Indicate that you are comparing to a study sampling PM10, not PM2.5.

L342-346: Political statements that are not supported by references. You have to rephrase them in scientific language.

L346-347: Add reference.

L354-357: Very important conclusion, include it in the abstract.

**********

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.

When do science recommendations stop being effective? The Case of the sprawl of diesel electricity generators in Beirut

PONE-D-24-28162R1

Dear Dr. Saliba,

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,

Ranjit Gurav, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE