A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollution

Sheng Miao; Guoqing Ni; Guangze Kong; Xiuhe Yuan; Chao Liu; Xiang Shen; Weijun Gao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316940

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 9, 2024
3 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Caihong Mu, Editor PONE-D-24-33885A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollutionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. liu, 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. Your manuscript requires major revision based on the evaluation of reviewers. Please improve the manuscript according to reviewers' suggestions shown below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 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, Caihong Mu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. 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. 4. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The comments of reviewers are as follows, please improve the manuscript according to reviewers’ suggestions. Reviewer 1 • Some grammatical error sees in the article. Please take time to improve the language. • The authors must update keywords in the article. They are not sensible for reviewer. • What is the main purpose of the article? The authors should focus on novelty on this section. Please highlight it. • The introduction is very short. The authors should extend introduction's length. • Conclusion lack of novelty. Please rewrite your conclusion and add some highlight and novelty in it (major comment). • The authors must update and add the abbreviation in their articles. •References should be updated (2023-2024) Reviewer 2 1.The description in the Introduction of this article is not comprehensive enough. Is the problem studied by the author similar to large-scale Kriging problems? There are many classic algorithms for dealing with this problem; The author's Introduction does not provide a comprehensive summary of the problem to be addressed in this article; 2.The interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article lacks a comprehensive description framework. It is suggested that the author provide an overall process for easy reading; 3.The algorithm proposed in this article did not provide ablation experiments in the experimental section. Lack of validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters; 4.The experimental section lacks comparative experiments with similar algorithms, and some deep network-based algorithm comparisons should be added; 5.It is suggested to streamline the relevant work content in the article, such as Figure 3; 6.What does the phrase 'Random search WOS: 000522384000010' mean in the text? Is this description standardized? 7.The author points out in this article: "A total of 143 soil data were collected. The total dataset is divided into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio." How does the author ensure sufficient training of the deep model? [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: Partly ******** 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: 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: Present paper describes a study that aims to “A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollution". While the study's topic is of relevance to this journal, the manuscript's content requires major revisions to improve its scientific quality. Upon careful review, I have identified several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication. • Some grammatical error sees in the article. Please take time to improve the language. • The authors must update keywords in the article. They are not sensible for reviewer. • What is the main purpose of the article? The authors should focus on novelty on this section. Please highlight it. • The introduction is very short. The authors should extend introduction's length. • Conclusion lack of novelty. Please rewrite your conclusion and add some highlight and novelty in it (major comment). • The authors must update and add the abbreviation in their articles. • References should be updated (2023-2024) Reviewer #2: 1.The description in the Introduction of this article is not comprehensive enough. Is the problem studied by the author similar to large-scale Kriging problems? There are many classic algorithms for dealing with this problem; The author's Introduction does not provide a comprehensive summary of the problem to be addressed in this article; 2.The interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article lacks a comprehensive description framework. It is suggested that the author provide an overall process for easy reading; 3.The algorithm proposed in this article did not provide ablation experiments in the experimental section. Lack of validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters; 4.The experimental section lacks comparative experiments with similar algorithms, and some deep network-based algorithm comparisons should be added; 5.It is suggested to streamline the relevant work content in the article, such as Figure 3; 6.What does the phrase 'Random search WOS: 000522384000010' mean in the text? Is this description standardized? 7.The author points out in this article: "A total of 143 soil data were collected. The total dataset is divided into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio." How does the author ensure sufficient training of the deep model? ****** 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.0316940.r001
Revision 1
26 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear editor: Thanks for your and Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled PONE-D-24-33885 “A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollution”. We carefully read the comments of each reviewer and We have revised the manuscript carefully according to the advice raised by the Reviewers. Revised parts are highlighted with ‘Yellow’ color in the manuscript. The detailed response to comments is listed point by point below: Review 1 Comment 1 Some grammatical error sees in the article. Please take time to improve the language. Response of Comment 1 Thank you for reviewing and providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We greatly appreciate you pointing out some grammar errors in the article. We carefully review the grammar issues in the article and spend time improving the language to enhance its quality and readability. We focus on the grammar errors in the article and ensure that they are corrected into accurate and fluent expressions. Comment 2 The authors must update keywords in the article. They are not sensible for reviewer. Response of Comment 2 We have added keywords including ‘Spatial Interpolation’, ‘Petroleum Hydrocarbon Pollution’, ‘3DCNN’, ‘CAM’. Comment 3 What is the main purpose of the article? The authors should focus on novelty on this section. Please highlight it. Response of Comment 3 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have made revisions to the article based on your suggestions and paid special attention to the main purpose of the article, adding a section on novelty. In the revision, we have emphasized the introduction section to more clearly describe the main objectives of the article. By providing a detailed explanation of our research objectives and significance, we strive to help readers better understand our research motivation and contributions. Specifically, we have added a detailed description of the research objectives in the introduction section, emphasizing the uniqueness and innovation of the study. We pointed out that our research fills the gap in existing literature and proposes a new theoretical perspective, which is more clearly expressed in the revised introduction section. Comment 4 The introduction is very short. The authors should extend introduction's length. Response of Comment 4 We fully agree with the commentator's viewpoint. We have carefully considered your suggestion to extend the length of the introduction and have accordingly revised the article. In the revision, we focused on expanding the introduction section, merging the original Chapter 2 "Related Works" into the introduction, and dividing the Introduction into three parts, describing the background, current research status in the field, and advantages and disadvantages of existing research, in order to more fully clarify the background, research objectives, and significance of the article. By increasing the length of the introduction, we hope to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research topic. Specifically, we provided a more detailed introduction to the research field, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of current research. We have also expanded the review section of existing literature to better showcase the location and significance of our research. Comment 5 Conclusion lack of novelty. Please rewrite your conclusion and add some highlight and novelty in it (major comment). Response of Comment 5 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of novelty in the conclusion section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have made comprehensive adjustments to the conclusion section to increase novelty and uniqueness. We have introduced some new insights and perspectives to expand the scope of our research and showcase unique insights. These new perspectives help present readers with a richer and more comprehensive conclusion. We emphasized the importance of the research results for practical applications, and proposed that the proposed method can be applied to other spatial interpolation fields. We also put forward some innovative suggestions to demonstrate the practical significance and application potential of the research results. Through these modifications, we believe that the conclusion section is now more novel and attractive, and can better highlight the contribution and research value of the article. We have added discussions on future research directions and potential developments to showcase our unique insights into the trends in this field. These prospects not only expand the content of the article, but also provide useful insights for future research. Comment 6 The authors must update and add the abbreviation in their articles. Response of Comment 6 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions for updating and adding abbreviations, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we conducted a comprehensive review and update of the abbreviations used in the article. We have examined the existing abbreviations and ensured that they were fully explained when they first appeared. This helps readers better understand the content of the article, especially for those who are not familiar with the terminology in the field. Comment 7 References should be updated (2023-2024). Response of Comment 7 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the requirement to update references between 2023-2024, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have comprehensively updated the reference section to ensure that all cited literature is up-to-date and covers relevant research results between 2023-2024. We carefully reviewed all cited references and replaced outdated ones with the latest research findings, but no relevant research results between 2023-2024 were found regarding 3DCNN's prediction of spatial data, so no replacements were made. Through such updates, we ensure that the research materials and data mentioned in the article are up-to-date. Review 2 Comment 1 The description in the Introduction of this article is not comprehensive enough. Is the problem studied by the author similar to large-scale Kriging problems? There are many classic algorithms for dealing with this problem; The author's Introduction does not provide a comprehensive summary of the problem to be addressed in this article. Response of Comment 1 We fully agree with the commentator's viewpoint. We have carefully considered your suggestion and made corresponding revisions to this article. In the revision, we focused on expanding the introduction section, merging the original Chapter 2 "Related Works" into the introduction, and dividing the introduction into three parts, describing the background, research status in the field, and advantages and disadvantages of existing research, in order to more fully clarify the background, research objectives, and significance of the article. By increasing the length of the introduction, we hope to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research topic. Specifically, we provided a more detailed introduction to the research field, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of current research. We have also expanded the review section of existing literature to better showcase the location and significance of our research. Comment 2 The interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article lacks a comprehensive description framework. It is suggested that the author provide an overall process for easy reading. Response of Comment 2 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of a comprehensive framework for describing the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have added an easy to read overall description framework to the Methodology section to present the workflow of the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN more clearly. Specifically, we added an algorithm overview at the beginning of the article, briefly introducing the overall process and key steps of the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN. This helps readers establish a comprehensive understanding of the algorithm during the reading process. In the methodology section, we further elaborated on a detailed description of the algorithm, including input data, network architecture, training process, and output results. This arrangement allows readers to have a deeper understanding of the implementation details of the algorithm. Comment 3 The algorithm proposed in this article did not provide ablation experiments in the experimental section. Lack of validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters. Response of Comment 3 Thank you for your constructive feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of guidance on the validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters in the experimental section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we added network structure and parameter ablation experiments to verify the effectiveness of the network structure and selected parameters designed by the author. We have described in detail the process of designing ablation experiments, including the method of adjusting the network structure and parameters one by one. This helps readers understand how we evaluate the impact of different components on algorithm performance. In addition, we will organize the results of the ablation experiment into a table and embed it into the experimental section. This arrangement allows readers to intuitively compare performance indicators under different experimental settings, thereby evaluating the impact of network structure and parameters. In the discussion section, we conducted a detailed analysis of the results of the ablation experiment, explaining the impact of various experimental settings on algorithm performance, and how to verify the effectiveness of the selected network structure and parameters. Through these modifications, we believe that the article now more comprehensively validates the effectiveness of the network structure and selected parameters designed by the author, providing readers with a deeper understanding and evaluation of the algorithm performance based on these components. Comment 4 The experimental section lacks comparative experiments with similar algorithms, and some deep network-based algorithm comparisons should be added. Response of Comment 4 Thank you for your valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of guidance on comparative experiments with similar algorithms in the experimental section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we added comparative experiments based on deep learning and compared them with similar algorithms. Specifically, we have taken the following measures: we have provided a detailed description of the process of designing comparative experiments, including considerations for selecting similar algorithms as comparison objects and a detailed explanation of the experimental setup. This helps readers understand how we compare and evaluate with other algorithms, and organize the results of the comparative experiments into a table and embed it into the experimental section. This arrangement allows readers to intuitively compare the performance of different algorithms, thereby evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of our proposed method compared to other algorithms. In the discussion section, we conducted a detailed analysis of the comparative experimental results with similar algorithms, explained the reasons for the performance differences between each algorithm, and discussed the advantages and limitations of our method. Through these modifications, we believe that the article has now conducted more comprehensive comparative experiments with similar algorithms, providing readers with a deeper evaluation and understanding of the performance of our proposed method in practical applications. Comment 5 It is suggested to streamline the relevant work content in the article, such as Figure 3. Response of Comment 5 Thank you for your constructive feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestion to simplify the relevant work content in the article and made appropriate revisions to the article. We have streamlined the relevant work sections, retaining content that is directly related to our research and important for understanding the background of this article, while deleting some details or content that is weakly related to the topic. This approach helps readers to understand the background of our research and related work more quickly. Comment 6 What does the phrase 'Random search WOS: 000522384000010' mean in the text? Is this description standardized. Response of Comment 6 Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on the article we submitted. Regarding the phrase you mentioned 'random search for WOS: 000522384000010', we recognize that it is a typographical error that may have been caused by a mistake during the typesetting process. After reviewing your feedback, we have conducted further checks and confirmed that this phrase should be considered a typographical error. We will delete or correct this part of the text in the revision to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the article. Comment 7 The author points out in this article: "A total of 143 soil data were collected. The total dataset is divided into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio." How does the author ensure sufficient training of the deep model. Response of Comment 7 Thank you for reviewing our article and providing valuable feedback. Regarding your question on how to ensure sufficient training of deep models, we would like to supplement the measures we have taken in the experiment to ensure the adequacy of model training. In our study, we collected a total of 143 soil data sets and divided them into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio. To ensure sufficient training of the deep model, we adopted the following method: during the training process, we performed data augmentation operations on the soil data in the training set, including rotation, flipping, etc., to expand the diversity of the training samples and help the model better learn the features of the data. We adopted a learning rate scheduling strategy, gradually reducing the learning rate during the training process to help the model converge better to the optimal solution. Through these measures, we ensured that the deep model was fully trained during the training process and effectively monitored on the validation set to achieve optimal model performance. We hope that the revision is acceptable and look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards, Correspondence: Chao Liu Email: liuchao@qut.edu.cn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316940.r002
29 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Caihong Mu, Editor PONE-D-24-33885R1A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollutionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. liu, 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. I notice that only one sentence was highlighted with Yellow color in the "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes". In fact, all the changes made to the original version should be highlighted. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the reviewers to evaluate your new version. Please highlight all the changes made to the original version in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. In addition, in the file "Response to Reviewers", you need to reply to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers, especially reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 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, Caihong Mu Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.0316940.r003
Revision 2
1 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear editor: Thanks for your and Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled “A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollution”. We carefully read the comments of each reviewer and We have revised the manuscript carefully according to the advice raised by the Reviewers. Revised parts are highlighted with ‘Yellow’ colour in the manuscript. The detailed response to comments is listed point by point below: Review 1 Comment 1 Some grammatical error sees in the article. Please take time to improve the language. Response of Comment 1 Thank you for reviewing and providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We greatly appreciate you pointing out some grammar errors in the article. We carefully review the grammar issues in the article and spend time improving the language to enhance its quality and readability. We focus on the grammar errors in the article and ensure that they are corrected into accurate and fluent expressions. Comment 2 The authors must update keywords in the article. They are not sensible for reviewer. Response of Comment 2 We have added keywords including ‘Spatial Interpolation’, ‘Petroleum Hydrocarbon Pollution’, ‘3DCNN’, ‘CAM’. Comment 3 What is the main purpose of the article? The authors should focus on novelty on this section. Please highlight it. Response of Comment 3 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have made revisions to the article based on your suggestions and paid special attention to the main purpose of the article, adding a section on novelty. In the revision, we have emphasized the introduction section to more clearly describe the main objectives of the article. By providing a detailed explanation of our research objectives and significance, we strive to help readers better understand our research motivation and contributions. Specifically, we have added a detailed description of the research objectives in the introduction section, emphasizing the uniqueness and innovation of the study. We pointed out that our research fills the gap in existing literature and proposes a new theoretical perspective, which is more clearly expressed in the revised introduction section. Comment 4 The introduction is very short. The authors should extend introduction's length. Response of Comment 4 We fully agree with the commentator's viewpoint. We have carefully considered your suggestion to extend the length of the introduction and have accordingly revised the article. In the revision, we focused on expanding the introduction section, merging the original Chapter 2 "Related Works" into the introduction, and dividing the Introduction into three parts, describing the background, current research status in the field, and advantages and disadvantages of existing research, in order to more fully clarify the background, research objectives, and significance of the article. By increasing the length of the introduction, we hope to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research topic. Specifically, we provided a more detailed introduction to the research field, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of current research. We have also expanded the review section of existing literature to better showcase the location and significance of our research. Comment 5 Conclusion lack of novelty. Please rewrite your conclusion and add some highlight and novelty in it (major comment). Response of Comment 5 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of novelty in the conclusion section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have made comprehensive adjustments to the conclusion section to increase novelty and uniqueness. We have introduced some new insights and perspectives to expand the scope of our research and showcase unique insights. These new perspectives help present readers with a richer and more comprehensive conclusion. We emphasized the importance of the research results for practical applications, and proposed that the proposed method can be applied to other spatial interpolation fields. We also put forward some innovative suggestions to demonstrate the practical significance and application potential of the research results. Through these modifications, we believe that the conclusion section is now more novel and attractive, and can better highlight the contribution and research value of the article. We have added discussions on future research directions and potential developments to showcase our unique insights into the trends in this field. These prospects not only expand the content of the article, but also provide useful insights for future research. Comment 6 The authors must update and add the abbreviation in their articles. Response of Comment 6 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions for updating and adding abbreviations, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we conducted a comprehensive review and update of the abbreviations used in the article. We have examined the existing abbreviations and ensured that they were fully explained when they first appeared. This helps readers better understand the content of the article, especially for those who are not familiar with the terminology in the field. Comment 7 References should be updated (2023-2024). Response of Comment 7 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the requirement to update references between 2023-2024, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have comprehensively updated the reference section to ensure that all cited literature is up-to-date and covers relevant research results between 2023-2024. We carefully reviewed all cited references and replaced outdated ones with the latest research findings, but no relevant research results between 2023-2024 were found regarding 3DCNN's prediction of spatial data, so no replacements were made. Through such updates, we ensure that the research materials and data mentioned in the article are up-to-date. Review 2 Comment 1 The description in the Introduction of this article is not comprehensive enough. Is the problem studied by the author similar to large-scale Kriging problems? There are many classic algorithms for dealing with this problem; The author's Introduction does not provide a comprehensive summary of the problem to be addressed in this article. Response of Comment 1 We fully agree with the commentator's viewpoint. We have carefully considered your suggestion and made corresponding revisions to this article. In the revision, we focused on expanding the introduction section, merging the original Chapter 2 "Related Works" into the introduction, and dividing the introduction into three parts, describing the background, research status in the field, and advantages and disadvantages of existing research, in order to more fully clarify the background, research objectives, and significance of the article. By increasing the length of the introduction, we hope to provide a more comprehensive overview of the research topic. Specifically, we provided a more detailed introduction to the research field, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of current research. We have also expanded the review section of existing literature to better showcase the location and significance of our research. Comment 2 The interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article lacks a comprehensive description framework. It is suggested that the author provide an overall process for easy reading. Response of Comment 2 Thank you for providing valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of a comprehensive framework for describing the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN proposed in this article, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we have added an easy to read overall description framework to the Methodology section to present the workflow of the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN more clearly. Specifically, we added an algorithm overview at the beginning of the article, briefly introducing the overall process and key steps of the interpolation algorithm based on 3DCNN. This helps readers establish a comprehensive understanding of the algorithm during the reading process. In the methodology section, we further elaborated on a detailed description of the algorithm, including input data, network architecture, training process, and output results. This arrangement allows readers to have a deeper understanding of the implementation details of the algorithm. Comment 3 The algorithm proposed in this article did not provide ablation experiments in the experimental section. Lack of validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters. Response of Comment 3 Thank you for your constructive feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of guidance on the validation of the network structure designed by the author and the effectiveness of the selected parameters in the experimental section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we added network structure and parameter ablation experiments to verify the effectiveness of the network structure and selected parameters designed by the author. We have described in detail the process of designing ablation experiments, including the method of adjusting the network structure and parameters one by one. This helps readers understand how we evaluate the impact of different components on algorithm performance. In addition, we will organize the results of the ablation experiment into a table and embed it into the experimental section. This arrangement allows readers to intuitively compare performance indicators under different experimental settings, thereby evaluating the impact of network structure and parameters. In the discussion section, we conducted a detailed analysis of the results of the ablation experiment, explaining the impact of various experimental settings on algorithm performance, and how to verify the effectiveness of the selected network structure and parameters. Through these modifications, we believe that the article now more comprehensively validates the effectiveness of the network structure and selected parameters designed by the author, providing readers with a deeper understanding and evaluation of the algorithm performance based on these components. Comment 4 The experimental section lacks comparative experiments with similar algorithms, and some deep network-based algorithm comparisons should be added. Response of Comment 4 Thank you for your valuable feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestions, especially regarding the lack of guidance on comparative experiments with similar algorithms in the experimental section, and have revised the article accordingly. In the revision, we added comparative experiments based on deep learning and compared them with similar algorithms. Specifically, we have taken the following measures: we have provided a detailed description of the process of designing comparative experiments, including considerations for selecting similar algorithms as comparison objects and a detailed explanation of the experimental setup. This helps readers understand how we compare and evaluate with other algorithms, and organize the results of the comparative experiments into a table and embed it into the experimental section. This arrangement allows readers to intuitively compare the performance of different algorithms, thereby evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of our proposed method compared to other algorithms. In the discussion section, we conducted a detailed analysis of the comparative experimental results with similar algorithms, explained the reasons for the performance differences between each algorithm, and discussed the advantages and limitations of our method. Through these modifications, we believe that the article has now conducted more comprehensive comparative experiments with similar algorithms, providing readers with a deeper evaluation and understanding of the performance of our proposed method in practical applications. Comment 5 It is suggested to streamline the relevant work content in the article, such as Figure 3. Response of Comment 5 Thank you for your constructive feedback on the article we submitted. We have carefully considered your suggestion to simplify the relevant work content in the article and made appropriate revisions to the article. We have streamlined the relevant work sections, retaining content that is directly related to our research and important for understanding the background of this article, while deleting some details or content that is weakly related to the topic. This approach helps readers to understand the background of our research and related work more quickly. Comment 6 What does the phrase 'Random search WOS: 000522384000010' mean in the text? Is this description standardized. Response of Comment 6 Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback on the article we submitted. Regarding the phrase you mentioned 'random search for WOS: 000522384000010', we recognize that it is a typographical error that may have been caused by a mistake during the typesetting process. After reviewing your feedback, we have conducted further checks and confirmed that this phrase should be considered a typographical error. We will delete or correct this part of the text in the revision to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the article. Comment 7 The author points out in this article: "A total of 143 soil data were collected. The total dataset is divided into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio." How does the author ensure sufficient training of the deep model. Response of Comment 7 Thank you for reviewing our article and providing valuable feedback. Regarding your question on how to ensure sufficient training of deep models, we would like to supplement the measures we have taken in the experiment to ensure the adequacy of model training. In our study, we collected a total of 143 soil data sets and divided them into training, validation, and testing sets in a 7:2:1 ratio. To ensure sufficient training of the deep model, we adopted the following method: during the training process, we performed data augmentation operations on the soil data in the training set, including rotation, flipping, etc., to expand the diversity of the training samples and help the model better learn the features of the data. We adopted a learning rate scheduling strategy, gradually reducing the learning rate during the training process to help the model converge better to the optimal solution. Through these measures, we ensured that the deep model was fully trained during the training process and effectively monitored on the validation set to achieve optimal model performance. Review 3 Comment 1 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. Response of Comment 1 We will still maintain this option if it meets the requirements of the journal. Comment 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. Response of Comment 2 We totally agree with the reviewer. The design rule of the CBOW model is to predict the central word for surrounding words, and the setting of hyperparameters is related to the corpus database used. Section 3.2 added explanations for training Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers#.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316940.r004
18 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Caihong Mu, Editor A spatial interpolation method based on 3D-CNN for soil petroleum hydrocarbon pollution PONE-D-24-33885R2 Dear Dr. liu, 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, Caihong Mu Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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 #1: (No Response) 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 #1: (No Response) 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 #1: I am glad that the authors effectively addressed my concerns and challenges in their research work. The authors' ability to provide timely and satisfactory responses to my queries reflects their strong commitment to adhering to scientific principles and conducting reliable research. This dedication benefits the scientific community and enhances our understanding of the subject matter. Therefore, based on the authors' satisfactory response, I find this version of the article to be acceptable. Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript is well modified. In the revised version, the suggestions are answered and modified. The revised manuscript can be accepted. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316940.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Caihong Mu, Editor PONE-D-24-33885R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. liu, 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 Professor Caihong Mu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316940.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 .