Investigation of electromagnetic wave propagation characteristics across various frequencies in porous media of goaf

Qingsong Zhang; Weikang Zhao; Hui Zhuo; Long Lin; Zuojian Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315888

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 10, 2024
17 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Marko Čanađija, Editor PONE-D-24-39974Investigation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Characteristics Across Various Frequencies in Porous Media of GoafPLOS ONE Dear Dr. zhuo, 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 carefully address the reviewers' questions, especially those of reviewer #2, who requested more substantial changes. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 01 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, Marko Čanađija 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 financial disclosure: “National Natural Science Foundation of China (52204192), Anhui Provincial Key Research and Development Project (2022m07020006)”. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 6. 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. 7. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. [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: 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: 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 article reveals the characteristics of EM signal attenuation at different frequencies in their lab. I think the conclusions of this article might provide a reference for field work。 But I think there are some part of manuscript should be reconcideration: 1.Line 39, I think it’s ‘goaf’, not ‘goafs’; 2. Line 64, I think the authors should explain why the propagation distance is critical. 3. Line 72, I don’t think it can provide a theoretical foundation, because the equations never seen in this paper. 4 Line 107 How to make sure the frequency range in 600~900Mhz without 1G or 2G Hz? 5. Section 1.2 I advise to add an internal schematic figure to the platform. 6. Line 533, please revise the figure name form. I am confused about the figure(b), which component to fit? Reviewer #2: The author has conducted a study that establishes an experimental platform for the propagation of electromagnetic wave signals in goaf areas and develops a propagation model for electromagnetic waves in porous media within the areas. Through experimental and numerical simulation methods, the study investigates the propagation characteristics of electromagnetic waves at different frequencies in the porous medium environment of goaf. The paper is well-structured with a solid logical flow. The images and tables are clear, reflecting the extensive work done by the author. However, some issues need to be addressed before acceptance: 1. It is recommended that the author expand the literature review, particularly regarding recent advancements in the study of electromagnetic wave propagation characteristics in coal mine goaf. 2. The author should provide more detailed information on the experimental design and methodologies, including the construction of the experimental platform, the calibration process of measurement devices, and the parameter settings used during the experiments. 3. While the article mentions the porosity of the porous medium, it lacks a detailed description of other pore structure characteristics, such as pore size distribution and pore connectivity. The impact of the characteristics on electromagnetic wave propagation warrants further discussion. 4. The data analysis section lacks a discussion on the sources of error. The author should clarify potential sources of error in the experiments and analyze how the errors may influence the results. 5. The applicability of the results presented in the article to different coal mine environments needs further exploration. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r001
Revision 1
2 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Editor: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Investigation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Characteristics Across Various Frequencies in Porous Media of Goaf”.( Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-39974) Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows. Best regards Dr. Hui Zhuo on the behalf of the authors Responds to the Editor comments: 1. We have revised the manuscript using the provided template in accordance with the formatting requirements of PLOS ONE. 2. We have amended the funding statement in the manuscript to clarify the involvement of the funders in the research design and analysis data stages. 3. All relevant data have been uploaded as supporting information files at the end of the Word document. If readers require access to these data, they can be provided upon request. 4. We have created and verified the corresponding author's ORCID iD and updated it in the system. 5. We have ensured that Figure 1 is correctly cited in the text. 6. We have added descriptions to the supplementary information files and updated the references in the manuscript. 7. We have removed the figures from the manuscript and uploaded the TIFF format files separately. Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: Issue 1.Line 39, I think it’s ‘goaf’, not ‘goafs’; Responds：Thanks for the reviewer 's opinion. We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We concur with your assessment and have made the necessary revisions in the updated draft. We appreciate your guidance once again. Line 31、Line 37、Line 78、Line 97、Line 100 2. Line 64, I think the authors should explain why the propagation distance is critical. Responds：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestions. In response to Line 64, we have incorporated a detailed explanation regarding the significance of propagation distance in the revised manuscript. The goaf is characterized by complex terrain, numerous obstacles, and significant spatial limitations. Within this context, electromagnetic wave propagation experiences rapid attenuation due to environmental interference. Consequently, the effective transmission distance of information via wireless communication is a critical determinant of the system's practicality. Should the spacing of wireless communication be inadequate, additional monitoring equipment will be required to comprehensively cover the goaf, thereby escalating the costs associated with the monitoring system layout and complicating system maintenance and management. The long-distance propagation of wireless signals within the goaf not only ensures extensive communication coverage but also significantly enhances the system's overall efficiency. We sincerely appreciate. Page 4- Page 5 3. Line 72, I don’t think it can provide a theoretical foundation, because the equations never seen in this paper. Responds：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestions. We have enhanced the discussion in this section by incorporating additional background information on relevant theories. Furthermore, we have explicitly delineated the applications and sources of the equations referenced in this paper. We have supplemented the relevant references to facilitate readers’ comprehension of the theoretical foundations of these equations. Based on the selected frequency range of 600-900 MHz, and applying wave theory and transmission line theory, the cutoff frequency of the pipeline can be calculated using the formula: █(λ=C/f_c )(1) For a circular waveguide, f_c=600 MHz,C≈3×10^8,the relationship between the cutoff wavelength and the diameter is as follows： █(λ=(2.405×D)/1)(2) Calculated according to the equation： D≈0.208m≈20.8cm According to calculations, the diameter of a circular pipeline with a cutoff frequency below 600 MHz is approximately 0.208 meters. To facilitate the experiment, the pipeline diameter was increased to 0.75 meters. This adjustment not only provides additional tolerance but also helps avoid potential issues arising from non-compliance with design standards. Therefore, the main structure of the platform was designed as a metal steel pipe with an inner diameter of 0.75 m and a length of 5 m. Page 7 4 Line 107 How to make sure the frequency range in 600~900Mhz without 1G or 2G Hz? Responds：We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and concur with their assessment. During this experiment, we employed a high-precision spectrum analyzer to continuously monitor the 600-900 MHz frequency band in real time. The spectrum analyzer was capable of detecting signal strength and identifying interference sources at various frequencies. It also determined whether any signals exceeded the expected frequencies, thereby ensuring the absence of signal mixing in other frequency bands during the experiment. Page 9 5. Section 1.2 I advise to add an internal schematic figure to the platform. Responds：We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised draft, we have included the relevant internal structure diagram to enable readers to better understand the design and working principle of the platform. The newly added schematic is shown below. Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of the interior of the goaf simulation platform Line 177 6. Line 533, please revise the figure name form. I am confused about the figure(b), which component to fit? Responds：We appreciate the reviewer's comments. Regarding Line 533, Figure (a) illustrates the signal intensity attenuation curves at different frequencies with a porosity of 0.2, while Figure (b) depicts the corresponding curves at a porosity of 0.4. We have revised the figure titles according to your suggestions to ensure greater clarity. Thank you for your feedback; we will strive to make the illustrations clearer and more comprehensible. Line 252 Reviewer #2: Issue 1. It is recommended that the author expand the literature review, particularly regarding recent advancements in the study of electromagnetic wave propagation characteristics in coal mine goaf. Thank you very much for your invaluable input on our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have expanded the literature review section, with particular emphasis on recent advancements in the study of electromagnetic wave propagation characteristics in goaf areas. The revised review not only covers the major research achievements in this field over recent years but also delves into the propagation characteristics of electromagnetic waves across different frequency bands in complex geological conditions within goaf areas, the application of numerical simulation methods (such as ray tracing and finite-difference time-domain methods), and the progress of related experimental studies.. We sincerely appreciate! Page 3- Page 4 2. The author should provide more detailed information on the experimental design and methodologies, including the construction of the experimental platform, the calibration process of measurement devices, and the parameter settings used during the experiments. Responds：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their insightful and valuable suggestions. We fully recognize the importance of providing a more comprehensive account of the experimental design and methodological details. In the revised manuscript, we have included a thorough description of the experimental platform construction, the calibration process of the measurement equipment, and the experimental parameter settings, to ensure that readers gain a more complete understanding of the experimental process. We will strive to provide more detailed information in these areas, and we are grateful for your suggestions for improvement. Based on your comments, the modifications we have made are as follows: The experimental platform primarily consists of a metal pipe structure designed to simulate the electromagnetic wave propagation environment within a goaf. The specific construction process involves: Based on theoretical calculations, the core structure of the experimental platform consists of three steel pipes, each 5 meters in length with an inner diameter of 0.75 meters. The pipeline is filled with a mixed medium of granite and quartzite to simulate the goaf environment., with measurements recorded at 1-meter intervals. The porosity is controlled for each meter along the length of the simulation platform, thereby simulating the effects of varying pore sizes and rock types in a real goaf on electromagnetic wave propagation. Electromagnetic signal transmitters and spectrum analyzers are positioned at both ends of the pipeline. The transmitting antenna is connected to a signal generator to emit electromagnetic wave signals across various frequency bands. The receiving antenna captures the transmitted signal and measures its attenuation and scattering characteristics. Ensuring the accuracy of the measured data during the experiment is critically dependent on the calibration of the spectrum analyzer and signal generator. Prior to the formal experiment, an initial calibration of the spectrum analyzer was conducted using a standard signal source, ensuring its precise capture and analysis of signals across different frequencies. The sensitivity of the receiver was measured using a known signal source, ensuring that the signals received during the experiment accurately reflect the characteristics of electromagnetic wave propagation. The background noise level of the experimental platform was measured under conditions with no signal transmission to eliminate the impact of environmental noise on signal reception. We sincerely appreciate your meticulous feedback and guidance! Page 7- Page 9 3. While the article mentions the porosity of the porous medium, it lacks a detailed description of other pore structure characteristics, such as pore size distribution and pore connectivity. The impact of the characteristics on electromagnetic wave propagation warrants further discussion. Responds：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. In addition to porosity, other pore structure characteristics, such as pore size distribution and pore connectivity, also significantly impact electromagnetic wave propagation. We have included additional discussion and analysis on this aspect in the revised manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have made the following modifications: The pore structure characteristics of the goaf, including pore size distribution and connectivity, play a critical role in determining the electromagnetic wave propagation properties within this region. The goaf represents a complex network of cavities and fractures formed as a result of post-mining activities. The pore structure within this region is highly intricate, resulting from the deformation and destruction of the surrounding rock layers. The size, connectivity, and spatial distribution of the pore structure significantly influence electromagnetic wave behaviors, including reflection, attenuation, scattering, and multipath effects. Micro-pores, ranging from microns to millimeters, are predominantly composed of fine cracks between rock particles or debris generated during mining activities. The size of these pores typically remains smaller than the wavelength of electromagnetic waves, particularly at lower frequencies. These micro-pores primarily influence high-frequency electromagnetic waves (e.g., those in the GHz range), leading to significant signal scattering and rapid attenuation. Medium-sized pores (ranging from millimeters to centimeters) are formed through processes such as rock fracturing and localized collapse, and are widely distributed throughout the region. Medium pores can induce signal reflection or partial penetration, which in turn leads to multipath effects and enhances the complexity of signal propagation pathways. Large voids, typically meters in scale or larger, represent the core structural elements of the goaf, formed as a result of extensive rock collapse or excavation. These large voids exert a substantial influence on the propagation of low-frequency electromagnetic waves (e.g., at or below 300 MHz), facilitating long-distance signal propagation while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of multipath effects. Pore connectivity refers to the extent of interconnection between the various pores within the goaf, and the intricate network structure formed as a result. Pore connectivity is influenced by factors such as the mining process, rock fracturing, and collapse, all of which directly impact the propagation paths of electromagnetic waves within the goaf. When the pores within the goaf are well interconnected, they form a highly complex three-dimensional network structure. These interconnected pores can offer multiple propagation pathways for electromagnetic waves, leading to more pronounced multipath effects. In such cases, the electromagnetic waves propagate along multiple distinct paths, with signals potentially reaching the receiver through different routes, leading to either signal interference or enhancement. If pore connectivity is poor, this implies that propagation paths between pores are limited or obstructed. Under such conditions, electromagnetic waves may be confined to specific propagation paths, making them susceptible to rapid signal attenuation or blockage. This paper primarily investigates the impact of porosity on electromagnetic wave propagation. In our future research, we will explore the effects of pore size distribution and pore connectivity on electromagnetic wave behavior. Thank you once again. Page 22- Page 24 4. The data analysis section lacks a discussion on the sources of error. The author should clarify potential sources of error in the experiments and analyze how the errors may influence the results. Responds：We appreciate the reviewer's insightful suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated a detailed analysis of potential error sources in the experiment, including variations in external environmental conditions and the precision of experimental apparatus. Furthermore, we have examined the potential effects of these errors on experimental outcomes and assessed their implications for the reliability and accuracy of our overall conclusions. Based on your comments, the modifications we have made are as follows: Variations in the external environment can significantly impact the propagation characteristics of electromagnetic waves. Signal attenuation and refractive index may be altered by fluctuations in temperature and humidity, leading to inconsistent results. These environmental factors alter the dielectric constant of the medium, thereby affecting the attenuation rate and propagation stability of the electromagnetic wave signals. The spectrum analyzer and signal transmitter are crucial measurement instruments in the experiment. If the measurement accuracy of the instruments is not high, it could result in inaccurate signal strength and frequency data. Common precision errors in equipment include the instability of the signal generator's transmitting power. Fluctuations or errors in the transmitter's power output can cause the actual transmitted signal strength to deviate from the set value, resulting in inaccurate signal strength measurements at the receiving end, thereby affecting the calculation of attenuation and propagation distance. All experiments conducted in this study were carried out within a closed-loop goaf simulation platform, which maintained stable temperature and humidity to minimize the impact of environmental variations on the experimental results. The spectrum analyzer utilized in our experiments features high resolution and high sampling rates, enabling precise differentiation of subtle frequency signal variations in the frequency domain, thereby reducing quantization errors in frequency and amplitude, which ensures the accuracy of measurements and generated signals, enhancing the reliability of the results. During the experimental process, to enhance the re Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r002
26 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Marko Čanađija, Editor PONE-D-24-39974R1Investigation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Characteristics Across Various Frequencies in Porous Media of GoafPLOS ONE Dear Dr. zhuo, 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 Jan 10 2025 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, Marko Čanađija 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: Dear Prof. Zhuo, almost all issues have been solved, but the reviewers still asks: "Many format errors, eg. references, format, et al.. Pls correct them. the other issues have been corrected." Thus, please correct these smaller issues before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Marko Čanađija [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 #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 #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 #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 #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 #2: Many format errors, eg. references, format, et al.. Pls correct them. the other issues have been corrected. ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r003
Revision 2
30 Nov 2024 Author Response Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable feedback. We have carefully examined and revised all relevant sections of the manuscript, addressing each of the comments raised by you and the reviewers. Our specific responses are as follows: 1.Completeness and Accuracy of References We have thoroughly reviewed the reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. 2.Formatting of References We have revised the references to comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines. This includes correcting the details of author names, publication years, titles, journal names, volume numbers, and page ranges. All references have been double-checked to ensure there are no omissions or errors. 3.Other Formatting Issues In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, we have further adjusted the overall formatting of the manuscript. This includes paragraph indentation, heading styles, font consistency, and line spacing to fully meet the journal’s requirements. 4.Additional Notes All modifications made during this revision process have been highlighted in the manuscript and detailed in the response letter. We hope these revisions address your concerns. Should there be any further feedback or additional requirements, we would be more than happy to make the necessary changes. Once again, we sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your diligent efforts and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Please feel free to contact us if there are any further questions or suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r004
3 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Marko Čanađija, Editor Investigation of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Characteristics Across Various Frequencies in Porous Media of Goaf PONE-D-24-39974R2 Dear Dr. zhuo, 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, Marko Čanađija Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Marko Čanađija, Editor PONE-D-24-39974R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhuo, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Marko Čanađija Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315888.r006

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 .